ratings cheat

[REDFIVE]

So I have been given some crap for my rating. I haven't been able to play many tourneys so I don't have many rated rounds. I lost 7 rounds this update and added only 3 for a total of 10 rounds. My rating is 1003 which I think is about right, anything from 995 to 1000 plus or minus. I am curious what others think is a base number of rounds to consider a rating legit, or does it matter?

[REDFIVE]

With 40 views and no comments I will assume it doesn't matter or nobody really cares. Either way.

[Bullseye]

So I have been given some crap for my rating. I haven't been able to play many tourneys so I don't have many rated rounds. I lost 7 rounds this update and added only 3 for a total of 10 rounds. My rating is 1003 which I think is about right, anything from 995 to 1000 plus or minus. I am curious what others think is a base number of rounds to consider a rating legit, or does it matter?

I'm of the opinion that a rating isn't entirely accurate until a player has at least 10-15 rounds in the bank. This will weed out the folks who ripped it up in their first tourney, but might not be able to maintain that level of performance.

You're a slightly different case though. Much like Brody Miller & Tim Skellenger, you're obviously a good player who just doesn't play too many sanctioned tourneys. Your rating is probably pretty accurate (+5/-5 points either way) .

You could solve this problem fairly easily. Play more sanctioned events and take your place among Washington's best. ;)

[Toby Puttzinski]

Overrated.... overrated.... overrated!!

[Ol' Bob]

While I usually pass over the PDGA threads completely, your title made me take a peek. Not a huge scandal for someone not rated. Made me look, anyway.

[olydiscgolf]

The number of rated rounds needed to get an accurate rating is directly affected by the consistency of the golfer. If there's a huge gap between your low rounds and your high rounds, then 10-15 rounds (4-5 tourneys worth) is probably enough.

I was just reading an old article (1990) by Chuck Kennedy, he stated 3 rounds are sufficient to determin handicap for new players who are improving quickly. I think that it would hold true of rating as well.

[REDFIVE]

Overrated.... overrated.... overrated!!

$20 a stroke?:nahnah:

[Bullseye]

The number of rated rounds needed to get an accurate rating is directly affected by the consistency of the golfer. If there's a huge gap between your low rounds and your high rounds, then 10-15 rounds (4-5 tourneys worth) is probably enough.

I was just reading an old article (1990) by Chuck Kennedy, he stated 3 rounds are sufficient to determin handicap for new players who are improving quickly. I think that it would hold true of rating as well.

I disagree (on the ratings part anyway) based on what I have actually seen over the years. What I have seen is many people joining the PDGA to play at their "home course" tourney and as a general rule they tend to play well at their home course. This gives them well rated rounds which get double weighted by the PDGA, but as time progresses their rating naturally drops down to the level of their consistent play.

[Chuck Kennedy]

FYI - recent rounds do not get double weighted until the player has at least 8. If a player only plays their home course, which many do, and they shoot better on their home course as expected, their rating is still valid since it reflects how well they do on the only course(s) they play in competition each year. They are only potentially over-rated when they travel. Of course this helps everyone else in the tournament since that player indirectly provides rating points to the field if they shoot worse than their "homey" rating.

[Bullseye]

FYI - recent rounds do not get double weighted until the player has at least 8. If a player only plays their home course, which many do, and they shoot better on their home course as expected, their rating is still valid since it reflects how well they do on the only course(s) they play in competition each year. They are only potentially over-rated when they travel. Of course this helps everyone else in the tournament since that player indirectly provides rating points to the field if they shoot worse than their "homey" rating.

It is nice to know early rounds are not double-weighted.

[sillybizz]

$20 a stroke?:nahnah:

Don't do it Toby, the only I can pay him back is if I win the world series of poker, lol.

[gwillim]

FYI - recent rounds do not get double weighted until the player has at least 8. If a player only plays their home course, which many do, and they shoot better on their home course as expected, their rating is still valid since it reflects how well they do on the only course(s) they play in competition each year. They are only potentially over-rated when they travel. Of course this helps everyone else in the tournament since that player indirectly provides rating points to the field if they shoot worse than their "homey" rating.


