http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/06PlayerDivisionsGridFinal.pdf
I have contacted the PDGA about a few issues concerning ratings and bumping up divisions. Plans have not been finalized yet for 2007 but they are looking into setting a certain number of rated rounds to determine what division a player has to play.
For example. We have had several players over the last year play 915 golf or above during their first sanctioned event. They have received a rating off this event and have to play Advanced until the next ratings update. So if the PDGA starts this rule in 2007 a player rated above 915 off 2 rounds would continue to play Intermediate or Rec until they have 4 rated rounds.
I really think this is fair. I remember my first 2 rated rounds had an average of 951 and my first rating was 951. I was defintely not a 951 rated player at the time. I came back to earth when the next update came out and I was rated 917. It didn't allow me to play intermediate but in many cases it will.
I was also informed that they were not at this point looking to update ratings more frequently or looking to update ratings as TD reports come in. They are going to stick to the same time frame at this point.
Speaking of ratings, I have a question. I'm new to the whole tournement scene, and I'll be playing in my first tourney on sunday. I was just wondering how to figure out the rating of a player or a round that the player shoots.
Quote from: INNOVAtion on August 11, 2006, 04:31:56 PM
Speaking of ratings, I have a question. I'm new to the whole tournement scene, and I'll be playing in my first tourney on sunday. I was just wondering how to figure out the rating of a player or a round that the player shoots.
The PDGA calculates the ratings of PDGA members. Non-members do not have a rating. If you are a non-member you could look at the published ratings for an event and then find someone who shot the same round score as you and see what rating they received for that round.
In general, I know how ratings are calculated, but I have a couple of questions:
1.) For each 12 month period, the most recent 25% of rated rounds are counted double. Is that 25% figure rounded up or down? In other words, if one has 10 rated rounds, are the most recent two doubled or the most recent three? If one has only two rated rounds, is one doubled (I think so)?
2.) Scores lower than 2-1/2 standard deviations from one's average are not counted. Does the "average" used include the doubled rounds? If one has 8 rated rounds, is the average calculated on those 8 rounds, or on 10 rounds after doubling the most recent 2?
Ratings are calculated by calculating the average rating of the propagators and the average score of the propagators. From that they figure out whether it was a hard or easy course which determines how many ratings point are awarded or subtracted from the average for scores higher or lower than the average.
When they decide whether to drop rounds, the decision is based on your current rating before new rounds are factored in, so it would include the doubling of the former most recent 25%. The 25% is rounded up to include the fractional round.
Quote from: CEValkyrie on August 02, 2006, 08:45:08 AM
For example. We have had several players over the last year play 915 golf or above during their first sanctioned event. They have received a rating off this event and have to play Advanced until the next ratings update. So if the PDGA starts this rule in 2007 a player rated above 915 off 2 rounds would continue to play Intermediate or Rec until they have 4 rated rounds.
I really think this is fair. I remember my first 2 rated rounds had an average of 951 and my first rating was 951. I was defintely not a 951 rated player at the time. I came back to earth when the next update came out and I was rated 917. It didn't allow me to play intermediate but in many cases it will.
Oddly enough the same thing happened to me. My first event was a 945 rated and I have been there since June until next week when the new ratings come out. Some tournies allowed me to play AM2 and some bumped me up. I'm interested in seeing how adding 18-20 more rounds will affect it all.
Quote from: bruce_brakel on September 08, 2006, 05:17:40 AMWhen they decide whether to drop rounds, the decision is based on your current rating before new rounds are factored in, so it would include the doubling of the former most recent 25%. The 25% is rounded up to include the fractional round.
Thanks, Bruce, but after new rounds are factored in don't they then drop previous rounds that may have fallen below the threshold?
My understanding was that the dropping of rounds only happens to new rounds before they go into your rating. I don't think rounds get dropped retroactively, or that included rounds are dropped later on if your rating goes up.
I could be wrong. All I know is that they have tried to make the formula complicated enough so that no one without access to the formula would know exactly how it works. They've succeeded in that! :D
Quote from: bruce_brakel on September 09, 2006, 08:31:49 PM
All I know is that they have tried to make the formula complicated enough so that no one without access to the formula would know exactly how it works.
