They started to update the ratings. Some are done & i'm one of them. Thought I was going to get an intermediate rating but they dropped my lowest & i went up 5 points to 924.
They are counting 14 rounds in the database for me. My rating went down 2 points to 868. I'm still a Rec player. <_<
QuoteThey are counting 14 rounds in the database for me. My rating went down 2 points to 868. I'm still a Rec player. <_<
Hey, don't look sideways at that rec rating. Work it! Get in for prizes at Flip and sell them back to me for 50 cents on the dollar!
My winter strategy worked wonderfully for giving a high-testosterone rating to a low testosterone guy in sissy pants. I'm not certain if I can maintain, especially since my pre-Worlds strategy is to play a lot of courses I've never played before during tournament play. But I think I shot my rating at Boyne this weekend.
QuoteThey are counting 14 rounds in the database for me. My rating went down 2 points to 868. I'm still a Rec player. <_<
huh... The round ratings for Olympia Fields were about 5 points less than when I played with the calculator... but my rating went up 5 pts instead of the 2 pts I expected, and no additional rounds were dropped. I'll take it, but I haven't caught Jon yet <_<
I updated the club members page with the current rating for each member. Let me know if there if there is a problem with you rating on that page.
Heck yes, there's a problem!!!
Todd beat Damon AND Diron at Olympia Fields!?!?!?!?!
Good for Todd, but wow!
And . . . Diron and I have the same rating now. That can't be right; Diron is better than I am! You should have seen him up in Kaukauna - and at Yulga, he beat me by 7 or 9 strokes!!! (although I got back at him with a -2 at Token Creek!
mine looks right til they
add in my tower ridge, wi and milan, il
QuoteHeck yes, there's a problem!!!
Todd beat Damon AND Diron at Olympia Fields!?!?!?!?!
Good for Todd, but wow!
And . . . Diron and I have the same rating now. That can't be right; Diron is better than I am! You should have seen him up in Kaukauna - and at Yulga, he beat me by 7 or 9 strokes!!! (although I got back at him with a -2 at Token Creek!
Todd has been playing great golf lately, :o but he has some stiffness/pain in his back so I think I might get an edge over him if I get in gear. :angry:
I don't think much of the PDGA rating system at the moment <_<, It's cool but as far as I'm concerned it's not an accurate depiction of X players "skill" But of course, if my rating takes off I'll sing a different tune :D
But I'll take my 859 or whatever I am 8) Anyways, 7 or 9 strokes Jim? You're too generous, :lol: it was more like 3 @ Yulga- which is the coolest course I've ever played :P
Quote...I don't think much of the PDGA rating system at the moment <_<, It's cool but as far as I'm concerned it's not an accurate depiction of X players "skill" But of course, if my rating takes off I'll sing a different tune...
It IS an accurate representation of how you have performed at PDGA events where there were enough generators to create a rated round. If you are improving quickly, it might not move as quickly as you are, which is to the player's benefit. It is NOT supposed to be a testosterone scale, but a way to help match players to their correct division.
QuoteQuoteIt is NOT supposed to be a testosterone scale
Bummer.
I didn't take thoes points into consideration Jon, if I could give you stars I would :)
QuoteI didn't take thoes points into consideration Jon, if I could give you stars I would :)
You'd make me SEE stars, right? :D
You only have two rounds in the database right now Diron and they were both from the Oly, where I think you didn't play to your potential. ;) If you play well at your next couple of events, you will see your rating reflect that.
Yes, be patient Diron. It takes several rounds to equal things out. I shot 2 pretty good rounds @ the Prairie Open last year. I had a 950 rating after my first event. I wasn't planning on playing Advanced at all tournaments last year but I had to since that was my rating. Since, i've dropped down to 924.
I took first at the Moraine Challenege yesterday. If Todd calculated my ratings right he said it should've been 979...
Who knows..
I know thats not right i was messn around but who knows
Suuuure
I'm Prostylte and you know it Fanning :P
Oh well, way to get my hopes up
July update is posted. Looks like everyone went up, and I snuck ahead of Jon :P
If the 2nd round at Parkside ever gets rated (none of the Ints got rated either) I should go up a little more, although Peoria's results look screwy. I reported the problem w/ Parkside :huh:
I was dissapointed that the Streamwood Starter didn't get into this ratings round since I busted my butt to get it done by the time I heard I would have to in order for it to count.
