kerplunk
Double Eagle Member
I think this topic has been discussed some in other threads, but now that the results are in I thought it deserved its own.
Sorry if this has been posted before and correct me if I am wrong, but according to my "research" the guy that won had only played two PDGAs before the USDGCs. Not to be too cynical, but if you took my worst two tourneys and based my rating on that I think I would have a shot to beat Schultz and Feldberg too.
I am not calling Key a sandbagger, and I am truly happy for him for playing great golf and winning, but I think the situation of a guy with only 6 rated rounds and therefore a possibly inaccurate rating is the exact thing people were concerned about when the new format was announced. While I do not know enough facts to feel strongly one way or another about the new format, as someone who knows a little bit about statistics I think it is unwise to give a player a handicap based on only 6 rounds, and I believe the results support this statement, especially given the large margin of victory.
Thoughts?
Sorry if this has been posted before and correct me if I am wrong, but according to my "research" the guy that won had only played two PDGAs before the USDGCs. Not to be too cynical, but if you took my worst two tourneys and based my rating on that I think I would have a shot to beat Schultz and Feldberg too.
I am not calling Key a sandbagger, and I am truly happy for him for playing great golf and winning, but I think the situation of a guy with only 6 rated rounds and therefore a possibly inaccurate rating is the exact thing people were concerned about when the new format was announced. While I do not know enough facts to feel strongly one way or another about the new format, as someone who knows a little bit about statistics I think it is unwise to give a player a handicap based on only 6 rounds, and I believe the results support this statement, especially given the large margin of victory.
Thoughts?