I thought your comment was tongue-in-cheek until I found this thread on the PDGA site: Ratings and Std Deviation (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=580580&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)
From the thread: "You can't calculate it precisely because your ratings are maintained in the data file as "differential per hole" (DPH) values for each round. You see your DPH values converted to round ratings but there's some rounding involved. The standard deviation is actually calculated using your DPH values so it's possible you'll be off by a point or two using the published round ratings in regard to whether a round ends up getting dropped or not." and "Even the PDGA and I don't have [access to the player scores database]. Roger is the man." -- Chuck Kennedy
wtf? :huh:
Why are the ratings not updated?
On the PDGA forums Chuck Kennedy said "Some additional corrections must be made so we're waiting for a fourth pass to be run. Posting will be late afternoon at the earliest."
It's on the 9th page of this thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=583964&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1).
Basically, they have to keep tweaking the result until either Barry or Kenny has the highest rating. :o
Seriously, one time last year the ratings were delayed because the dude with the highest rating was someone no one had ever heard of who was not sponsored by anyone. So they had to go find some rounds he played BEFORE HE WAS A MEMBER in order to lower his rating.
This really shouldn't be such a manual process. No wonder they don't want to do it more often.
A lot of the manual process is created by TDs who run different divisions on different tees at one event and then don't properly fill in the TD report. There are quality control mechanisms in the process that identify anomolous tournaments, like ones where the lower divisions shoot 50 points over their rating and the upper divisions 50 points under. So they run the program and it tells them there might be a problem here and then they have to get in touch with the TD and confirm that certain divisions shot different tees or played a different course or played fewer holes.
Some of the manual process is in developing regions that don't have enough gators. It takes gators to make gators, as they say down on the bayou, so for some tournaments the PDGA will try to calculate an SSA on insufficient information to generate ratings to create gators from the mud itself. That is a manual process too.
RATINGS ARE UP
me dumb, see next post.
woah, wtf. I went up!?
Oh, yeah, baby! 943!!! :o
I knew that my 842 rating was going to tank... I was just hoping that I would still be at least 800.
My new rating... 800, woohoo! lol.
AM IV ALL THE WAY!!!
This is how tough the competition is in michigan: in Illinois 943 would be the highest rated Am Master that I saw on the list. In Michigan there are at least six other higher rated Am Masters, including three above 960.
Jon is barely holding on as the second highest rated Brakel. Diana "consolidated" her position as an Advanced woman. Kelsey suffered from a little "profit taking." ;D
Finally broke into the 900s!!! let's hope I stay that way!! next goal 1000!!!! (check this post 5 years from now)
Yeehaw! Still AM II rated! Now that I've stemmed the ratings bleed, let's see if I can shoot better golf. (Can't get MUCH worse) :-[
SIU: Set a more attainable goal! 8)
I'm on "page 2" for the first time ever in Michigan amateur ratings. These guys are so good I don't even know any of them! ;D I mean, if i asked one of them to partner up for Pteam Pteradactyl Doubles they'd say, "Um, if I can't get a partner who isn't crippled and in a wheelchair, um, sure."
Oof. I'm going to have to start practicing just to maintain.
alright, whatever. apparently rockford I had a 904 and 887 rated round. too bad my 844 1st round in Kenosha didn't help to bring me down.
Yeah! I don't t think I'll be the lowest rated guy out on the IOS circuit anymore! There a good number of folk that are moving up. Both Ben and Marie have climbed a division.
It's too bad that manual tweaking process couldn't fix the Streamwood ratings for Sunday afternoon. :P
Quote from: bruce_brakel on September 19, 2006, 02:08:35 PM
This is how tough the competition is in michigan: in Illinois 943 would be the highest rated Am Master that I saw on the list. In Michigan there are at least six other higher rated Am Masters, including three above 960.
So Bruce, regarding the difference in competition between the two states, should I change my address to Chicago or keep it in Michigan in my best interest in qualifying for some of the big events next year? i.e. Am Worlds and Am Nationals
Bruce (or anyone who knows), can you briefly explain "boost factor" and how it applies? Evidently, "boost factor" was supposed to be eliminated this ratings period but was not due to time constraints.
Thanks.
The "boost factor" is not the same thing as juice. It used to be that they dropped your lowest three rounds of twenty regardless. Now they only drop rounds that exceed a certain percentage of your average, something like two standard deviations from average. This gave most players a lower rating, because three low but normal rounds now counted instead of getting dropped. They figured they could even it out by giving everyone a boost of two or three rating points per tournament for about a year. They were supposed to stop boosting this time, but they got too busy to rewrite the program.