QuoteI was dissapointed that the Streamwood Starter didn't get into this ratings round since I busted my butt to get it done by the time I heard I would have to in order for it to count.
I too was a bit bummed. Wonder why they did not process them. :(
QuoteIf the 2nd round at Parkside ever gets rated (none of the Ints got rated either) I should go up a little more, although Peoria's results look screwy. I reported the problem w/ Parkside :huh:
I noticed the same thing for the Elver Open results.
Maybe they haven't finished updating the Int. division yet?? I hope not, since Parkside is the only tournament I played in that will show up this time around.
well despite my horrible play in the month of june i still went up 2 points to 922. only 7 points to make up on that bagger brett comincioli :D :D
i guess no intermediate at CL. :angry: No streamwood is atleast good for Todd who stays at 905.
I can't wait for the next update now. i can finally get rid of some ridiculous rounds from last year.
How many players are needed to generate ratings?
Anyone playing short tees at the Prairie Open doesn't have a rating for it, so I did a count.
We had 10 ADV Masters (who got rated for their first round from the pro tees), all 10 are rated. 33 Int. Men, 16 are rated.
6 Int. Women, 3 are rated.
2 Juniors, both are rated.
I think only the women were sub 800 ratings. Wouldn't that be enough to generate ratings?
QuoteHow many players are needed to generate ratings?
Anyone playing short tees at the Prairie Open doesn't have a rating for it, so I did a count.
We had 10 ADV Masters (who got rated for their first round from the pro tees), all 10 are rated. 33 Int. Men, 16 are rated.
6 Int. Women, 3 are rated.
2 Juniors, both are rated.
I think only the women were sub 800 ratings. Wouldn't that be enough to generate ratings?
Wonder if Paul knows anything about it... maybe there was a problem with the report... :huh:
QuoteHow many players are needed to generate ratings?
Anyone playing short tees at the Prairie Open doesn't have a rating for it, so I did a count.
We had 10 ADV Masters (who got rated for their first round from the pro tees), all 10 are rated. 33 Int. Men, 16 are rated.
6 Int. Women, 3 are rated.
2 Juniors, both are rated.
I think only the women were sub 800 ratings. Wouldn't that be enough to generate ratings?
In order to be a ratings generator you have to have a certain number of rounds in the data base. I think it's around 10 or 12. So even though those people had ratings, maybe they weren't ratings generators.
You need at least 10 people above 799 who have at least 10 rounds in. These people are called "propagators".
http://www.pdga.com/documents/04RatingsGuide.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/04RatingsGuide.pdf)
There was only one rating propagator in Intermediate and only 7 in Adv master. This is a problem with the trend that more and more TDs are not running their lower divisions PDGA sanctioned. Even though there are still some such as the Prairie Open and the Illinois Open Series, it doesn't allow the lower divisions enough chances to get in their 10 rated rounds so that they become propagators.
Since the courses that we are running the IOS on only have one set of tees, you are very likely to get rated off those rounds. Hopefully this will help get the Intermediates some more propagators.
QuoteThere was only one rating propagator in Intermediate and only 7 in Adv master. This is a problem with the trend that more and more TDs are not running their lower divisions PDGA sanctioned. Even though there are still some such as the Prairie Open and the Illinois Open Series, it doesn't allow the lower divisions enough chances to get in their 10 rated rounds so that they become propagators.
Since the courses that we are running the IOS on only have one set of tees, you are very likely to get rated off those rounds. Hopefully this will help get the Intermediates some more propagators.
Also, since we run Am Masters and Pro 2 on Saturday we are more likely to have sufficient propagators. Am Masters on a percentage basis are more likely to join the PDGA than Intermediates and are more likely to be propagators too. Ditto the Pro 2s. These players plus the four or five propagators in intermediate provide ratings for all of the other members.
QuoteThere was only one rating propagator in Intermediate and only 7 in Adv master. This is a problem with the trend that more and more TDs are not running their lower divisions PDGA sanctioned. Even though there are still some such as the Prairie Open and the Illinois Open Series, it doesn't allow the lower divisions enough chances to get in their 10 rated rounds so that they become propagators.
Since the courses that we are running the IOS on only have one set of tees, you are very likely to get rated off those rounds. Hopefully this will help get the Intermediates some more propagators.
it's a double whammy for the 'non-propagators' as well, since (if I understand it correctly) they won't be any closer to 10 rated rounds if these rounds weren't rated. :blink: . Luckily this situation didn't arise at last year's Prairie Open.
