Are you in?

Disc golf in Southern California continues to be one of the most enjoyable experiences in the sport. The PDGA National Tour returns to Southern California for 2008. The 2008 Golden State Classic will again be held on the historic disc golf course at La Mirada Regional Park.

Bring the family to enjoy all that Southern California has to offer. The Golden State Classic will follow the Japan Open on the PDGA schedule. If you are traveling home from Japan, this is a perfect stop over on your trip home.

Your entry into this tournament includes three rounds of disc golf on the par 64, Dave Dunipace designed, championship layout at one of the nation�s premier venues.

ONLINE SIGN UP (http://www.active.com/page/Event_Details.htm?event_id=1565733&assetId=e5b6db3 e-440c-452f-9807-128a676468b2)




Wednesday, June 18 Course available for practice
Thursday, June 19 Course available for practice
Check in at the course 10:00am to 5:00pm

Friday hole assignments posted
Friday, June 20 8:00am Round 1 (Staggered Start)

Saturday Tee Times posted (approx 4:30pm)
Saturday, June 21 8:00am Round 2 (Staggered Start)

Sunday Tee Times posted (approx 3:00)
Sunday, June 22 8:00am Round 3 (Staggered Start)
3:30p.m. (approx) Awards

A few more players just signed up...5 USDGC spots up for grabs. This year is a little bit easier to qualify with the date change...

40 people are in, only 104 spots left.

OK. This tournament is in 2 weeks and no one is talking shack! What up?

I heard the only change from last year's layout is hole 1, now it is much longer. Instead of the regular placement, it is now across the path to 2's basket when playing the regular layout. Probably 100' feet longer, and with more OB to deal with.

I heard the only change from last year's layout is hole 1, now it is much longer. Instead of the regular placement, it is now across the path to 2's basket when playing the regular layout. Probably 100' feet longer, and with more OB to deal with.



Don't get me started on having to miss this because of someone LIES, but isn't that going to create issues with Hole 2,3 and 5 in the Golden State and US Masters layout?
No one will see or hear discs coming over the hill on drives and those other 2 tee areas are in the vacinity, plus the basket is in 3's "fairway" in that spot.

I can't believe Dave or Tim would not have thought about those issues. :eek:

This sounds like a message board story to keep the thread active. :D

Look at the map... (http://www.goldenstateclassic-discgolf.com/images/stories/GSC_07Front.pdf) If the rumor is true, it wouldn't affect holes 2, 3, 4, or 5. It would be in the open area between teepads 2 and 5. I'm going up there on Sunday, I'll let you know what Mike says...

Wish I could be there. My favorite layout in SoCal by miles and miles. If I was not teaching in Guadalajara MX I would definitely be there. Play Fun and Have Well! DD

Look at the map... (http://www.goldenstateclassic-discgolf.com/images/stories/GSC_07Front.pdf) If the rumor is true, it wouldn't affect holes 2, 3, 4, or 5. It would be in the open area between teepads 2 and 5. I'm going up there on Sunday, I'll let you know what Mike says...



Dave, I know where the basket is and TRUST me , it will be a logjam as people will be all over those other teepads hyzering their upshots, or the drives will be going longer over the hill blindly at people.
I've ended up down next to #2 teepad SEVERAL times over the years playing there and that was shooting at the ORIGINAL basket.
There WILL BE problems because if nothing else now you'll also have crossing fairways with 1 and 2, unless they change where 2 will tee from.

Keep us posted because I WILL be there for the US Masters and would like to know the GSS layout because it usually is the same.

Thanks,
Keith

Dave, I know where the basket is and TRUST me , it will be a logjam as people will be all over those other teepads hyzering their upshots,



There is a mandatory near the basket, so there will be no hyzering an upshot over 5's teepad, and no one will be bombing hole 2's teepad on their drives.


I've ended up down next to #2 teepad SEVERAL times over the years playing there and that was shooting at the ORIGINAL basket.



I will give you $20 if you can drive from 1's teepad to the teepad for hole 2 in the Golden State layout...You cannot do it. Look at the map closely before you accept my challenge.