Heh hehe...Homey Rating...hehe.

I just found out a new way to make fun of ppl ;)

[Snooskie Longhorn]

Looks like REDFIVE didn't have any PDGA tournaments in 2007 on record. Was that about the time you moved from Advanced to Open? What was your rating in 2004 vs. today, i.e. how much did it go up?

[DexterHawk]

Only true ratings cheat is when someone DNF's a round that they are doing bad in. I think the PDGA needs a new rule... If you're injured the TD can DNF you... If you just quit you get par plus four on the rest of the holes and a rating for your round... Sure it will probably get dropped, but if you have enough it won't and it will show up on your record.

Just an idea... Someo e tell me why I'm wrong

[Scott]

Only true ratings cheat is when someone DNF's a round that they are doing bad in. I think the PDGA needs a new rule... If you're injured the TD can DNF you... If you just quit you get par plus four on the rest of the holes and a rating for your round... Sure it will probably get dropped, but if you have enough it won't and it will show up on your record.

Just an idea... Someo e tell me why I'm wrong

I don't think we should put TDs in the position of having to determine whether or not an injury is legit.

IMO it is a victim-less crime. The only people these baggers are screwing over are themselves.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Remember that the functional reason for ratings is to separate ams into the proper skill division for competition. Retaining bad round ratings versus a DNF would just drag better players into a lower division and actually reward them for bad behavior. Likewise, it would encourage even more players to bag their last round if they were out of it in an event knowing that they could pull down their rating.

[Chuck Kennedy]

BTW, the PDGA has contacted players showing a pattern of DNFs. Future behavior like that will subject them to review by the PDGA Disciplinary Committee. The manufacturers who do sponsorships also are aware of the DNF issue and look closely at a player's DNF history to see if their rating might be artificially inflated. They also want to know if a potential sponsored player is a simply a good sports(wo)man.

[REDFIVE]

Looks like REDFIVE didn't have any PDGA tournaments in 2007 on record. Was that about the time you moved from Advanced to Open? What was your rating in 2004 vs. today, i.e. how much did it go up?

2004- 874 to 886 am2
2005- 941 to 945 am2/adv
2006- 965 adv
2007- 965 adv/open
2008- 987 to 986 open
2009- 995 to 1003 open

[Tim]

Damn Chris, can you give me the secret ingredients to the Elixir of 2005?

[NWDiscer]

Damn Chris, can you give me the secret ingredients to the Elixir of 2005?


making putts from 20'-40'?? :biggrin2:

[REDFIVE]

Damn Chris, can you give me the secret ingredients to the Elixir of 2005?

Get 2 baskets for the backyard and work swing shift so you can play every morning. I had 3 friends that were obsessed like I was and we pushed each other everyday to get better. Unfortunately 2 of them had injuries that they haven't been able to fully recover from and one gives me shnit because I have a higher rating than he does.

[REDFIVE]

2004- 874 to 886 am2
2005- 941 to 945 am2/adv
2006- 965 adv
2007- 965 adv/open
2008- 987 to 986 open
2009- 995 to 1003 open

With this pattern I will hope to cheat my way to 1020 sometime late next year. :whistler:

[DoubleDees]

when i was 1004 people said i was exploited... fuck em...

[DoubleDees]

with 8/10 rounds being at seatac or steilly and only having 2 rounds outside your home courses it makes it easier to get 1000 player rating... of course we all know how hard it is to travel so i wouldnt give a shit what people say... with steilly and seatac being the 2 best courses in the state.


my home course ratings... i only got 2 rated rounds this year on my "home course"
1026
1032

[Snooskie Longhorn]

Congratulations to both 5 and DD's for getting a 1000 rating or higher. It wasn't that long ago that there were ZERO 1000 rated players from Washington state. Nice of you'z to represent.

[DoubleDees]

i dropped when i broke my middle finger... its actually 100X easier to get a rating now than it was in even 2005.