This strikes me as an Oversight. Where's the Oversight Director?
As I've whined about before, this situation wiped out my best-ever back-to-back tournament rounds a couple of years ago, leaving me with a one-round rating based on the 3rd crash/burn round at a course that had enough 'propagators'
<_<
QuoteQuoteThere was only one rating propagator in Intermediate and only 7 in Adv master. This is a problem with the trend that more and more TDs are not running their lower divisions PDGA sanctioned. Even though there are still some such as the Prairie Open and the Illinois Open Series, it doesn't allow the lower divisions enough chances to get in their 10 rated rounds so that they become propagators.
Since the courses that we are running the IOS on only have one set of tees, you are very likely to get rated off those rounds. Hopefully this will help get the Intermediates some more propagators.
it's a double whammy for the 'non-propagators' as well, since (if I understand it correctly) they won't be any closer to 10 rated rounds if these rounds weren't rated. :blink: . Luckily this situation didn't arise at last year's Prairie Open.
This strikes me as an Oversight. Where's the Oversight Director?
As I've whined about before, this situation wiped out my best-ever back-to-back tournament rounds a couple of years ago, leaving me with a one-round rating based on the 3rd crash/burn round at a course that had enough 'propagators'
<_<
The solution lies with the people: DO NOT PLAY PARTIALLY UNSANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS. If intermediates who want ratings just refuse to play the events that go half unsanctioned, and send nice e-mail to the TD telling him that they look forward to playing it next year if he decides to offer their division in the sanctioned tournament, the TDs will change their opinion of sanctioning the lower divisions, there will be more ratings generators, and everyone will get ratings.
There is a reason why TDs go unsanctioned for half the tournament. Ask anyone who played that recent Illinois tournament that was half unsanctioned where the TD paid the top four of 30-some intermediates.
QuoteThe solution lies with the people: DO NOT PLAY PARTIALLY UNSANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS.
But in the case of the Prairie Open, both days *were* sanctioned.
If I understand the process correctly, if the same combination of propagators/non-propagators were to play in another sanctioned tournament the next weekend, and (theoretically) every weekend for the rest of the year, none of the tournaments would have rated rounds!!?!
Sounds like part of the solution lies in tweaking the system; couldn't the scores be rated against the last SSA for the course or something?
QuoteQuoteThe solution lies with the people: DO NOT PLAY PARTIALLY UNSANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS.
But in the case of the Prairie Open, both days *were* sanctioned.
If I understand the process correctly, if the same combination of propagators/non-propagators were to play in another sanctioned tournament the next weekend, and (theoretically) every weekend for the rest of the year, none of the tournaments would have rated rounds!!?!
Sounds like part of the solution lies in tweaking the system; couldn't the scores be rated against the last SSA for the course or something?
The problem with the Prairie was that the propagators did not play the same tees as the non-propagators. If you have multiple tees that is another consideration. However, Bruce's theory is correct. The more sanctioned tournaments they play the more of them will be propagators. Although it could happen that every tournament they play they all play together and they play different tees or different days than the propagators, the fact remains that they will NEVER get rated off a non-sanctioned event. Many tournaments play the same tee pads with enough propagators to get rated.
You can't go off a course's SSA because of changing conditions. Also a course like Prairie View probably has several SSA's because of all the basket locations. The PDGA isn't not in a place where they can track all the various conditions and course variations. An organization would need a paid staff to do that.
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe solution lies with the people: DO NOT PLAY PARTIALLY UNSANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS.
But in the case of the Prairie Open, both days *were* sanctioned.
If I understand the process correctly, if the same combination of propagators/non-propagators were to play in another sanctioned tournament the next weekend, and (theoretically) every weekend for the rest of the year, none of the tournaments would have rated rounds!!?!
Sounds like part of the solution lies in tweaking the system; couldn't the scores be rated against the last SSA for the course or something?
The problem with the Prairie was that the propagators did not play the same tees as the non-propagators. If you have multiple tees that is another consideration. However, Bruce's theory is correct. The more sanctioned tournaments they play the more of them will be propagators. Although it could happen that every tournament they play they all play together and they play different tees or different days than the propagators, the fact remains that they will NEVER get rated off a non-sanctioned event. Many tournaments play the same tee pads with enough propagators to get rated.