There WILL BE problems because if nothing else now you'll also have crossing fairways with 1 and 2, unless they change where 2 will tee from.



There are no crossing fairways, 2's teepad has been changed for awhile now...Look at the map.

I was planning on going to this one, however I won't be able to make it due to 2 good parties that weekend. Someone else can have my spot for the USDGC! :D

Dave, I know where the basket is and TRUST me , it will be a logjam as people will be all over those other teepads hyzering their upshots,



There is a mandatory near the basket, so there will be no hyzering an upshot over 5's teepad, and no one will be bombing hole 2's teepad on their drives.


I've ended up down next to #2 teepad SEVERAL times over the years playing there and that was shooting at the ORIGINAL basket.



I will give you $20 if you can drive from 1's teepad to the teepad for hole 2 in the Golden State layout...You cannot do it. Look at the map closely before you accept my challenge.


There WILL BE problems because if nothing else now you'll also have crossing fairways with 1 and 2, unless they change where 2 will tee from.



There are no crossing fairways, 2's teepad has been changed for awhile now...Look at the map.



Ok - you never mentioned a Mando, that would make a difference.
# 2 tees from the edge of the water up past the Mando lightpole to the basket by the tennis courts for the last 4 years.
I have hit the hillside past the basket and rolled OB, lying ON the #2 teepad twice in the last 2 years. I CAN'T throw it that far, but SEVERAL top players can!
The map I'm seeing from your link is Last years ('07) map, so if there is a new one somewhere posted can you please link it .
Thanks again for rubbing salt into the wound of me not seeing it in person. :D

Are you going to Worlds?

keith

The teepad for hole 2 in the Golden State Layout is about 100 ft past where you are thinking...across the sidewalk and past the drainage ditch...Not going to worlds until it is on this side of the Rockies.

Oh...I almost forgot. There are about 5 more major changes. Entire new holes, evil holes at that...Will post more later.

Is there gonna be live scoring for any rounds in this event?

I can't say for sure, but they usually do live scoring for the 3rd round...

Only 65 spots left

LAKESIDE

Hole 1, par 4:
Same tee, basket 100' longer, across walking path. Mandatory left of tree near basket

Hole 2, par 3:
No change

Hole 3, par 4:
No change

Hole 4, par 4:
Same tee, basket 45' longer

Hole 5, par 3:
No change

Hole 6, par 4:
No change

Hole 7, par 4:
Same tee, basket near gym, basically combining Holes 7 and 8, probably 250' longer

Hole 8, par 4:
Old hole 9, no change

Hole 9, par 3:
Old hole 10, no change

BACKSIDE

Hole 10, par 3:
Old hole 11, no change

Hole 11, par 4:
Hole 6 in the Backside 2006 SoCal Championship layout, basket on island green near hole 12's tee pad. OB right of drainage ditch, and surrounding the island

Hole 12, par 4:
Old hole 13, no change

Hole 13, par 3:
Old hole 14, no change

Hole 14, par 5:
Old hole 15, no change

Hole 15, par 3:
Hole 14 in the Backside 2006 SoCal Championship layout, double mandatory

Hole 16, par 4:
No change

Hole 17, par 4:
No change

Hole 18, par 3:
Added double mandatory near basket

PAR 66

I will be flying back from Mexico the following weekend. I hope the layout is the same so I can check it out. It sounds like the same hole 1 that we played last year at the SoCals. A very nice change from the old version that Keith refers to. I don't see how hole 4 can be made any deeper, the standard GS layout has it pretty close to the sidewalk which borders new hole 1 fairway. I like the combination of holes 7 and 8, now it takes two good shots to snag a three. Early trouble will make you work for a four. The only weak spot is Hole 15 (Righty hyzer bomb). Play Fun and Have Well! DD

I think that's why Vincent was confusing what I wrote.
Socal layout and Golden State layouts were NOT the same.
I was referring to the GS layout, Whuich was the same for the last 4 years for hole 1 & 2 and Vincent, was thinking about Socal layout. Dang youngsters and their faulty memories. :D

