Top Player Ratings Over Time

[grodney]

Two graphs showing the top players through time, and also relative to their ages.

This is generally most guys who ever hit 1040. There are a couple top players that aren't current members so I couldn't see where they peaked. There was also somebody (Simon, maybe?) that hit 1040 for one rating period but I didn't include. Let me know if there's somebody obvious I'm missing.

 

[DavidSauls]

Thanks for doing that.

 

[NathanNoodleArm]

I love the age v rating. :clap:

 

[VictorB]

So this shows one of two things imo - more players as the years went on made better top end players, or there's ratings inflation at the top of the sport.

Nice chart, thanks for posting

 

[Cgkdisc]

The study I did on ratings decline with age for established pros showed no loss until age 40 then about 10 points every five years until age 60 then 20 pts per 5 years to 70. Not enough data after that.

 

[sidewinder22]

So this shows one of two things imo - more players as the years went on made better top end players, or there's ratings inflation at the top of the sport.

And/or technology ratings inflation and learning at younger age.

 

[DavidSauls]

If not for 2 people, would these graphs indicate ratings deflation over the last few years?

 

[sidewinder22]

Cale Leiviska is missing from the 1040 list. Barry Shultz and Steve Brinster have been 1039.

 

[sidewinder22]

Cale Leiviska is missing from the 1040 list.

Also missing Lizotte.

 

[VictorB]

And/or technology ratings inflation and learning at younger age.

eh, I didn't say what was causing the ratings inflation

also, yeah the top 2 are showing very high ratings, but I think you'll see if the chart was expanded a pretty significant increase in 1020+ rated players compared to even 5 years ago.

I don't know why this phenomena exists, but it's there.

 

[biscoe]

Theory- collective ratings are actually gradually lowering over time due to the use of players as propagators whose ratings lag their skill development. (virtually anyone who has been playing a couple years or less)

This would make a 1040 from today better than a 1040 from 5 years ago.

 

[araytx]

Theory- collective ratings are actually gradually lowering over time due to the use of players as propagators whose ratings lag their skill development. (virtually anyone who has been playing a couple years or less)

This would make a 1040 from today better than a 1040 from 5 years ago.

Definitely theory until it's been empirically studied and tested. I believe in ratings and think they do their job well. However, there are still anomalies. Shane Seal hit 1040 in a tourney , then stopped playing tournaments for a while (don't know why - possibly legit) and held that 1040 rating for a couple years that I remember.

 

[sidewinder22]

Theory- collective ratings are actually gradually lowering over time due to the use of players as propagators whose ratings lag their skill development. (virtually anyone who has been playing a couple years or less)

This would make a 1040 from today better than a 1040 from 5 years ago.

That would mean Climo has improved as he has aged. I think technology is inflating ratings.

 

[biscoe]

That would mean Climo has improved as he has aged.

His rating is lower now than it has ever been (1023)- not sure how that makes your point.

I think technology is inflating ratings.

Technology certainly lowers scores but that should be a zero sum proposition in terms of ratings as it applies to all players across the board.

Using a significant number of propagators with unstable rapidly improving ratings on the other hand has the potential to drag the entire pool of ratings down incrementally over time.

There are 3 possibilities with an individual's rating:
1. it is an accurate representation of their current play
2. their play is in decline which means they are over-rated by some amount (me)
3. their play is improving which means they are under-rated by some amount (lots of people who have not been playing very long)

It is my contention that #3 is much more common than #2 and thereby the whole ratings pool is dropping incrementally. It doesn't mean the world is going to end but it makes sense to me.

 

[grodney]

There are 3 possibilities with an individual's rating:
1. it is an accurate representation of their current play
2. their play is in decline which means they are over-rated by some amount (me)
3. their play is improving which means they are under-rated by some amount (lots of people who have not been playing very long)

It is my contention that #3 is much more common than #2 and thereby the whole ratings pool is dropping incrementally. It doesn't mean the world is going to end but it makes sense to me.

This is essentially why the "double the latest X rounds" was introduced, as you probably know.

Well, "rating lagging skill change" was the reason.....the impact to overall ratings trends wasn't discussed much, as I recall.

 

[biscoe]

This is essentially why the "double the latest X rounds" was introduced, as you probably know.

Yep- to come closer to a "real time" rating. It certainly lessens the effect but doesn't logically eliminate it (probably impossible to eliminate it fully). The ORG has to choose a line between accuracy (allowing only "better" propagators and requiring more propagators at an event to generate ratings) and customer service (generating ratings for as many people as possible even if the rating is slightly less accurate). I am not saying it is a good or bad thing either way- just pointing out the likelihood of the system as a whole slowly creeping downward.

 

[sidewinder22]

His rating is lower now than it has ever been (1023)- not sure how that makes your point.

The past two years he hasn't played much with injury and not surprising to see it fall with advancing age as well. But at 45 years old he was still 1040 rated. Your argument would mean that his 1040 from a couple years ago, was better than it was 10 or 20 years ago. I don't see how that you can make that claim considering ratings are all relative to the current field and technology.

Technology certainly lowers scores but that should be a zero sum proposition in terms of ratings as it applies to all players across the board.

But that sum zero is instantaneous of the current field. You can't compare it to yesteryears of different fields.

 

[biscoe]

The past two years he hasn't played much with injury and not surprising to see it fall with advancing age as well. But at 45 years old he was still 1040 rated. Your argument would mean that his 1040 from a couple years ago, was better than it was 10 or 20 years ago. I don't see how that you can make that claim considering ratings are all relative to the current field and technology.

Take a pool of 10 players rated 1000. If they shoot 540 total strokes among them the SSA will come out as 54.

Now suppose one of those players is rapidly improving and actually has 1020 skills and shoots a 52 rather than a 54. The SSA then comes out at 53.8 due to that players rating lagging his improvement and in turn lowers the round rating of all 10 players which in turn lowers the player rating of all 10 players.

If there are more players propagating in the system who are playing above their rating than there are those playing below (and this is my assertion) it the net effect over time cannot help but to be an overall lowering of collective ratings. This in turn makes 2016 1040 better than 2006 1040.

I realize this is just esoterica and doesn't mean squat but I like playing with the idea.

 

[DG_Before_Breakfast]

Sum the area under the curve (integrate) for one measure of the GOAT. Climo FTW!

 

[biscoe]

I don't see how that you can make that claim considering ratings are all relative to the current field and technology.

This is not actually correct. They are relative to what the current field has shot over the past year or the past "x" number of rounds.