PDGA data comparing player skill by sex

[Steve West]

...there would only be the Mixed division and everyone would play in it.

....

No, not everyone would play in it. Many (maybe most) would not play in a sanctioned tournament at all.

(Just speaking as an MA65 here, not for any other individuals or protected divisions.)

That's why we have divisions other than MPO, so more people will play.

Sometimes that's related to skill levels, sometimes it's not.

The reason I don't enter MPO has more to do with being considerate and not harshing their competitive vibe than it has to do with having no chance of winning. I often have no chance of winning in MA65 either, but I do like to play there.

 

[roblee]

A couple things I didn't know before I looked at ratings.

1.There are 10X more MPOs than FPOs. This could influence product development and marketing strategies.

2. 95% of FPOs could play Mixed Intermediate if they were registered as Amateur. Don't know what to think about that.

 

[roblee]

Otherwise, what's the point? I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement than the MPO division, on average, plays better than the FPO. Are you setting up a trans- debate, or one supporting unequal payouts based on raw performance?

Gosh David, I don't know you but you seem like a cool guy with all the neat things you do with Stoney Hill. What a special opportunity to be able to share that with others. Pretty sure you know nothing about me so I'm surprised you think I have a hidden agenda. I laid everything out in the first post. There is nothing more to it. I'm just a simple guy with insomnia, a curious mind, declining DG skills, and good internet access. Here's a scoop for ya; my next question: Is The PDGA's New B-Tier Requirement a Money Grab? Cheers.

 

[roblee]

Rastnav & txmxer,

I don't know you guys and you don't know me. I'm surprised at the tone & content of your replies. I summarized some information from the PDGA and dang if I can grasp why that would generate a public flogging.

 

[biscoe]

A couple things I didn't know before I looked at ratings.

1.There are 10X more MPOs than FPOs. This could influence product development and marketing strategies.

2. 95% of FPOs could play Mixed Intermediate if they were registered as Amateur. Don't know what to think about that.

They still can whether registered as an Amateur or not except for a few events.

 

[TurnedOver]

Rastnav & txmxer,

I don't know you guys and you don't know me. I'm surprised at the tone & content of your replies. I summarized some information from the PDGA and dang if I can grasp why that would generate a public flogging.

You're getting this reaction because your post (and research) appears to have a hidden agenda.

It's ok to discuss just about anything on this forum. Be straightforward about it and people will sincerely discuss it with you.

 

[Rastnav]

You're getting this reaction because your post (and research) appears to have a hidden agenda.

It's ok to discuss just about anything on this forum. Be straightforward about it and people will sincerely discuss it with you.

It actually has a stated agenda, which he subsequently denies. The motivation for this thread is clearly based on the two trans FPO players, one of whom just made lead card for two days, which has generated oh so many pleasant comments on coverage. The first paragraph wasn't a random stray thought that he accidentally left in.

You want to have an honest conversation about what implications there are when trans women are allowed to compete in restricted divisions? Sure, I'll have that conversation. But I don't appreciate someone trying to start that conversation by pretending that we need to prove that MPO players outscore FPO players. Nor by implying that this analysis shows something that is particularly relevant to the underlying debate.

And if the claim is that "Oh no, it just got me thinking!" a) I'm not inclined to believe it, and b) even if it's genuine, it's a "knew or should have known" situation.

 

[txmxer]

Rastnav & txmxer,

I don't know you guys and you don't know me. I'm surprised at the tone & content of your replies. I summarized some information from the PDGA and dang if I can grasp why that would generate a public flogging.

You are right. We only "know" each other from this forum. From what I recall of your posts, I was surprised that you broached this subject in this way and seemed to be trying to make a point that was not part of your original post.

As Rastnav stated, I'm not convinced this nothing more than 1 am ramblings. If all you wanted to address was the "null hypothesis", after checking the numbers on the PDGA website, the evidence is overwhelming enough as to not be worthy of a long winded post just for the stated reason of addressing the null.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

2. 95% of FPOs could play Mixed Intermediate if they were registered as Amateur. Don't know what to think about that.