You can't go off a course's SSA because of changing conditions. Also a course like Prairie View probably has several SSA's because of all the basket locations. The PDGA isn't not in a place where they can track all the various conditions and course variations. An organization would need a paid staff to do that.
I understand all of that, but there still should be some sort of safety net. In my previous situation there were only about 10 players that day, but good grief, there were over 50 players on Sunday at Parkside!?
If the major attraction of playing in/running a sanctioned event is to provide officially rated rounds and you don't get them, I can understand the argument of not bothering with sanctioning after all.
(...."well, if you don't like it, just play Open....." :P )
No one should misinterpret this as a knock on the Prairie Open whatsoever; my displeasure here is directed at a hole in the rating system ;)
Thanks to Jon and Bruce for explaining everything.
I understand what happened, but I'm with Damon on this one. It sucks.
Those were my two best tournament rounds so far and now they don't count towards my rating. (Of course in Steve's case, it was literally his best round ever).
I've played a few since, and I'll play more, but it's going to take me even longer to reach 10 now. (I'm figuring I would have been at 8 by the end of the year if I could the 2003 Prairie Open). And if Mad City Ams turnout was any indicator, I won't be getting a rating from that tournament either.
Ah well, as Bruce said it's a good reason to push for more sanction Int. tournaments(and hope they have enough propagators).
Does the PDGA ever "retro-rate" events? What I mean is, let's say in 6 months there are 10 guys who played the Prairie Open who have become generators. Are they able to go back and use those guys to calculate ratings?
QuoteIf the major attraction of playing in/running a sanctioned event is to provide officially rated rounds and you don't get them, I can understand the argument of not bothering with sanctioning after all.
That theory is self fulfilling.
QuoteDoes the PDGA ever "retro-rate" events? What I mean is, let's say in 6 months there are 10 guys who played the Prairie Open who have become generators. Are they able to go back and use those guys to calculate ratings?
They don't do that for the same reason that they don't include events where the TD has taken an extremely long time to submit the results. Some people's skills change at such a quick rate that rating a tournament that took place 6 months ago with data from today would give inacurate results.
I do understand what you are saying Damon, but the answer is in having more fully sanctioned tournaments. I don't think the answer is to then not sanction everything. Half of the problem with getting the lower divisions sanctioned is that a lot of them are new and they don't have 10 rounds in the data base. The other half of the problem is that TDs are choosing not to sanction their lower division days. We have control over the second part. If those of us in the lower divisions don't play in half sanctioned events and we tell the TDs why we are not playing in it, then they may start to run more fully sanctioned events.
QuoteI do understand what you are saying Damon, but the answer is in having more fully sanctioned tournaments.
In the long-term, I completely agree. My point is that something needs to be adjusted in the system. If you play in a sanctioned tournament you should expect to have your scores rated, and there's absolutely no guarantee that you will - ever. To me that's a fundamental flaw.
QuoteQuoteI do understand what you are saying Damon, but the answer is in having more fully sanctioned tournaments.
In the long-term, I completely agree. My point is that something needs to be adjusted in the system. If you play in a sanctioned tournament you should expect to have your scores rated, and there's absolutely no guarantee that you will - ever. To me that's a fundamental flaw.
To get acceptably reliable ratings, there has to be a sufficient number of propagators. So long as your potential propagators are playing unsanctioned tournaments, you will have this problem. We cannot generate reliable ratings just going with Jon and a couple of other guys.
On behalf of the MDGO let me be the first to apologize for creating the concept of partially sanctioned tournaments. At the time that we created this concept the PDGA was doing NOTHING for intermediates and recreationals other than collecting the sanctioning fee and saying "Thank you very much." At that time it made more sense to keep that money in the players' pockets. Now Intermediates and Recs get points and ratings -- they did not back then -- and it makes more sense for them to join and pay their $2 and $3 fees.
The solution lies with the players. Call or write your TDs and ask them to fully sanction their events. Don't play a lot of unsanctioned stuff. Play the Illinois Open Series!
I should add, you also see this problem when the TD does a lot of different tee assignments for different divisions. Women and juniors rarely get rated rounds when they are on short tees with the recs but everyone else is playing longs.
Some TDs understand this stuff and plan accordingly. At Flip I asked my women and juniors, "Do you want your second round rated, or would you rather play the short tees? For ratings you have to play longs." They chose shorts. Then I had to follow up with the PDGA after they did not rate the women and juniors at all and point out that they could be rated on round 1.
Wow, Kelsey shot an 837 round from middles.