I also wondered how 4 can be any longer, there is nowhere to go deeper, right OR left without crossing OB or being in another fairway.
And how short is #2 gonna be if they move it out of the way of #1 basket area, as it was already only around 300 ft as it was.
I'll just have to talk to Tim and get the real story, so I'm ready for US Masters - as it seems Vincent is just totally confused on the 7 different layouts that get played at La Mirada every year and is blending them together. There is no Lakeside or Backside in the GS or US Masters layouts, just 18 continuous holes that have changed somewhat depending on construction, but have still been 18 continuous holes.

See everyone in Sept!

Keith

I think that's why Vincent was confusing what I wrote.
Socal layout and Golden State layouts were NOT the same.
I was referring to the GS layout, Whuich was the same for the last 4 years for hole 1 & 2 and Vincent, was thinking about Socal layout. Dang youngsters and their faulty memories. :D



Please re-read my post, then re-read Devine's post REAL SLOW...Hole 1 is not what you think it is Keith, you have not played this pin setting. You cannot drive the basket from the tee...


I also wondered how 4 can be any longer, there is nowhere to go deeper, right OR left without crossing OB or being in another fairway.



They added a new sleeve just for this layout, just imagine the basket 40'+ closer to 5's tee...



And how short is #2 gonna be if they move it out of the way of #1 basket area, as it was already only around 300 ft as it was.



It is near the same distance, just a different angle. A bit more difficult in my opinion...


I'll just have to talk to Tim and get the real story, so I'm ready for US Masters - as it seems Vincent is just totally confused on the 7 different layouts that get played at La Mirada every year and is blending them together. There is no Lakeside or Backside in the GS or US Masters layouts, just 18 continuous holes that have changed somewhat depending on construction, but have still been 18 continuous holes.



I am not one bit confused, please call Tim if you like...

I will be flying back from Mexico the following weekend. I hope the layout is the same so I can check it out. It sounds like the same hole 1 that we played last year at the SoCals. A very nice change from the old version that Keith refers to. I don't see how hole 4 can be made any deeper, the standard GS layout has it pretty close to the sidewalk which borders new hole 1 fairway. I like the combination of holes 7 and 8, now it takes two good shots to snag a three. Early trouble will make you work for a four. The only weak spot is Hole 15 (Righty hyzer bomb). Play Fun and Have Well! DD



I think this layout is really well designed, 15 will have a double mandatory, not sure of a height restriction though...

Thanks for all the clarifications Cent.

I don't think I will be able to play any practice rounds before my first NT event unless I happen to make it out Thursday. :(
Oh well, sometimes I play better not knowing all the little things that can go wrong. :) Unfortunately I don't know if my first plan of attack is valid until it's too late...
See you out there.

I think that's why Vincent was confusing what I wrote.
Socal layout and Golden State layouts were NOT the same.
I was referring to the GS layout, Whuich was the same for the last 4 years for hole 1 & 2 and Vincent, was thinking about Socal layout. Dang youngsters and their faulty memories. :D