I'm gonna go out on a limb, and say,
"Maybe they want to compete as professionals?"

 

[roblee]

This is new territory for me. I was clear on line 5 that the recent dialog regarding transgender players was the catalyst for my post. I also thought that maybe some civil dialog based on objective information could be productive. I was reluctant at first because previous threads degenerated into public shaming when someone asked the "wrong" question. Well, what I got from a couple of Covid Noobs and veterans was characterization as a transphobic, bigot, liar. Basically telling me to shut up & get off your lawn. You don't get a free pass for that.

I went to the largest data base in the world to compare player ratings for MPO & FPO players. Shame on me. You say you already know the results, so should I, and it's absurd and disingenuous for me to ask. That indicates an unfamiliarity with the scientific method or an intolerance of social discourse. It's truly amazing how many data are in the PDGA ratings system. The recent addition of hole scores adds another dimension. I expect myriad ways scholars can pursue interesting questions.

If there is something in my posts you don't understand or if you question my intent or sincerity just ask. I assure you that I'll respond with truth & honesty in a respectful manner. Otherwise I'd prefer to be ignored.

 

[teemkey]

...
I went to the largest data base in the world to compare player ratings for MPO & FPO players. Shame on me. You say you already know the results, so should I, and it's absurd and disingenuous for me to ask. That indicates an unfamiliarity with the scientific method or an intolerance of social discourse. It's truly amazing how many data are in the PDGA ratings system. The recent addition of hole scores adds another dimension. I expect myriad ways scholars can pursue interesting questions.

If there is something in my posts you don't understand or if you question my intent or sincerity just ask. I assure you that I'll respond with truth & honesty in a respectful manner. Otherwise I'd prefer to be ignored.

I'm surprised you're surprised by the reception your post received. You've been on this forum for 8 years -- you should have known.

Nevertheless ...

My criticism is your assertion that you applied the scientific method. You did not compare data sets that were gathered under identical conditions.

Most tournaments these days have one or more holes that are shorter for FPO than MPO. The algorithm to determine a player's rating is based on that player's performance relative to the other players in the field on the same course. If even one hole is different between MPO & FPO, then two separate data sets are created, and an MPO player's rating is relative only to other MPO players, and an FPO player's rating is relative only to the other FPO players. While MPO & FPO ratings are probably pretty close, scientifically we have no assurance of that.

If you want to put in the work to examine each tournament, extract MPO & FPO scores where both fields played the same exact hole, and determine ratings based only on those holes, it could be done. But damn, why bother?

And I think that's the question you're being asked.

 

[txmxer]

Rastnav & txmxer,

I don't know you guys and you don't know me. I'm surprised at the tone & content of your replies. I summarized some information from the PDGA and dang if I can grasp why that would generate a public flogging.

I think you should go back and re-read the thread starting with your intro, which then begs the question that you say you aren't asking.

You started the car, put it in drive, let off the brake and then got defensive when asked "where are you going?"

 

[Rastnav]

My criticism is your assertion that you applied the scientific method. You did not compare data sets that were gathered under identical conditions.

Not only this, but we also have a, shall we say, very loosely formed null hypothesis.

the null hypothesis: There is no difference between the skill level of professional male disc golfers and professional female disc golfers. Sure everybody knows males are better, right?

Note the immediate conflation between male professionals, and males without that designation. Furthermore, in order for this to apply to the topic engendering the question (pun intended), the question of intrinsic male ability vs. female ability is being brought to the table.

roblee, you noted a 10x disparity in the number of MPO and FPO data points in your set. Given the fact that females are roughly equally represented in the overall population versus males, does this not represent a very large possibility that there exists some confounder that is influencing the conclusion?

Note, I'm not saying I think the conclusion is wrong. I'm questioning whether the statistical analysis you have done says anything more than "existing male FPO players outscore existing FPO players". And again, we do not need a formal analysis to reach that conclusion.