[Tim]

I'm doing my part to make you guys look better. You can compensate me later however you feel. :D

[REDFIVE]

with 8/10 rounds being at seatac or steilly and only having 2 rounds outside your home courses it makes it easier to get 1000 player rating... of course we all know how hard it is to travel so i wouldnt give a shit what people say... with steilly and seatac being the 2 best courses in the state.


my home course ratings... i only got 2 rated rounds this year on my "home course"
1026
1032

Thanks Ed, I wouldn't consider sea tac a home course, I guess I am pretty familiar with it but I only play it maybe 5 times a year max counting tourneys. But steilly is pretty much home away from riverside. Ah riverside, where the locals throw from all directions and the smell of stale beer radiates from the cans thrust into the bushes as if to say, "I shanked my drive but birdied my drunken stuper." The only course that I know ofthat has bleachers for smoking not for spectating, REDFIVE BITCHES!

[sillybizz]

Thanks Ed, I wouldn't consider sea tac a home course, I guess I am pretty familiar with it but I only play it maybe 5 times a year max counting tourneys. But steilly is pretty much home away from riverside. Ah riverside, where the locals throw from all directions and the smell of stale beer radiates from the cans thrust into the bushes as if to say, "I shanked my drive but birdied my drunken stuper." The only course that I know ofthat has bleachers for smoking not for spectating, REDFIVE BITCHES!

:laughing:

I seriously laughed when I read this, nice.

[DoubleDees]

i honestly wouldnt travel if i could play seatac and steilly... I would be the biggest hermit ever. Just like Matteo :) unless i fealt like getting out of the rain for a weekend.

[REDFIVE]

I would love to get out more for sure but with two young children at home it makes it a bit difficult. This year was going to be the year I played all theevents I could but unfortunately was laid off just as the season wasstarting. Hoping for next year.

[Toby Puttzinski]

Wow Chris, that is quite a steady improvement!


I was just being jocular with the overrated chant... it was the college basketball fan in me...
you should have just come back with "scoreboard, scoreboard, scoreboard!"

I'd play you for $20 a stroke at North Park, $2/ stroke at Lakewood, $1/stroke at Seatac or Steilly, or $.25 at Riverside or any other course.

Of course, outside of North Park it'd probably just be (relatively) cheap lessons.

Btw, those smoking bleachers rock... the hole kind of sucks, but the tee area is pretty nice.
What hole is that again? lol

[REDFIVE]

I knew you were kidding, I was too. We still have to get the boys together at some point.

[chanman]

I think the more rounds one has in their rating makes them more "legit." As well as the amount of different courses they play. But I have seen you play Chris and you are a thousand rated player no doubt in my mind. If you played more sanctioned tourneys you would be even higher rated. I think Team Crabfry is happening by the way.

[REDFIVE]

I think the more rounds one has in their rating makes them more "legit." As well as the amount of different courses they play. But I have seen you play Chris and you are a thousand rated player no doubt in my mind. If you played more sanctioned tourneys you would be even higher rated. I think Team Crabfry is happening by the way.

Thanks chandler! Team crabfry just makes too much sense not to happen. Are you down thisway yet?

[chanman]

I am in the process of getting a car, so i should be able to make some trips down. For now, I am stuck up here. Ill give you a call when I do though.

[Toby Puttzinski]

That'd be fun Chris...maybe we could get out one of these weekends. I'm going to order some ultra-light drivers for Jake soon, and Lowell said he had a few Rocs-- did you end up buying some from Marshal Street or ?

I was just looking at the pdga ratings and saw that the #6 rated pro in the world- Jussi Meressma from Finland, only has 8 rated rounds for a 1035. That is two less than your 10 rounds at some legit courses. I would only consider you a ratings cheat if you TD'ed three C-tiers each year at Riverside, and those were the only tourneys that you played.


