Tournament ratings question

[thumber_guy]

I'm about to play in a tournament. I looked up the 2018 and 2019 official results, and in 2018, scoring 48 was rated 999. But in 2019, 48 was rated 982. Does that mean that it was a little tougher to play in 2018, like maybe it was windy or some other factor?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm about to play in a tournament. I looked up the 2018 and 2019 official results, and in 2018, scoring 48 was rated 999. But in 2019, 48 was rated 982. Does that mean that it was a little tougher to play in 2018, like maybe it was windy or some other factor?

Yes. Not just windy but same wind, different direction or possibly rain. Another factor is sometimes the tournament layout is not exactly the same if the course has alternate pin placements.

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

Could be anything, It's not uncommon to have that big of a ratings different from day 1 to day 2 on the same layout. Was it the exact same layout? Maybe the players party in 2018 was bigger and half of the field was hungover. Maybe it was a full moon with mercury in retrograde. Maybe in 2019 there was an escort service available and half of the field felt loose and confident. Ultimately 17 point difference in a year is not unexpected.

 

[DiscFifty]

I wonder if we're in rating shift paradigm...where once older ams were the majority are now shifting towards younger players being the majority? The end result could be older players having a harder time getting higher rated rounds due to the influx of younger players with better skill sets. I would love to see avg rating per age over the past 10 years or so.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I wonder if we're in rating shift paradigm...where once older ams were the majority are now shifting towards younger players being the majority? The end result could be older players having a harder time getting higher rated rounds due to the influx of younger players with better skill sets. I would love to see avg rating per age over the past 10 years or so.

Here's a study I did on how ratings decline for Pros as they age: Hanging On

 

[thumber_guy]

Exact same layout, and both rounds were played as the first round of the tournament on Saturday morning.

On a somewhat related note, is it commonplace to make every division shoot from the pro tees (when there are white tees available)? Rec/junior/women/50+ are not equipped for that layout.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The same wooded course layout can get easier every year if it has good traffic simply due to progressively less brush off the fairways and natural loss of trees here and there.

 

[DiscFifty]

On a somewhat related note, is it commonplace to make every division shoot from the pro tees (when there are white tees available)? Rec/junior/women/50+ are not equipped for that layout.

In my experience technical difficulty isn't a factor, but on shorter courses it's commonplace. On longer courses not so much. But this is all very specific TD related. I personally prefer everyone play the same layout for ratings purposes.

 

[krupicka]

It depends on course and format. If I am doing shotgun starts, I pretty much always have everyone play the same set of tees. If tee-times and the course has a significant difference in difficulty between the layouts I may have MA4, MA60, and women play the shorter layouts.

Keep in mind pace of place and flow. With a shotgun start, if one group is playing shorter layout, they may end up constantly waiting if the division ahead of them are playing a much more difficult layout. With Tee times that can be avoided by having divisions playing the shorter layout go out first.

 

[Norvelljeff]

Another thing that nobody has mentioned is the factor of propagators. The second-year could have had higher rated players, which would cause the same score to be rated higher.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Another thing that nobody has mentioned is the factor of propagators. The second-year could have had higher rated players, which would cause the same score to be rated higher.

You mean rated lower due to more better course knowledge among all players.

 

[DiscFifty]

Here's a study I did on how ratings decline for Pros as they age: Hanging On

Obviously the talent is getting better and younger, do you think the rating system will need to be adjusted to reflect this?

 

[biscoe]

Obviously the talent is getting better and younger, do you think the rating system will need to be adjusted to reflect this?

Why would that be the case? To make comparisons less meaningful?

 

[DiscFifty]

Why would that be the case? To make comparisons less meaningful?

I guess the better question would be, is it easier to be 1000 rated now than it was 5,10,15,20 years ago and if so should the rating system be updated?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I guess the better question would be, is it easier to be 1000 rated now than it was 5,10,15,20 years ago and if so should the rating system be updated?

Doesn't really matter if the number drifts, and it may do so over time, although there are indications the number has held pretty constant on baseline courses with minimal OB penalties. It's the OB penalty courses that can pump extra points into higher level player ratings. Fortunately, it primarily happens in the relatively few events where these courses are played out of the now thousands of sanctioned events played.

The thing is, it's the manufacturers that decide whether 1000 or any other number should be the minimum threshold to consider sponsorship. They can only support so many sponsorships. So, if there continue to be more players available above a certain rating, regardless why there are more, they can simply raise their bar. Maybe some manufacturers have done so already at times in the past?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I don't see the sense in adjusting the ratings because talent.

The current system allows meaningful comparison in terms of event performance from player to player, and even across events for the most part.

If the skill level eventually progresses to where top pros are consistently above 1100, so be it. Then I guess those players would be better than today and yesterday's best.

Changing the scale eliminates the ability to make those comparisons.

 

[DiscFifty]

If the skill level eventually progresses to where top pros are consistently above 1100, so be it. Then I guess those players would be better than today and yesterday's best. Changing the scale eliminates the ability to make those comparisons.

Fair enough. If anything does change, perhaps it will be reflected in ratings guidelines for am divisions.

 

[Casey 1988]

Exact same layout, and both rounds were played as the first round of the tournament on Saturday morning.

On a somewhat related note, is it commonplace to make every division shoot from the pro tees (when there are white tees available)? Rec/junior/women/50+ are not equipped for that layout.

Second part no, only if they have only alternate tee spots and not true beginner, intermediate, and advanced tees with sometimes more if course is hard. Often I see if course is hard the players using for 95% -- 100% of holes using the other tee pads.

 

[DiscFifty]

I'm seeing some tournaments organized as "Pro C-tier / Amateur B-tier" all on the same course, same tournament. Does this cause the tiers to be rated separately?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm seeing some tournaments organized as "Pro C-tier / Amateur B-tier" all on the same course, same tournament. Does this cause the tiers to be rated separately?

Not if they play the same layouts. But some events will have separate layouts not only between Am and Pro but also among different am divisions if the course(s) used have options.