You have been asked multiple times, and in several ways, "What is the value of this analysis?" and you have yet to even try to answer that question. You've been asked why this analysis is somehow germane to the topic of trans-women disc golfers, and have also not tried to answer this question.

 

[roblee]

I think you should go back and re-read the thread starting with your intro, which then begs the question that you say you aren't asking.

The only question was, "Sure, everybody knows males are better right?" This is rhetorical and an an attempt at levity (fail:|). If you're referring to the Null Hypothesis it's written that way to eliminate personal bias when proposing the query. From your post 14 you say, "Your whole diatribe would be the equivalent of discussing whether men are taller than women on average, starting from the hypothesis that men and women on average are the same height and then pulling statistics to nullify the hypothesis." Congrats! You got this mostly right! It's how the scientific method works. Sometimes the data support the null, sometimes it doesn't. Often the data generate more questions.

 

[DavidSauls]

Quibble question: Are those MPO & FPO, or just Male/Pro & Female/Pro players, in your example? In other words, do they include older players, or just those who play exclusively open? (If they include older players, do both have the same ratio of different ages?)

Also, do the same percentage of male and female players, choose to play pro?

Just a few questions if you're trying to quantify the difference between male and female pros.

 

[txmxer]

I think you should go back and re-read the thread starting with your intro, which then begs the question that you say you aren't asking.

The only question was, "Sure, everybody knows males are better right?" This is rhetorical and an an attempt at levity (fail:|). If you're referring to the Null Hypothesis it's written that way to eliminate personal bias when proposing the query. From your post 14 you say, "Your whole diatribe would be the equivalent of discussing whether men are taller than women on average, starting from the hypothesis that men and women on average are the same height and then pulling statistics to nullify the hypothesis." Congrats! You got this mostly right! It's how the scientific method works. Sometimes the data support the null, sometimes it doesn't. Often the data generate more questions.

Your intro was all about trans. Your hypothesis was men versus women.

Do you not recognize that you haven't done anything related to your intro and this is the reason you've been getting "flogged" . Which is not accurate IMO. You've been given numerous opportunities to expand your process to explain the relationship you said you were inspired to investigate. Your response has been to become defensive.

 

[roblee]

Quibble question: Are those MPO & FPO, or just Male/Pro & Female/Pro players, in your example? In other words, do they include older players, or just those who play exclusively open? (If they include older players, do both have the same ratio of different ages?)

Also, do the same percentage of male and female players, choose to play pro?

Just a few questions if you're trying to quantify the difference between male and female pros.

Only MPO & FPO.

Quick example for 60's: Easy to rank columns in Player Statistics. Bottom of page gives # in that column.
MP60 399
FP60 16 4%
AM60 1041
AF60 44 4.2%

 

[roblee]

I think you should go back and re-read the thread starting with your intro, which then begs the question that you say you aren't asking.

Your intro was all about trans. Your hypothesis was men versus women.
The conversations that piqued curiosity discussed trans. The comparison I did used PDGA divisions that they define as male & female.

Do you not recognize that you haven't done anything related to your intro and this is the reason you've been getting "flogged" . Which is not accurate IMO. You've been given numerous opportunities to expand your process to explain the relationship you said you were inspired to investigate. Your response has been to become defensive.

The DGCR threads, the PDGA Policy on Trans Gender Divisions, and the IOC Policy on Trans gender participation in Olympic events discuss competitive advantages of males vs females. "Everyone" seems to accept this including me. I wondered if the PDGA Ratings data could show this supposed advantage. Then I discovered how easy it was to extract those data from Player Statistics. Sure enough the raw numbers showed considerable differences between the ratings of males & females. I reported those raw numbers. I did no statical number crunching & have no intention of doing so. I did not, nor could not, nor want to comment on the advantage/disadvantage/neutrality of a Trans-female playing in a female DG division. But it sure seems like you want me to.

 

[DavidSauls]

You mentioned trans- in both the first and last paragraphs of your original post. Pardon us for thinking that was what you were hinting at.

 

[Hampstead]

I know some female disc golfers who are considerably better than some male disc golfers that I know.

That's all I got.