Chris, I work overnights and make it down south to play quite a bit during the week... let me know if you want to get in a casual round sometime soon-- I'll be getting in a few rounds at Steilly or Dailiwood later this morning with Aaron Holley and two of my other friends Matt and Brewster...
Brewster lives near Gig Harbor and has carved out a rough nine holer dubbed 'Sticky Greens', because of all of the sticker bushes that were hacked away of course-- think early Seatac construction...

[LJ Jubner]

this thread should a have been called pDGA Rating flaw, Cheat make Chris sound like one. What if we had just one sanctioned event all year for all the marbles and qualifiers now that would be interesting.

[REDFIVE]

I was excited to see you on this thread jub to see what ass backward nonsense you could bring. I was let down.

[LJ Jubner]

It's just to keep you guessing

[Nate Sexton]

Anybody with less than 70 rounds in their rating is at MINIMUM 20-30 points overrated. I used to be this way but now I am finally legit...:biggrin2:

[Chuck Kennedy]

Here's a little stats fun. Waugh's rating has a standard deviation of 7.2 compared with Sexton of 2.5 SD due to having more rounds. So there's a 99%chance Chris' true rating falls between 981 and 1025. There's a 99% probability that Nate's rating falls between 1010 and 1026. So there's some chance that Waugh has a true rating higher than Sexton. ;)

[Nate Sexton]

Here's a little stats fun. Waugh's rating has a standard deviation of 7.2 compared with Sexton of 2.5 SD due to having more rounds. So there's a 99%chance Chris' true rating falls between 981 and 1025. There's a 99% probability that Nate's rating falls between 1010 and 1026. So there's some chance that Waugh has a true rating higher than Sexton. ;)

NOOOOOOOO! :pullhair:

[snap7times]

OHHHH cool. do me do me, do mine... and include eugene celebration ratings too... *twiddling thumbs*

[REDFIVE]

NOOOOOOOO! :pullhair:

now accepting sponsor applications! :nahnah:

[sillybizz]

now accepting sponsor applications! :nahnah:

Hook me up with some plastic buddy!

[Flash]

Here's a little stats fun. Waugh's rating has a standard deviation of 7.2 compared with Sexton of 2.5 SD due to having more rounds. So there's a 99%chance Chris' true rating falls between 981 and 1025. There's a 99% probability that Nate's rating falls between 1010 and 1026. So there's some chance that Waugh has a true rating higher than Sexton. ;)

Nice use of the words "small chance" but how about we make it more fun by sharing the actual probability that Waugh's true rating is higher than Sexton's true rating!!!

Given that Sexton's Median score is higher then his mean score and Waugh's median is less then his mean, I am betting Waugh's chances of actual rating being higher than Sexton's is really really really really small. Waugh however is a far far far far far far far far far better golfer then I am.

Here is a graphical review of what Chuck is telling you, I am however not using any PDGA Ratings math of the doubling of highest rated rounds!!!

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h139/flash_25296/Statistics/Sexton99.jpg

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h139/flash_25296/Statistics/Waugh99.jpg

[sillybizz]

I'm looking for a new accountant, want the job?! damn man. :)

[Chuck Kennedy]

The PDGA math does not double the highest rated rounds but the most recent 25% to give a somewhat better indication of how well someone is currently shooting.

[REDFIVE]

Silly that this nate and I nonsence gone this far. I am not ready for that comparison for sure. I think my rating is a bit high for how I feel I had played but quite low for what I am capable of. From the practice I've put in and the rounds with decent players in myarea I feel that therating is decently accurate. The more I play the more comfortable I would get in the tourney format and there would be more consistancy in my rounds. I shoot a 980 then a 1030 then a 990 or something like that. Bottom line I hope to get out abunch more next year and make my rating more accurate and closer to legit. Where did you get 70 rounds nate? Seems a little much to me but I am jealous you get to compete that much.

[Flash]

The PDGA math does not double the highest rated rounds but the most recent 25% to give a somewhat better indication of how well someone is currently shooting.

My mistake Chuck, I mis-spoke.