Quote from: tacimala on September 19, 2006, 02:49:45 PM
Quote from: bruce_brakel on September 19, 2006, 02:08:35 PM
This is how tough the competition is in michigan: in Illinois 943 would be the highest rated Am Master that I saw on the list. In Michigan there are at least six other higher rated Am Masters, including three above 960.
So Bruce, regarding the difference in competition between the two states, should I change my address to Chicago or keep it in Michigan in my best interest in qualifying for some of the big events next year? i.e. Am Worlds and Am Nationals
For Am Worlds you might want to be in Michigan. Illinois players have been knocking themselves out earning points, and they have been playing the IOSeries with 30 or 40 players in the main three am divisions at every tournament. For Am Nationals you definately want to be in Illinois because if they do any qualifying state by state on ratings, which they might have to with the shorter time frame next year, you want to be in the state with lower rated advanced amateurs. In Illinois, 940 guys go pro. In Michigan, they just began winning prizes in advanced! ;D
Haha well I guess I have to choose which event I most want to play then since I can't change my address to both! Looks like I will have to qualify for one based on points and get a berth for the other.
how do u figure its better to be in MI if you want to earn points? 7 of the top 14 point earning amateurs in the nation are from Illinois. Michigan advanced fields are extremely small every time i look at the results for a B or C tier. Here i'm used to playing in 40-50 player fields every weekend.
note: this post was made by Dan Michler
Quote from: CEValkyrie on September 19, 2006, 04:20:58 PM
how do u figure its better to be in MI if you want to earn points? 7 of the top 14 point earning amateurs in the nation are from Illinois. Michigan advanced fields are extremely small every time i look at the results for a B or C tier. Here i'm used to playing in 40-50 player fields every weekend.
note: this post was made by Dan Michler
It's not better for the earning of points. The address is better for the qualification by points. Worlds invites are done by state. Illinois players will need to earn more points than a Michigan player because Illinois players have been busting butt to get points this year. So if your official PDGA address is in MI you will get an invite to worlds on fewer points.
Quote from: CEValkyrie on August 02, 2006, 08:45:08 AM
http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/06PlayerDivisionsGridFinal.pdf
I have contacted the PDGA about a few issues concerning ratings and bumping up divisions. Plans have not been finalized yet for 2007 but they are looking into setting a certain number of rated rounds to determine what division a player has to play.
For example. We have had several players over the last year play 915 golf or above during their first sanctioned event. They have received a rating off this event and have to play Advanced until the next ratings update. So if the PDGA starts this rule in 2007 a player rated above 915 off 2 rounds would continue to play Intermediate or Rec until they have 4 rated rounds.
I really think this is fair. I remember my first 2 rated rounds had an average of 951 and my first rating was 951. I was defintely not a 951 rated player at the time. I came back to earth when the next update came out and I was rated 917. It didn't allow me to play intermediate but in many cases it will.
I was also informed that they were not at this point looking to update ratings more frequently or looking to update ratings as TD reports come in. They are going to stick to the same time frame at this point.
Going back to this post, Chuck Kennedy posted the following today on the PDGA forums:
"For 2007, we are considering allowing players to play down if their very first rating is based on fewer than 4 rounds so we don't have the new guy/gal having to play Advanced due to a hot 2-round event on their home course. This would be indicated on the member list sent to TDs before events."
Quote from: Jon Brakel on September 19, 2006, 06:22:02 PM
Quote from: CEValkyrie on September 19, 2006, 04:20:58 PM
how do u figure its better to be in MI if you want to earn points? 7 of the top 14 point earning amateurs in the nation are from Illinois. Michigan advanced fields are extremely small every time i look at the results for a B or C tier. Here i'm used to playing in 40-50 player fields every weekend.
note: this post was made by Dan Michler
It's not better for the earning of points. The address is better for the qualification by points. Worlds invites are done by state. Illinois players will need to earn more points than a Michigan player because Illinois players have been busting butt to get points this year. So if your official PDGA address is in MI you will get an invite to worlds on fewer points.
alright i totally didn't get that, but in that case Michigan players do also get a whole bunch of points too. Looking at the page for the top 50 point earners in Michigan, #50 has about 200 more points than IL's #50. IL and MI are pretty much in a class of their own when it comes to that. If you look at the top point earners in the nation list for Ams, its pretty much all MI and IL players at the top.