On an unrelated front, someone tell the rest of the Intermediate pool that I did what was necessary to get Leeds out of Intermediate. Leeds had a junior girl rated round suppressing his rating, but he had taken 12 or 16 penalty strokes for showing up late for the round. I pointed it out to the ratings committee and they said that there was nothing they could do. So I asked them to look at the IOS #1 results and think about whether they might be able to do something that was entirely beyond their power and authority. :rolleyes:
QuoteQuoteIf the major attraction of playing in/running a sanctioned event is to provide officially rated rounds and you don't get them, I can understand the argument of not bothering with sanctioning after all.
That theory is self fulfilling.
Virtually everything about tournament attendance is self-fulfilling and circular. Which is so frustrating because I don't know how to get that wheel spinning.
Why does the A3Disc Ace Race have huge ace pots? Because everyone goes. Why does everyone go? Because of the huge ace pots!
Why does the Bowling Green Open give the advanced player a better shot at getting into Worlds or USADGC than any other tournament? Because so many players play it. Why do so many players play it? Because it is your best shot at qualifying for Worlds or USADGC if you can't play a lot of tournaments.
If 66 advanced ams were to show up for the Illinois Open #2, the winner would get $345, enough to go home with a Chainstar and a few discs. The 66th will show up if he is convinced that 65 are showing up. That's why I drove all the way to Bowling Green!
How do you get that wheel spinning?
don't worry about that leeds dude. i don't think he's going to play intermed. at CL anyways. He's not THAT much better than the intermediate pool either. As far as getting the wheel spinning, maybe u should try to hand out flyers that advertise the Illinois Open Series. Just a thought. Did you guys even make up any IOS flyers????
QuoteAs far as getting the wheel spinning, maybe u should try to hand out flyers that advertise the Illinois Open Series. Just a thought. Did you guys even make up any IOS flyers????
I dunno. I think this is the most poorly advertised tournament series evah. EVAH!!! :P
Working on getting a D-teir or something at Parkside where we use the same set up with the short tees and it might be able to give a rating for the Priare open ams... might..
Damon,
Unfortunately the only reason the Adv. Masters got a rating for the first round from the long tees is because the PDGA assumed that it was the same setting as the Pro's played. All of those ratings are bogus since we played easier basket settings than the Pro's played. If you inspect the ratings compared to the Pro's you will find the same rating for the same score.
Dennis
QuoteDamon,
Unfortunately the only reason the Adv. Masters got a rating for the first round from the long tees is because the PDGA assumed that it was the same setting as the Pro's played. All of those ratings are bogus since we played easier basket settings than the Pro's played. If you inspect the ratings compared to the Pro's you will find the same rating for the same score.
Dennis
Hi Dennis:
Yeah, I noticed that; but I'll never tell... :P sorta makes up for the 2nd round not getting rated at all.
Hmm, dropping down to an even worse Rec rating wasn't exactly what I had hoped for this summer...
Hopefully when Fairfield and the Blast are added next time it will bring it up a little.
Yaaay, I can retain my rec status for a little while longer.
Jon Brakel's rating suggests that he should try out for the all PDGA precision bagging team! 874? Rec and proud! :D :rolleyes: :lol: :P ;) :blink: 8)
Kiralyn wins Most Improved in the Brakel Division. She went up 26 points. Kelsey "only" went up 20 points. Kelsey would have been up 30 if Worlds scores had gotten fixed for the girls. Kira, I did not calculate for Worlds adjustments, but she probably still would have won Most Improved.
Up 13 points this update. Good to see that Crystal Lake & Streamwood Saturday events got rated!
Eric Doty & Todd Fanning, 1st & 2nd Overall IO Series, Welcome to Advanced :D .
After looking at the ratings, we are getting more ratings generators playing our Saturday events. It will make it easier to get ratins off these events if players continue to show.
I can still play the White Division (899) :D
QuoteUp 13 points this update.
me too. B)
may not last through the next update though.
Quote...Good to see that Crystal Lake & Streamwood Saturday events got rated!
It took a face to face meeting at Worlds and then some follow-up e-mails. I was fairly confident we'd get it rated but didn't want to make any promises. I'm glad it worked out.
QuoteJon Brakel's rating suggests that he should try out for the all PDGA precision bagging team! 874? Rec and proud! :D :rolleyes: :lol: :P ;) :blink: 8)
I would have thought that dropping my other Sturgeon round would have bumped me up past 874. Guess I still suck! :P
QuoteQuote...Good to see that Crystal Lake & Streamwood Saturday events got rated!