So you double the most recent 25% of rounds for a players rating but only if the player has more than 8 rounds. So in Waugh's case he has the 2 most recent rounds doubled, 987 & 1039 and Sexton has 21 rounds, ranging from a 970 to a 1065. Do you round up a to an integer round # or down an integer round #? Why was 25% chosen as the ideal round percentage to determine current Rating adjustments?

[Flash]

Silly that this nate and I nonsence gone this far. I am not ready for that comparison for sure. I think my rating is a bit high for how I feel I had played but quite low for what I am capable of. From the practice I've put in and the rounds with decent players in myarea I feel that therating is decently accurate. The more I play the more comfortable I would get in the tourney format and there would be more consistancy in my rounds. I shoot a 980 then a 1030 then a 990 or something like that. Bottom line I hope to get out abunch more next year and make my rating more accurate and closer to legit. Where did you get 70 rounds nate? Seems a little much to me but I am jealous you get to compete that much.

Chris, don't take the statistical gibberish as a mark against your playing ability. Obviously you have the ability to play at a high level but you just need to achieve more consistency at that level. You mentioned playing more in competitive situations and I believe that is where you will see the true reward of your ability. Chandler, Waugh and Crabtree would make a great playing trio and would probably help you push each other to achieve those higher gains on a more frequent basis. What keeps you from playing on a more regular basis now?

[REDFIVE]

Kids and this season being unemployed made it difficult. I usually get to play more in the off season but those events aren't usually sanctioned. I said it before last season but I plan to play as much as possible next year.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Do you round up a to an integer round # or down an integer round #? Why was 25% chosen as the ideal round percentage to determine current Rating adjustments?
Round up. Since we use 12 months of data for ratings, the idea was that 25% was approximately a player's most recent 3 months of play (recognizing that there are seasonal fluctuations in the amount of play due to winter). Ball golf also weights a player's events with a factor that declines every three months over 2 years.

[Nate Sexton]

Where did you get 70 rounds nate? Seems a little much to me but I am jealous you get to compete that much.

Oh I have 86 rounds, I am legit to an almost gratuitous level. I am just saying if you have less than 70 rounds the chances are you are about 20-30pts overrated. Conversely, once you get over 70 rounds you end up being 10-20 points underrated. It is pretty simple math really...right Flash?
:laughing:

[smobro]

Awesome new vocabulary words.

From now on I am calling Flash "His Royal Skewness"! When he has children they should be named Kurtosis and Standard Deviation!

I want to form a disc golf team next year called Mean Standard Deviated Variance and I want Flash to be our Captain. Oh please say yes to my request your Royal Skewness.:bowing: JK Flash. You know your the man!

[Flash]

Awesome new vocabulary words.

From now on I am calling Flash "His Royal Skewness"! When he has children they should be named Kurtosis and Standard Deviation!

I want to form a disc golf team next year called Mean Standard Deviated Variance and I want Flash to be our Captain. Oh please say yes to my request your Royal Skewness.:bowing: JK Flash. You know your the man!

Hey now Chuck was the one who brought out the math fun, I just thought I would make it visual for those out there can relate better that way.

In any case I hope Chris can make it to more sanctioned events. It would be nice to see some additional NW talent hitting the National Radars!

[REDFIVE]

Flash, I have seen your PDGA # in your signature for a while and always find it cool that mine is 25269. Iwould love to play more and get some decent backing from some companies to make it easier. I have 2 more years until I get to play every event my son wants to play and more. Looking forward to that, he just turned 6 and I figure at 7 or 8 he should be able to make it around.

[Flash]

Round up. Since we use 12 months of data for ratings, the idea was that 25% was approximately a player's most recent 3 months of play (recognizing that there are seasonal fluctuations in the amount of play due to winter). Ball golf also weights a player's events with a factor that declines every three months over 2 years.

Good point in relation to ball golf. My only gripe is that some rounds get dropped from peoples rounds if greater than some statistical variance. Sure it may not be a true indication of their performance but it is still significant. Perhaps instead of dropping those rounds, maybe just don't weight them if they are in the top 25%. I think the method of weighting is good to move someones rating faster towards their true rating but wonder if it is too slow too respond to poor play. Sure if there is enough data to rule the bad round out as an outlier it would make sense but the same data would probably show that smoking hot rounds was an outlier as well!