Because Michigan has about 60% percent more advanced amateurs than Illinois, comparing 50th place to 50th place is not an apples to apples comparison. You would need to compare 50th place Illinois to 80th place Michigan. When you adjust the comparison for the size of the field, it looks like Illinois players are earning about 50% more points than Michigan players. When the PDGA sets state-by-state qualification requirements, the Illinois player is going to need more points than the Michigan player to get into Worlds. Since there is not much time left to earn points, Taylor would be better off with a Michigan address for Worlds. But if he is going that route, he should see if maybe he knows someone in Montana or the Dakotas!
But, if there is a significant ratings element to qualifying for Am Nationals, Illinois advanced amateurs are rated lower than Michigan. Michigan has 60% more total advanced amateurs but it has 170% more advanced amateurs rated 955 and up and it has almost 100% more rated 940 and up. This is because Michigan has 6 or 7 world class stay-at-home pros and a bunch more in the 990s. Our pros are so good, people don't go pro so early. So if ratings play a factor in how Todd does invites for Am Nationals next year, a 940 rating looks a lot better in Illinois than in Michigan.
This year ratings did not qualify many players for USADGC, five from every state who were not otherwise qualified. Next year it won't be a fixed number but a percentage, because qualifying five from Alaska meant that they unwittingly qualified a 749 rated woman. One year everyone rated over 935 qualified. They might have to go back to something like that because of the short time frames to qualify players next year. If they pick a fixed number, one state is as good as another. If they pick a percent of the field, the same percent goes to a lower number in Illinois.
For either, the best strategy is a post office box in North Dakota or maybe Guam.
Are X-Tiers rated? If a tournament is an XB-Tier do you get a rating or just points?
For example, the Pickle Open was an XB tier and was not factored into the ratings.
You just get points for sanctioned doubles events
Quote from: SERG on October 03, 2006, 01:24:58 PM
Are X-Tiers rated? If a tournament is an XB-Tier do you get a rating or just points?
For example, the Pickle Open was an XB tier and was not factored into the ratings.
Pickle Open has been X-tier for as long as I've played it, but 05 was the first year it wasn't rated. Don't know what the deal is.
Why is it an X-tier?
Quote from: bruce_brakel on October 03, 2006, 08:19:27 PM
Why is it an X-tier?
Special rules - there are various 'OB' circles at strategic spots near most baskets. If you land there or go 'normal' OB, your next shot has to be with your off-hand. No stroke penalty. PDGA had no 'issue' with it before this last time, apparently.
Last year they announced in some obscure document that they were no longer going to rate X-tiers, and they were going to limit X-tiers to doubles, match play and team competitions. Maybe they remembered half of that?
Quote from: bruce_brakel on October 04, 2006, 01:45:35 PM
Last year they announced in some obscure document that they were no longer going to rate X-tiers, and they were going to limit X-tiers to doubles, match play and team competitions. Maybe they remembered half of that?
nice of them to hide it.
Quote from: bruce_brakel on September 09, 2006, 08:31:49 PMMy understanding was that the dropping of rounds only happens to new rounds before they go into your rating. I don't think rounds get dropped retroactively, or that included rounds are dropped later on if your rating goes up.
It turns out that previous included rounds that are less than one year old
are dropped if your average goes up.
Quote from: can't putt on December 18, 2006, 06:18:27 PM
Quote from: bruce_brakel on September 09, 2006, 08:31:49 PMMy understanding was that the dropping of rounds only happens to new rounds before they go into your rating. I don't think rounds get dropped retroactively, or that included rounds are dropped later on if your rating goes up.
It turns out that previous included rounds that are less than one year old are dropped if your average goes up.
Yes that is true. And it goes the other way too. If something is currently dropped from my rating because it is over 100 points below my average, but then my average goes down and that round is now less than 100 below the average, it then is no longer dropped. So a round can go from dropped to included, or from included to dropped. And if you have more than 20 rounds in the last year then only rounds from the last year before your most recent rated round are included in your rating.
