USDGC no ratings

[onemilemore]

I had the same confusion there. If we show ratings on the results page though, but they don't count...that just seems a little strange.

I took that as the sign of cooperation despite not agreeing. I think they want it to come off as "agree to disagree" instead of a big rift, so they are working together. Put the ratings up so fans and other players can compare, but not count them toward the actual ratings. Seems fair.

 

[takman]

I wanna play now.

 

[Glide]

Interesting that someone from Innova is confident enough to comment on the fairness of a hole design. Have they not reviewed their product around the area in the last 10 years?

I'll bet a nickle that 2017 is going to be a doosey for headscratching PDGA announcements.

Re-cap
2016
Smaller Am worlds
Sign in fiasco for Worlds
Points doubling mid season
Various tours fall-out
Do Discraft and PDGA get along?

A smaller Am Worlds (still 5th largest ever) isn't a step back. People need to stop looking at Kalamazoo as the new baseline. Few Am Worlds will ever be that large. They hosted a combined Pro/Am Worlds in 2008 so they were in a position to allow for a much larger field.

The PDGA used a third party for registration so Disc Golf Scene's site crashing is not the PDGA's fault. I guess you could blame them for choosing Disc Golf Scene, but that's a stretch.

I agree with you any changes to the points requirements should have come January 1st, 2017 for 2018 Am Worlds. There are some people around here who thought they were in good shape, but now find themselves scrambling for points.

 

[onemilemore]

Got some more from Harold Duvall, as well as Schusterick and some other players, about the situation:

https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2016/09/28/usdgc-will-not-count-toward-player-ratings/

 

[lyleoross]

Got some more from Harold Duvall, as well as Schusterick and some other players, about the situation:

https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2016/09/28/usdgc-will-not-count-toward-player-ratings/

Nice write up. I would love to read an article centered on how the pro players view stroke and distance on these holes and how they view the holes and their fairness per say.

 

[pappabearlee]

Good for the PDGA.
If they dont agree with the design, the tourney should not be sanctioned.
IMO the USDGC is not a premier event.
Its a showcase INNOVA puts on each year to show weird rules that wont be good for the sport.
I look at it like a circus show more than a legit tourney.
I have to laugh at all the trolls that bang on Ledgestone, but think the USDGC course/rules are legit.

 

[bradharris]

Good for the PDGA.
If they dont agree with the design, the tourney should not be sanctioned.
IMO the USDGC is not a premier event.
Its a showcase INNOVA puts on each year to show weird rules that wont be good for the sport.
I look at it like a circus show more than a legit tourney.
I have to laugh at all the trolls that bang on Ledgestone, but think the USDGC course/rules are legit.

The USDGC does not need the PDGA. It has enough prestige and tradition that it can easily stand on it's own without sanctioning.

Sanctioning this event is actually probably more of a benefit for the PDGA than the the USDGC. So even though they don't like the rules, the PDGA recognizes that this is an important event to keep on the calendar, and thus, is willing to make some compromises.

 

[DavidSauls]

.
IMO the USDGC is not a premier event.

It seems to be, though, in the opinion of the players playing in it, or trying to get in it, every year.

 

[Lazerface]

The USDGC course is so hard. It does look gimmicky when less then elite players take it on for sure, but it is a spectator masterpiece to watch the best in the world play.

I'm pretty solid, and I always watch film and think, "Damn, this course would destroy me". Your mental game has to be on point. It takes some serious endurance in the focus department and you have to have a really short memory.

 

[Lazerface]

Got some more from Harold Duvall, as well as Schusterick and some other players, about the situation:

https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2016/09/28/usdgc-will-not-count-toward-player-ratings/

I love the Uli Quote, "It's about time, I think ratings are ridiculous," Ulibarri said. "It should be about the number you shoot, not about a number some guy made up."

LMAO, what does this mean? I'm pretty sure it is about what you shoot - at least how much you get paid is. Is his point that players should be ranked by tournament finishes/round scores alone? Do they factor ratings into world rankings or something? Just trying to understand the beef.

I don't have a full understandings of ratings and I'm sure there are a thousand opinions on why they are stupid, but in my experience, for players with a large sample size of rounds, they are pretty damn accurate.

Ratings are really a draw for AMs more than anything. Makes it more fun to track your progression and shoot for getting over various ratings humps throughout your DG career (casual career). I can see why most touring pros don't really give a crap about them.

 

[bradharris]

I'm pretty sure it is about what you shoot - at least how much you get paid is.

Since rating is directly tied to score, the highest rating also has the highest payday. So that makes his comments that much more nonsensical.