It took a face to face meeting at Worlds and then some follow-up e-mails. I was fairly confident we'd get it rated but didn't want to make any promises. I'm glad it worked out.
hope there's as much confidence about the Saturday Blast.... (I'll need it to offset the odors I produced at IO #3 <_< )
QuoteQuoteQuote...Good to see that Crystal Lake & Streamwood Saturday events got rated!
It took a face to face meeting at Worlds and then some follow-up e-mails. I was fairly confident we'd get it rated but didn't want to make any promises. I'm glad it worked out.
hope there's as much confidence about the Saturday Blast.... (I'll need it to offset the odors I produced at IO #3 <_< )
Damon,
I've already started the discussion process with the PDGA. I included it in my TD Report, talked to Brian, & have e-mailed the ratings committee. I'm hoping they will rate Saturday but like Jon said, I can't make any promises. I will do everything I can to make it happen. We are starting to grow a bigger PDGA playing base around here & many of our Saturday players are almost generators. Keep your fingers crossed.
How many rounds do you need to have in the system before you're a generator?
QuoteHow many rounds do you need to have in the system before you're a generator?
It's either 8 or 10 but I think it's 10. Bruce knows.
Sucks. I probably won't be a generator until 2005 then.
Surprised to see my rating firmly stuck in the Red range. I was expecting to drop down into the 775 range. Hate to see the way I've played at the last 4 events get rewarded. What a mess. :)
I'll be even more excited when my DFL at the Blast gets added (or is that deducted?) to my rating so it plummets to an even 850. *joy* Is there anything better than going to a course you've played dozens if not hundreds of times and shooting 15 strokes over par? :angry: Was it the OB? Nope, only hit the rope once on one hole. Water? Nope, stayed dry. Trees? Not really, one tree. Was it...me? You betcha. I stunk that course up! :lol:
I worked it out, and I think Chris Heenen's score from Sunday beat my DFL on Saturday by 42 strokes. Wow. I know he's a pro and all, with a 1000+ plus rating, but a 42 stroke difference? Ouch. Is it 5 points = 1 stroke or 10 points that equals a stroke? Either way...ouch. :blink:
But at least I'll have my best finish to date from Parkside added in, so that will balance out my DFL. Oh wait...crap. No it won't. D'oh... :unsure:
Sure am looking forward to Widdershins! Hopefully I can find where-ever I left my game before then...
Its 1 stroke = 10 points, steve.....
actually 1 stroke at bevier will be worth more than 10 points since the SSA will be less than 54. (its an under par course)
i can't wait for the next update :lol: then last year's blast will be outside my 12 month window and those rounds will be dropped. if i don't play at all until then (actually i'm playing at least 3 tourneys) i will go over 930. i just wish the results from sinnissippi (July 4!) would get turned in. what the heck. that was probably my highest rated tournament of the year and of course thats the one that won't get turned in by the TD <_< i need every point i can get to catch up with comincioli who is frickin 16 points ahead of me now!!!!!!!!!!!
i'll catch back up dude :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
I just wanted to say that I'm really let down by the PDGA and the rating system. I play tournaments so that they will affect my rating. However, both Tower Ridge and Parkside do not factor into my rating because not enough rated people played the course set up that I did. I would have liked to known that before I wasted $60+ on the entry fees. It's not like these tournaments were a low tier, both events were Wisconsin Tour events.
One other thing about the rating system, people don't adhere to it and most TDs don't enforce it. It should be uniform through out all sanctioned tournaments, that TDs either use the ratings to dictate your lowest division or not have them factor in at all. This would eliminate surprises when signing in at a tournament.
If we had more organization at the top, the PDGA would become a more respectable organization and not stereotyped as pot smoking hippies. Instead of wasting money last year on the advertising firm, they should have contracted a computer programmer and devised program that allowed for your rating to be updated once the TDs entered the results in to the system. This would make things a lot easier for the volunteers that now have to put in extra time to do all the rating and tournament updates. Furthermore these volunteers could have more time to focus on the development of the game and guiding the future of the PDGA.
Now I know that whoever reads this is probably going to say, that I should get involved more with the PDGA. To which I will reply, I am not the person who decided to volunteer and run for positions. These people knew what the position would entail and should not have run if they could not fulfill the job.