Another piece of the ratings calculation puzzle, from the PDGA forums:
Quote from: Chuck Kennedy
I checked with Roger and the reason your rating seems higher than it should is the three oldest rounds were on a 24-hole course and are weighted accordingly. No rounds get double weighted with fewer than 8 rounds. Here's the math:
RR H Weight
881 x 18 = 15858
943 x 18 = 16974
946 x 18 = 17028
891 x 18 = 16038
951 x 24 = 22824
997 x 24 = 23928
974 x 24 = 23376
SUM = 144 136026
136026 / 144 = 944.625
(emphasis added)
Maybe in 10 years I'll finally have enough information to know how ratings are actually calculated. >:(
Slowly, still more information on the ratings calculation comes to light:
Quote from: Chuck KennedyThe 2.5SD or 100pt drop calculation is done before double weighting the most recent rounds. So, it's possible to have a regular average of 954 before double weighting to get 963, especially for fast improving players and those with fewer rounds.
This is at odds with what I was told a year and a half ago.
When I was on the board we decided to keep the ratings process obscure so that it would remain the PDGA's thing. Looks like they are succeeding at that at least. This is all you really need to know:
Lowest score gets the prizes. Most fun wins.
Quote from: Top Banana on January 23, 2008, 08:28:38 PM
Lowest score gets the prizes. Most fun wins.
Wiser words have never been written.
I roughed up some ratings for myself at Bowling Green based on last year's SSAs. I'm thinking I shot around 920, 960, 980 and 960, in that order, more or less. The 980 was a pool hot round and one of the 960s was a stroke off the pool hot round so those ratings are probably close. If I shot a 960, Kelsey shot a 960. She tied me that round. :o
My "double weight eight" sanctioned rounds going into the next ratings update will have averaged 945. I guess I can kiss my Intermediate rating goodbye. ;D
Looks like Open Half-In for me at the IOSeries.
I think I'll make IOS #1 my final bow in intermediate. But I could be wrong about the ratings.
I'll play in whatever Saturday division I can play in. It works best for me to play Saturday.
Quote from: Bruce Brakel on January 23, 2008, 08:28:38 PM
When I was on the board we decided to keep the ratings process obscure so that it would remain the PDGA's thing. Looks like they are succeeding at that at least. This is all you really need to know:
Lowest score gets the prizes. Most fun wins.
This is the bit about ratings I'm always trying to remember:
Quote from: Chuck Kenedy, as seen on pdga.comAt least five propagators who are players with at least 800 ratings based on at least 8 rounds on a layout of at least 13 holes. Only three props are needed if the same course layout is played twice under what the TD deems similar conditons in the AM and PM. Plus, if a layout has been played by more than enough props in another round, that same layout could be played again even with no props in another round if the weather remains the same. Their unofficial ratings won't show up online for that round but they will get official ratings when processed.
New ratings are out today. Looks like Maddisen is the most improved Brakel...might be most improved club member. She moved up 38 points.
UP 4 :headbang:
hey cool - up 4! that was unexpected. Still proudly AM4 lol
Down 8 more! Sweet. Down 36 in less than 3 years. Shot 890 golf for 4 rounds at Crystal Lake though, so I've got plenty more dropping to do if I keep playing.
My thousand rated rounds were too high to count so i'm down one and i'm intermediate again! Two of those three statements are true. One is false.
;D
I'm up to 854. No more Novice for me. Which means I can't defend my series title this year. Dave Owens currently is in first for points and is still only 849. :P
Mazel Tov Mike. Other than the second round yesterday, you have been playing really well this year.
I was playing Jekyll and Hyde golf this weekend. Sunday's rounds had a 102 rating point differential. ::)
31 Point Change (Up ;) ). And for some reason it didn't take into account one of my tournaments in April. Does any one know if you can get tournament scores added if the TD made a mistake and didn't add you? Here is the tournament. (I'm Joseph Priest).
http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7482#Open
Thanks guys!
Quote from: paulpriest on June 23, 2008, 01:31:46 PM
31 Point Change (Up ;) ). And for some reason it didn't take into account one of my tournaments in April. Does any one know if you can get tournament scores added if the TD made a mistake and didn't add you? Here is the tournament. (I'm Joseph Priest).
http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7482#Open
Thanks guys!
Click on "Event Info" and that will show you the TDs name and phone number. Call him or click on his name and send him a message and ask him if he knows why you were left off and how you can get back on.
932 yesssssssssssss INT all summer long
down 2.