 

[Steve West]

If hunted deer for meat to feed my sled dogs, the only thing that would matter is the pounds of boneless meat the carcass yields. I would have no use for the Boone and Crockett system of scoring Whitetail deer antlers.

So, obviously, as a mature human being I would want to ridicule the B&C system into extinction. There is simply no alternative.

And I would be ecstatic when B&C decided the same method could not be applied to Elk, because that would obviously be the first step on the way to the demise of the B&C system. It can mean nothing else.

 

[Lazerface]

If hunted deer for meat to feed my sled dogs, the only thing that would matter is the pounds of boneless meat the carcass yields. I would have no use for the Boone and Crockett system of scoring Whitetail deer antlers.

So, obviously, as a mature human being I would want to ridicule the B&C system into extinction. There is simply no alternative.

And I would be ecstatic when B&C decided the same method could not be applied to Elk, because that would obviously be the first step on the way to the demise of the B&C system. It can mean nothing else.

Ah, I can see the logic now.

 

[1978]

By many measures Hole 17 at the USDGC is the most successful hole in the sport. No other hole attracts as much attention, no other hole is more dramatic to watch, etc, etc.

or thought about the entire round and can make you make other decisions earlier in the round to compensate. Pretty good for a 250' hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

The main reason for ratings is to divide amateur players by skill level, so they can play in divisions that are reasonably competitive. Everything else about them is for fun.

The questions in my mind, when this policy was originally announced, were

---Do the results on T&D holes not reflect skill level? Do better players not tend to score better on them?

---If they don't reflect skill level, how many would it take before overall ratings are skewed? A handful of holes among one or two thousand played in a rating period---do they alter someone's rating enough to put him in the wrong amateur division, and by enough to matter? (Yes, someone could drop from 936 to 933 and move to Intermediate, but are ratings so finely tuned that there's a big difference between 936 and 933?)

 

[JTacoma03]

If hunted deer for meat to feed my sled dogs, the only thing that would matter is the pounds of boneless meat the carcass yields. I would have no use for the Boone and Crockett system of scoring Whitetail deer antlers.

So, obviously, as a mature human being I would want to ridicule the B&C system into extinction. There is simply no alternative.

And I would be ecstatic when B&C decided the same method could not be applied to Elk, because that would obviously be the first step on the way to the demise of the B&C system. It can mean nothing else.

I know next to nothing about hunting, so for it to so eloquently explain a situation that most of us are more familiar with, is totally inverse from how you would typically use analogies, and so awesome. Great post.

 

[lyleoross]

Good for the PDGA.
If they dont agree with the design, the tourney should not be sanctioned.
IMO the USDGC is not a premier event.
Its a showcase INNOVA puts on each year to show weird rules that wont be good for the sport.
I look at it like a circus show more than a legit tourney.
I have to laugh at all the trolls that bang on Ledgestone, but think the USDGC course/rules are legit.

Bingo! On a logic level, I agree 100%, but on an emotive level, I really like this event. The problem is that a big chunk of that was due to its accessibility. The fact it was live. Now, Jussi is giving that up.

 

[teemkey]

...
And I would be ecstatic when B&C decided the same method could not be applied to Elk, because that would obviously be the first step on the way to the demise of the B&C system. It can mean nothing else.

Or ... you could say amateurs are deer and professionals are elk.

 

[lyleoross]

If hunted deer for meat to feed my sled dogs, the only thing that would matter is the pounds of boneless meat the carcass yields. I would have no use for the Boone and Crockett system of scoring Whitetail deer antlers.

So, obviously, as a mature human being I would want to ridicule the B&C system into extinction. There is simply no alternative.

And I would be ecstatic when B&C decided the same method could not be applied to Elk, because that would obviously be the first step on the way to the demise of the B&C system. It can mean nothing else.

I hunted in my youth and I never once heard of B and C (bacon and cheese?). A four pointer was a four pointer and if you took a doe, you were in trouble. And of course only someone who was visually impaired took a two pointer. What were we talkin' about?

 

[lyleoross]

or thought about the entire round and can make you make other decisions earlier in the round to compensate. Pretty good for a 250' hole.

That seems problematic to me. Planning your entire round around one hole....

When what makes a hole interesting is that players take a huge risk that can destroy their round, vs lay up, lay up, putt out, it doesn't seem like that great of a hole. Yep, it's dramatic, I watched it cost JEMc the win in 2014, but having one hole be the deciding factor in a major makes me question the structure of the event. I would expect more balance. Of course, that is my preference. I've seen plenty here that like that so clearly, for some, it has huge merit.