Chuck I don't know if enough people tell you this but thanks for being so involved in Disc Golf! Now quit screwing around and come out to the 2010 Beaver State Fling!!!

[Flash]

Flash, I have seen your PDGA # in your signature for a while and always find it cool that mine is 25269. Iwould love to play more and get some decent backing from some companies to make it easier. I have 2 more years until I get to play every event my son wants to play and more. Looking forward to that, he just turned 6 and I figure at 7 or 8 he should be able to make it around.

Chris, I think it could happen for you with sponsorship but you might need to hit the road a bit at least in the Northwest and show some consistency as well as a steward of the game. Sponsorship is there, it is a matter of them getting what they want as well though!

When I was looking up your stats I noticed what appeared to be my PDGA number, but nope just real close. It looks like you got the lower number and better talent!!!!!

[Chuck Kennedy]

My only gripe is that some rounds get dropped from peoples rounds if greater than some statistical variance.
We only drop rounds more than 2.5SD below a player's average or more than 100 points. That amounts to one round out of 50 normal rounds on average. Players can shoot an exceptionally poor round by choice but not an exceptionally great round so this process is necessary to prevent players from easily pulling down their rating with poor rounds.

[Flash]

We only drop rounds more than 2.5SD below a player's average or more than 100 points. That amounts to one round out of 50 normal rounds on average. Players can shoot an exceptionally poor round by choice but not an exceptionally great round so this process is necessary to prevent players from easily pulling down their rating with poor rounds.
Yes but a round that is greater than 2.5 SD above their rating artificially inflates a rating especially if it is double weighted. Now this may not be a factor for people with a large number of rounds but it is for people with a small number of rounds, like say 10 rounds, if one of the last 3 rounds was a smoking hot round it will skew their true player rating.

Have you ever thought of including all rounds but not double weighting them if the round is outside 2.5 SD either side of their rating?

[Chuck Kennedy]

By definition, any round even 3 standard deviations above a player's average is still in their "normal" range. It's only rounds on the low side that are potentially subject to manipulation, injury or abnormal penalties such as a player showing up late and getting par+4 for several holes. If a person is improving, then that very high round rating may be more typical of their current performance so doubling it is not out of line. No rounds are permanently doubled. That very good round will not be doubled after 3-4 months and a player will have to continue with higher rounds to maintain that improvement.

[Flash]

By definition, any round even 3 standard deviations above a player's average is still in their "normal" range. It's only rounds on the low side that are potentially subject to manipulation, injury or abnormal penalties such as a player showing up late and getting par+4 for several holes. If a person is improving, then that very high round rating may be more typical of their current performance so doubling it is not out of line. No rounds are permanently doubled. That very good round will not be doubled after 3-4 months and a player will have to continue with higher rounds to maintain that improvement.

Chuck if this was some kind of process that had an upper and lower limit then 3 SD might make sense but the only limit is the one you impose by assigning a combing effect at 2.5 SD. Sure people have more control over their rating at the lower end but that doesn't mean you skew the data to prevent that. You need to take care of that in other ways. If someone is shooting a round in 10 rounds that is off the SD charts for them in the upper direction why double weight it even for the 3-4 month period. All you are doing is causing a ripple effect in their rating if they can not sustain the hot round every ten rounds and if they do continue it would be included in the ratings but just not at a rate of double the effect until that level of play was within their 2.5 SD mark!

In my experience, people don't tank a round to lower their rating, more often they tank a round to get below the 2.5 SD you impose so that it will not be included in their update. If people were able to tank a round and lower their player rating in hopes to get below some cutoff in the amateur ranks so they can sandbag that division then the next few rounds will more then likely push them above the cutoff again as they try to win another event in Int.