Quote from: OvEr HaNd AsSaSiN on June 23, 2008, 03:14:44 PM
932 yesssssssssssss INT all summer long
haha man, you play well enough - I bet that you could take on plenty of the guys in advanced
I'm back in intermediate also. Whoa, this gives me an obelisk strategy! ;D
Up 37 points to 879.
Quote from: OvEr HaNd AsSaSiN on June 23, 2008, 03:14:44 PM
932 yesssssssssssss INT all summer long
how the hell are you still under 935...... i pity all of you intermediate players out there...
i paid the pdga off.. lol
how does a person go about getting a 10 or more rating bump when they are updated? I have a real hard time understanding the whole rating system just becouse I see alot of Novice and rec players getting these huge rating bumps (30+) while ADV and PRO USUALLY only go up a few points. The only reason I ask is becouse all my rounds for this rating update were 15+ above my rating but i only went up 3pts? I thought for sure I was going up 8-15 pts. I know patience will pay off but I been playing over my rating for a while and never seem to go up more than a few points.
Justin, your current rating (http://pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=30598&year=2008)is based on the round ratings for the entire 12 months before the update. For you, you have a lot of rounds that are fairly consistently rated round wise. Compare that to say Jesse Cahill (http://pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=33536&year=2008). If you look at his round ratings, you will see a huge change from his first tournament to last. In fact, Jesse's rating is lagging his ability (he probably should be closer to 900). Even if he just throws his current rating for the next two months, his rating will go up again as his early low-800 rounds drop off.
So what do you need to do? Couple of options:
- Practice, practice, practice
- Not play for a year and then play a stellar tournament on your home course. Your rounds that are older than a year from your last round will be dropped.
- Don't get hung up on your rating.
Whatever you do, don't bet against Jesse Cahiill about whose rating will go up more in the September update. :D
please stop with the betting advice :)
In my case, my first sanctioned tourney was last July & I played a few more to end the year. Then picked up a disc about a week before Bowling Green & shot bad there. Since then I have been on a terror, playinga sanctioned tourney almost every weekend & two league night during the week, totally changed up my putting style, spent numerous hours upon hours watching pro clinic videos & applying what I've learned & spending 4 of 5 weekdays at a soccer field practicing in any wind condition. So if my rating & subsequently my skill wasn't improving at a drastic rate with all the work I've put into my game in the past 3 months I'd be a little pissed. I'm pushing for 900+ at the next update to plant me firmly in Int. for next year. & no taking the winter off this time.
For the advice, I would do #1 & #3, forget about not playing a sanctioned event for a year just weigh #3 a little more.
Stop playing for a year is definetly not an option. I didnt realize the ratings went back so far. Those high 800 rated rounds are what are killing me :s-instagib:
I got those ratings from tourneys a few years ago when i was a young hot head who could throw 450ft but couldnt putt. I would throw away a whole tourny after 1 bad hole. When I first started playing tournys I would travel with top Open players and guys who were winning ADV every other weekend. So when we traveled I had to play ADV or Open when ive only been playing for a couple months. I never played REC or Nov which I think was a good thing cuz I think playing with better players is a GREAT way to learn about the game. Im jelouse of the top young players from the south (McBeth Nikko ect.. who have the oppertunity to play great courses with great players on a daily basis. Its hard to become a top rated pro from this area with no where to play or practice every shot you need in your bag.
So do those low rated rounds ever get taking off or are they there for good? I just feel like ive been playing +950 golf for the past year and yet only go up a few points. Ive never really been a person who pays much attention to ratings becouse I know how well I can play, it just sucks that ratings from that long ago still come back to bite me in the a$$
Rounds older than 12 months from your latest official rated rounds are dropped from your ratings. So it is not your 2 year old rounds holding you down. It's just that you have a lot of consistently rated rounds.
In addition to ratings, the PDGA also has rankings. The ranking process is even more mysterious than the rating process. A girl who used to play IOS tournaments is now ranked 27. Barrett is 11th or 12th. I forget. Check it out:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/Rankings/July2008WorldRankings-Women.pdf
Rankings aren't that mysterious. They are actually simpler, no double weighting, no dropping (I think), B tier or better only, and a minimum number of rounds..
The rating part of rankings is simpler but the ranking part of rankings is more complicated. :rolleyes:
Did anyone see that Schweberger's first round at that NC tournament was rated 1107 :o
Quote from: Tenny Schimo on July 28, 2008, 01:34:23 PM
Did anyone see that Schweberger's first round at that NC tournament was rated 1107 :o
Thats deceiving though, because he just had alot of birdies that round compared to the competition.
