Round Ratings

[BENFTS]

Very cool!

 

[jenb]

Another huge area where SSE fails is for very short courses. For them, SSE is often a score that can only be reached via 1 or more aces (and deuces everywhere else). It should be noted that the PDGA does not generate SSAs for these types of courses (SSA<44 if I remember correctly).

The PDGA also does not generate ratings for layouts less than 13 holes. I noticed today, on a 6 hole course I played, the DGCR SSE is 11.9. So, if that's your home course, you'd have to get an ace and 2 the other 5 holes every time you play it to be rated over 1000. It's an example of the system breaking down on short layouts and/or layouts less than 13 holes.

 

[Dave242]

I can just have it not do it for courses under a certain length but I don't see the harm in leaving it as is.

The reality is that very few of us on this site throw a lot of 1000 rated rounds. So, using SSE as a baseline and then adding throws to that to come up with a DGCR rated round obscures this issue. Plus the people who are throwing close to 1000-rated will never/rarely enter a score for a really short course.

I say leave it as it. Simple is eloquent. Curves and floors and other exceptions just make things harder to explain (and understand). It is an estimate after all.

 

[Dave242]

The PDGA also does not generate ratings for layouts less than 13 holes. I noticed today, on a 6 hole course I played, the DGCR SSE is 11.9. So, if that's your home course, you'd have to get an ace and 2 the other 5 holes every time you play it to be rated over 1000. It's an example of the system breaking down on short layouts and/or layouts less than 13 holes.

Yeah....I checked out Fewell Park (the shortest course I thought of off the top of my head) - a 9er with SSE of 16 (short layout). You need 2 aces per round.

 

[Countchunkula]

Nims Park which is a super short 18er has an SSE of 35.3. All deuces with an ace every 3 rounds sounds about right to me. Some of the teeshots are practically jump putts.

 

[New013]

Yes - I did do a bunch of analysis on probably 12-15 courses where I knew the exact layout, knew the course (wooded lightly, moderately, and heavily), and knew the weather conditions rounds were played in. Not really that big of a sample set. I have no idea how timg implemented the formulas that I found to match the "gold standard" of PDGA Scratch Scoring Averages. There was discussion about also factoring in how hilly a course is set to be in the course page at the time he implemented them and also several other formula proposals out there. Heck, I'm not even sure what was implemented was anything I worked on or contributed to.

Another huge area where SSE fails is for very short courses. For them, SSE is often a score that can only be reached via 1 or more aces (and deuces everywhere else). It should be noted that the PDGA does not generate SSAs for these types of courses (SSA<44 if I remember correctly).

I don't remember exactly what was settled on either. I know in the end of our discussion there were two different ideas on the throw length dividers based on foliage values. The one Dave and others supported was more accurate for shorter courses, the one I and others supported was more accurate for longer courses.

I don't think we implented the hill factor at first and not sure if it's used now. Timg should know.

 

[mashnut]

The PDGA also does not generate ratings for layouts less than 13 holes. I noticed today, on a 6 hole course I played, the DGCR SSE is 11.9. So, if that's your home course, you'd have to get an ace and 2 the other 5 holes every time you play it to be rated over 1000. It's an example of the system breaking down on short layouts and/or layouts less than 13 holes.

An 11.9 means that to average 1000 rated golf you'd have to get 2s on everything and an ace every 10 rounds. You don't think that a 1000 rated player could do that on a simple short 6 hole course? I don't think it's a breakdown, I think it's a realistic assessment of how a course not designed for that level player would score.

 

[jsc430]

I really like this alot. If nothing more to see where I stand since I don't play that many tourneys. I can see it getting abused. Trolls gonna troll. It will also help me start recording my rounds again which i've been meaning to do again.

On the the whole it will be a better indicator of general dg knowledge than post count. Of course not always. But 1000 rated players have to be doing something right to get where they are. I'm gonna listen to what he says more an 800 rated player.

 

[jenb]

An 11.9 means that to average 1000 rated golf you'd have to get 2s on everything and an ace every 10 rounds. You don't think that a 1000 rated player could do that on a simple short 6 hole course? I don't think it's a breakdown, I think it's a realistic assessment of how a course not designed for that level player would score.

Really? The pro isn't going to hit a single tree or get a single spit out in those 60 holes? This is not a bunch of 100 foot holes. The ceilings are low. The tee and pin positions cut out all the ace lines, as far as I could tell. I did score a 15 though. Here is the course.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1301&mode=ci

 

[Dave242]

If you had not noticed, you can get round ratings without entering a score by going to the course's page, clicking the "View Advanced Stats" icon (the rectangular icon in the "Rounds Recorded / Average Score:" line) and then clicking the "Rounds" tab (to right). Is there an easier way to get here?

Rating is listed in the second column from the right column. Find your score and the corresponding rating....and there you have it.

Not sure exactly how different course setups are reflected in the Rating. I did a spot check and found 2 of the same scores on the same course having the same rating even though the lengths were different when I expanded the "Round Details".

oh.....I just saw this and it explains my confusion:

I wrote a general function for it so historical rounds might be a little out of whack. I can go back and adjust them tomorrow to base the SSA off the distances on the card.

 

[timg]

You can just click on the rounds/average score number on the course page to go to the list of rounds for that course.

 

[sonny]

Just to add a data point, a 50 at Farmington Park in my town is DGCR rated as 977. Unofficial PDGA rating for2013 is 1000, but the final 2011 and 2012 ratings both say its a 983. Nice/

 

[chrishysell]

some are close but some are obviously off. For instance a 53 on Bryan Park blue layout is a 1001 per PDGA and 964 on DGCR. I haven't investigated it but I would suspect that the course hole input has changed. Course layouts probably need to be updated to current conditions. Some of my rounds are rated in the 800s. That's pretty good isn't it?

 

[timg]

I need to fix some of the older round ratings which I'll try to do tomorrow. All the ratings are based on the current layout rather than whatever layout was present when the score was recorded.

 

[DavidSauls]

Stoney Hill's was dead-on---within a stroke or less of SSA---before I revised the hole information earlier this year to reflect our multiple layouts.

 

[jeffmonty]

Well, I just went to my scorebook to check this out and I must say that i'm really going to dig this new feature. Thanks a bunch, Tim, nice job! :clap:

 

[Happablap]

Awesome feature! I almost shot a 1000 rated round at Iron Hill Gold to Gold! 997...3 points away.

 

[scarpfish]

I like the general workings of this feature, and the ratings that I'm getting on the home course seem acceptable, but we have a course nearby that is producing artificially low ratings.

While its flat, open, and moderate in length, it has a significant amount of OB on practically every hole. On windy days, sometimes even the guy who designed it (who's about a 950 rated player) has trouble breaking 54.

So I highly doubt that a round in the upper 60's there qualifies as 750ish rated round.

 

[timg]

As has been explained before, the SSE can't account for artificial OB, etc. Hence, the "estimate" part of it. This isn't going to work 100% for all courses.

 

[chrishysell]

all of our courses are changing constantly. Holes are getting longer and basket placements may also be moving left and right because of erosion. I have no clue what the blue layout was in 2011,2012 and 2013 on the same course.