I guess I can't say that I am really trying to change your mind on this, just trying to let you know how someone outside of the ratings systems perceives your method

[Chuck Kennedy]

Remember that the fundamental rationale for the ratings system was to provide a way to get amateurs into the proper skill divisions and prevent sandbagging. All tweaks have been made with that being the highest priority. The companion to this priority is to do our best so that every PDGA member gets ratings. Ratings accuracy takes a backseat to those priorities. Dropping rounds below 2.5SD makes it more difficult (and expensive) for players to pull down their rating (anti-sandbagging). Double weighting attempts to offset the lag in ratings to better reflect how fast improving ams are currently playing (anti-sandbagging). Not doing ratings updates more often than 6 weeks reduces volatility, encourages more pre-reg for events making less work for TDs moving players to different divisions. Doing round ratings with as few as 5 propagators makes sure most if not all rounds get rated so members get ratings.

Everyone of those choices degrades ratings accuracy a little bit. But the bigger goals of the org are met and the system is functional for those reasons. It's practical versus pure stats.

[REDFIVE]

With this being the case would it be beneficial to change the way pro ratings are calculated to become more accurate?

[Chuck Kennedy]

There's no reason for more precision for pros that offsets the value of doing them the same way for everyone and making sure that everyone gets a rating each round. There are several pro divisions like women that sometimes play different layouts or in different pools that might not get ratings if some of the procedures were changed. The ratings used for World Rankings are theoretically more accurate for historical comparisons because rounds are limited to B-tiers and higher, there's no double weighting and everyone has rounds only in the same 12-month period.

We are currently looking at statistical ways to improve the calculations when possible but I doubt it will be noticeable. Regardless how accurate the ratings become, they are only an average around a distribution of possible future round scores. They can't predict precisely what a player will shoot, just a range. That's a good thing, otherwise we could just send in our entry fees to an event without playing them and the TD would just send back the payouts based on the ratings of those who entered. :)

[Flash]

We are currently looking at statistical ways to improve the calculations when possible but I doubt it will be noticeable. Regardless how accurate the ratings become, they are only an average around a distribution of possible future round scores. They can't predict precisely what a player will shoot, just a range. That's a good thing, otherwise we could just send in our entry fees to an event without playing them and the TD would just send back the payouts based on the ratings of those who entered. :)

Careful Chuck that may depend on whether or not the rating is a Homey rating and if the event is not at a homey course:laughing:

I know my opinion on this is not a popular one but I don't believe Pro's should have PDGA ratings, they should simply have a world ranking. The ranking will depend on various factors but a rating system that supports the proper placement of amateur players would not be one of them. Basically there are no reasons pro need ratings from a PDGA standpoint and a world ranking system would be better geared towards sponsorship deals and avoid homey ratings to some extent. There would need to be some more work around this to hammer it out but the world rankings are doing a pretty decent job of evaluating Pro capabilities in a variety of playing conditions and challenges in different areas of the world. I am sort of shocked that the rating system is geared more toward supporting the Organization instead of the member, it has always been sold as a feature to the member!

[Chuck Kennedy]

Roger and I did the ratings free as volunteers from 1998 for six years before the PDGA started to provide some compensation. Our goal was that ratings be used for divisional breaks for ams or we would stop doing them which we did in 2001 to protest. Theo Pozzy who was Board member basically guaranteed the ratings system would continue by developing divisional guidelines with us and ratings events by 2002. While Roger and I plus many others wanted the ratings for divisional guidelines, the overwhelming number of members just thought having ratings was cool. So that became a side benefit which forced some of the decisions indicated above so that all members get ratings most of the time.

As head of the Course Committee and active designer, the alternative reason I got excited about developing ratings from the very beginning was it provided a way to produce course ratings (SSA). I really never cared too much about personal ratings but getting an objective way to evaluate course scoring was and continues to be a key motivation.

Ratings are still fundamental for World Rankings (40-70% of the ranking points) since we still only have few events globally where the top players face each other. If we get to the point where there are 15-20 events of the caliber of the top NTs and better, then we'll be able to gradually phase out the weight for ratings and use head-to-head performance more often.

[REDFIVE]

I enjoy having and following ratings so I thank you for doing what you do.