Why is that deceiving?
Quote from: Dan Michler on July 29, 2008, 06:28:15 AM
Quote from: Tenny Schimo on July 28, 2008, 01:34:23 PM
Did anyone see that Schweberger's first round at that NC tournament was rated 1107 :o
Thats deceiving though, because he just had alot of birdies that round compared to the competition.
That's basically the definition of PDGA ratings. The measured difference between one person's performance as compared to the rest of the competition.
Don't you guys understand Michler's humor yet?
Sarcasm and dry humor are often lost in print unless there is sufficient context. Message boards are usually lacking of this context. Emoticons help, but are often misconstrued.
Quote from: pickax on July 29, 2008, 08:33:39 AM
Sarcasm and dry humor are often lost in print unless there is sufficient context. Message boards are usually lacking of this context. Emoticons help, but are often misconstrued.
Nice post! :P
(see, now THAT'S funny, and I have no idea what I mean!) ;D
Quote from: Jon Brakel on July 29, 2008, 08:50:50 AM
Quote from: pickax on July 29, 2008, 08:33:39 AM
Sarcasm and dry humor are often lost in print unless there is sufficient context. Message boards are usually lacking of this context. Emoticons help, but are often misconstrued.
Nice post! :P
(see, now THAT'S funny, and I have no idea what I mean!) ;D
Hey, are you guys trying to infer that I didn't understand? I represent that. I get things just as much as the next guy. Let me ask him. "Hey, buddy, did you get that?" Well, he said he wasn't listening but he thinks he would have gotten it. Frankly, I am not sure. Maybe I didn't get it. I mean I wasn't offended or anything. Its not like you put a terrorist on the cover of your magaizne did you? No, I didn't think so. I will admit that I am starting to doubt myself since the next guy didn't get it either. I'm gonna stand with him. After all, if we don't stand together we stand alone and I get scared in the dark when I am alone. I know its daytime, but some of you might be reading this at night and it will be dark and I will be alone. The next guy and I stand for the right to not get it. "Right buddy?! What do you mean you didn't get it? I was just trying not to be insulted by humor that you didn't get. I would have gotten it if you hadn't. I'm blaiming you....oh, yeah, well same to you and your mother.. and your dog..." I gotta go. The next guy and I have a few things to work out. I am sure its nothing that a few emoticons couldn't help resolve. :s-redeemer: Wow, without him around all of the sudden I feel so lonely. Now where were we?
Quote from: Chainmeister on July 29, 2008, 09:08:45 AM
Now where were we?
Avoiding work and trying to decide if Dan was funny or clueless.
RE:1100
Buckhorn is a badarss course. They used mixed tee's for that round. I think I shot a 49 from the SHORTS and it was 1008. 39 is just plain silly.
Go to radl.biz -they have a really nice course pictures...
Hole 17 is freakin awesome.
Quote from: can't putt on October 10, 2007, 02:34:59 PM
Another piece of the ratings calculation puzzle, from the PDGA forums:
Quote from: Chuck Kennedy
I checked with Roger and the reason your rating seems higher than it should is the three oldest rounds were on a 24-hole course and are weighted accordingly. No rounds get double weighted with fewer than 8 rounds. Here's the math:
RR H Weight
881 x 18 = 15858
943 x 18 = 16974
946 x 18 = 17028
891 x 18 = 16038
951 x 24 = 22824
997 x 24 = 23928
974 x 24 = 23376
SUM = 144 136026
136026 / 144 = 944.625
(emphasis added)
Maybe in 10 years I'll finally have enough information to know how ratings are actually calculated. >:(
Then again, maybe not:
Quote from: Chuck KennedyWe now calculate your straight rating average and SD after excluding your lowest rated round. Then, multiply that SD by 2.5. If the 2.5SD number is smaller than 100, or 100 is smaller, we subtract the smaller one from the straight rating average. All rounds with ratings lower than that number, including the original one excluded from the average, will be dropped for your final ratings calc which involves double weighting the most recent 25% of rounds.
Note that your rating is retained in our official files not as a number like 946 but a number like 0.3 which is how far your scoring average per hole is greater or less than the SSA. So your math may not match ours due to rounding and truncation operations in the conversion.