Anyway, thanks for letting me rant, I feel much better now.
The rant that I had is not because of this update and my drop in ratings, I knew that the drop was coming and that I am the only one to blame for my crappy play. I've had these issues since last update when my tournaments did not count on my rating.
Brian,
I totally understand how you feel. I'm battling trying to get the Saturday event at Bevier rated for the PDGA members. The weren't enough propegators but Sunday weather conditions were identical so it could work. I wish we had done the Blast 1 day but no one can predict how many players will show. Had 91 players showed, 1 would have been turned away. I totally agree, I have no clue why they can't have the ratings updated immediately when entered into the computer.
i would agree with brian. i think that they should find a way to rate everyone who plays in a sanctioned event and has paid their PDGA dues. a rating is supposed to be one of the privileges that comes with getting a membership. i know its frustrating to me to play in a tournament that never has its results turned in. i can imagine being much more frustrated if the results were turned in but did not count. just cuz u don't play advanced or pro doesn't mean u aren't entitled to the same privileges once u have paid ur money.
i definitely agree with the idea that the ratings updates need to be automatic also. the current system seems ridiculous. i think this is something that will inevitably happen, hopefully sooner rather than later.
also, what action does the PDGA take if a TD fails to turn in a TD report? i'm sure bruce and jon know :D
QuoteOne other thing about the rating system, people don't adhere to it and most TDs don't enforce it. It should be uniform through out all sanctioned tournaments, that TDs either use the ratings to dictate your lowest division or not have them factor in at all. This would eliminate surprises when signing in at a tournament.
Brian,
At our tournament this year we had posted what ratings could play what divisions & we check every players rating to make sure players are playing in the correct division or higher. We did not have any problems with players trying to cheat the system.
Quotealso, what action does the PDGA take if a TD fails to turn in a TD report? i'm sure bruce and jon know :D
I just read some recent discussion on the PDGA Board about this. Sounds like they downgrade the tournament for the next year or don't allow it at all.
Also, I don't know this for a fact but I think some TD was suspended this year from running PDGA events. He however has another person that has signed up to take over these events & he still runs them.
QuoteBrian,
I totally understand how you feel. I'm battling trying to get the Saturday event at Bevier rated for the PDGA members. The weren't enough propegators but Sunday weather conditions were identical so it could work. I wish we had done the Blast 1 day but no one can predict how many players will show. Had 91 players showed, 1 would have been turned away. I totally agree, I have no clue why they can't have the ratings updated immediately when entered into the computer.
I got my 10 rated rounds in this summer, so I should count as a propegator now.
At least I met that goal.
thats propagator, not propegator. i just want to stop the propagation of this propegation error originated by CE Valk.
i called in sick today.
It's good to hear that people agree with me. I think that more events should be ratings based, if the system can become more up to date. This way it will keep people with a 927 rating out of intermediate and in advanced where they should play, I'm sure that there are other examples that everyone knows of.
Brian, I completely agree with your sentiments, but your concerns should be addressed to the PDGA, not organizers like at Parkside and the IOS/Discontinuum. There's a hole in the system - by playing (and paying for) a sanctioned tournament you should be *guaranteed* rated rounds (for better or worse <_< ), but the system is controlled by the PDGA; the organizers are doing the sanctioning in "good faith".
I know that these concerns have been addressed to the "Central Scrutinizers" (quick, somebody identify that reference); what progress has been made, someone else would have to say.
Brian,
I understand your frustration as I have been frustrated with the ratings system as well at times. There are several situations that contribute to this problem.
1) Many events do not run their Rec/Am days sanctioned. Many events will get enough ratings propagators but because they are not sanctioned they don't count. This has an affect on some of the lower turn-out events that are sanctioned. Because these other popular events are not contributing to making Rec/Ams propagators, there aren't enough propagators in the Rec/Am fields at the lower turn-out events. My only suggestion here is that if you are a Rec/Am rated player, don't play the events that are unsanctioned for your ratings appropriate division.
2) Some events do not have all divisions playing on the same tees at the same time. You should talk to the TD about the tee configurations. If you have a chance ahead of time, ask the TD before the tournament. If he/she hasn't made score cards yet he might be willing to run everyone on the same tees so that there is a better chance everyone will get rated.
3) TDs that know they are going to have a problem getting their tournament rated, need to talk to the PDGA. Sometimes they will use the propagators that are available. Sometimes they can use the upper division day to get the numbers. Events that don't have enough propagators will be automatically NOT included in the ratings unless the TD takes proactive action to get them included.
I do not think that every PDGA member who plays a PDGA event should get a rating without exception. The minimum number of propagators is pretty much at the edge of mathmatically significant numbers to make a rating that means anything. A rating based on 4 or 5 propagators is likely to mean almost nothing mathmatically. In order to keep the ratings significant it is important that only valid ratings are included in the process.
While rating a round with just a few propagators, or no propagators at all, will give you valid ratings of how those players played that day compared to each other (basically what I did with the safari events in 2003), it will not give you ratings that are valid compared to people who did not play the event. You need the propagators to tie in the rest of the players to the rest of the disc golf world.
Brian,
Please keep in mind that we are still in the early stages of the ratings system and every event that is rated is making more propagators. The more propagators that are made, the more events that will be able to be rated automatically in the future. TDs are also still learning about how ratings work and when their events will get rated. Many TDs are still not educated about how their tee choices effect ratings. Many TDs still think that their Rec/Am players don't care about PDGA sanctioning and ratings.
These are some of the obsticles in the way of rating all PDGA events.
Jon & I have discussed this before...
Quote...every event that is rated is making more propagators. The more propagators that are made, the more events that will be able to be rated automatically in the future.
But if there aren't enough propagators, the event or round isn't rated, even if it's sanctioned, and the non-propagators are no closer to propagatoriosity than they were before the sanctioned event. There's neither a chicken nor an egg here.
That's why I think that having any "gators" at all in the pool should be sufficient to get rounds rated; even if they're inaccurate they'll drop out of a player's history eventually.
Quote... My only suggestion here is that if you are a Rec/Am rated player, don't play the events that are unsanctioned for your ratings appropriate division.
the spirit of the 'boycott' is fine, and in the reeeeal long term this would solve the problem, but I can understand where there'd not be a lot of incentive, given that you may not get rated even if you do play a sanctioned tournament unless some of this stuff gets fixed.
If you really want a rating, I'd say the most reliable way is to donate to a few Advanced pools :P unless you find that rare tournament where all divisions are playing on the same day. Seems a bit expensive, although theoretically it will improve your game...
I think the PDGA needs to find a way to make it work. They have paid members that want ratings. Boycotting events does no one good. Had I been in running the Blast from the beginning, I would probably go back & do it as a 1 day so everyone was assured a rating for the event.
i agree. even if there aren't enuf propogators, the PDGA has to find a way to come up with some sort of rating for a player who has payed his dues. it may not be an exactly accurate rating, but it will be better than nothing. i feel it is their responsibility, not the TD's or the player's.
Quote
But if there aren't enough propagators, the event or round isn't rated, even if it's sanctioned, and the non-propagators are no closer to propagatoriosity than they were before the sanctioned event. There's neither a chicken nor an egg here.
It's not that there aren't enough propagators anywhere. They just aren't at all tournaments on all days. There are plenty of saturday tournaments where there are enough 'gators. Given that we are still fairly early in the ratings process 'gators in some divisions are still being developed. That process isn't instantaneous, but will in time, take care of itself.
Quotei agree. even if there aren't enuf propogators, the PDGA has to find a way to come up with some sort of rating for a player who has payed his dues. it may not be an exactly accurate rating, but it will be better than nothing. i feel it is their responsibility, not the TD's or the player's.
I disagree. If the current ratings system gives us a rating that is plus or minus 5 ratings points (my guess), then would you want a system that gives a rating that is plus or minus 50 ratings points? We would then have a ratings system that is absolutely meaningless.
I have not run the statistical analysis necessary but I'm guessing that our current ratings system is accurate to within 5 ratings points. It might be more accurate than that. The more non-'gators you allow to be temporary 'gators the less accurate the rating becomes. The ratings system already gets flack from some people who don't think it is accurate enough.
Since the course SSA plan became unmanageable given the number of volunteer man hours that the ratings project has at it's disposal, the only course of action is to continue to use the propagators to generate ratings.
If you have a plan that would be accurate, make more tournaments rateable and can be implemented by the available volunteer staff, then you should submit it to the PDGA or to Chuck Kennedy. It is fine to think that PDGA members deserve to get a rating for every event, but we can't just snap our fingers and make it happen. People who know more about statistics than I do have figured out this rating system. If someone out there knows more or has better ideas, step up...we need you!