Please re-read my post, then re-read Devine's post REAL SLOW...Hole 1 is not what you think it is Keith, you have not played this pin setting. You cannot drive the basket from the tee...
<font color="blue"> I didn't say what I think it is, I said what IT WAS for all the GS's in the last 4 years, which last year you didn't play. Maybe YOU forgot how the course was laid out, but I don't. 1 WAS on the hill, 2 was by the tennis court teeing from the sidewalk by the water, 3 teed from the sidewalk by the handicap parking AND from the concrete teepad 1 round to the basket in the opposite corner, 4 teed from the sidewalk next to the road to the basket by the path and sidewalk that YOU claim is going to be moved 40 ft closer to #5 tee which would put it on the path as the 10 meter painted circle was on the path. 5 teed from the sidewalk to a basket by the trees uphill, 6 teed from near the road, around the mando down to a basket by the gutter near the lake, 7 teed between the double mando trees to a basket straight ahead and then to the right for a round. 8 teed from near the road to the basket by the gym, 9 teed around the gym to a basket on the slope by the restroom. 10 teed from the sidewalk by the tennis courts to a basket straight ahead with OB splitting it and 18's fairway. 11 teed for the sidewalk to a basket by the OB gully, 12 teed from the OB gully back uphill to a basket around the corner on the slope. 13 teed from the corner in the dirt to a basket at the other side of the park, by the road. 14 teed from the tee pad by the road to a basket by the driveway. 15 teed from the narrow strip of grass next to the road to a basket at the other end of the grass near the main road. 16 you crossed the parking lot and teed from the sidewalk to a basket that was at the end of the baseball field(the fairway was the grass between the ball field and parking lot with sloping hillside) 17 teed from the sidewalk around the other side of the ballfield to a basket near the gully and sidewalk, and 18 teed from the sidewalk splitting the 2 ballfields to a basket around the corner by the tennis courts near the pro shop.
I have a photographic memory of courses I play, so that's why I can call BS on "your" interpretation, because you didn't play GS last year with the major changes due to the pool construction. If they changed it for the Socal Championships, it doesn't matter to me as I didn't play it ,so I don't know the layout(S) they used and am NOT arguing that, just the GS layout. </font>


I also wondered how 4 can be any longer, there is nowhere to go deeper, right OR left without crossing OB or being in another fairway.



They added a new sleeve just for this layout, just imagine the basket 40'+ closer to 5's tee...



And how short is #2 gonna be if they move it out of the way of #1 basket area, as it was already only around 300 ft as it was.



It is near the same distance, just a different angle. A bit more difficult in my opinion...


I'll just have to talk to Tim and get the real story, so I'm ready for US Masters - as it seems Vincent is just totally confused on the 7 different layouts that get played at La Mirada every year and is blending them together. There is no Lakeside or Backside in the GS or US Masters layouts, just 18 continuous holes that have changed somewhat depending on construction, but have still been 18 continuous holes.



I am not one bit confused, please call Tim if you like...
<font color="blue">You are always confused. :D </font>




Keith

****, Keith you can call "BS" and I'll call "GS", and by "GS" I mean GOLDEN STATE...I'm not trying to argue with you, read Devine's post if you can't understand mine. I did not play the GS last year, but I did play it the year before. Hole 1 is MUCH different my friend, in fact all of these changes I mentioned are different from prior years. This layout is not like years past. This layout is not like it was over the past few years. This layout is not the same as previous layouts. I don't know how to say it any different, so wait until the 2008 map comes out, and cross reference it with your flawless photographic memory. This is a new layout...

I never argued with you that it was a "NEW" layout, I argued about hole 2's teepad and hole 4 basket, which you say are going places that are impossible in that park.

It's almost midnite there, you should be resting by now so you can kick [censored] and do better than your 2006 finish :eek:

You'll have to come up to the US masters my freind, and you can show me the course layout so I'll be ready, and I'll buy you a couple of cold ones for your troubles!

Keith

2's teepad is a concrete pad and is already in the ground...Hole 4's new setting is already in the ground...I will do better than I did in 2006...I will show you how to play the layout...I will drink beer with you...It is 12am and I am going to bed...

2's teepad is a concrete pad and is already in the ground...Hole 4's new setting is already in the ground...I will do better than I did in 2006...I will show you how to play the layout...I will drink beer with you...It is 12am and I am going to bed...



I look forward to seeing how you play the course, and I'll have my Pepsi's while you are drinking your beers. :D

Good luck to you next weekend, and play well for your youngster!

Keith

GOLDEN STATE LAYOUT HOLES 1-9 (http://www.goldenstateclassic-discgolf.com/images/stories/GSC_2008Front.pdf)

GOLDEN STATE LAYOUT HOLES 10-18 (http://www.goldenstateclassic-discgolf.com/images/stories/GSC_2008Back.pdf)

GOLDEN STATE HOLE BY HOLE RULES AND DESCRIPTION (http://www.goldenstateclassic-discgolf.com/images/stories/08Rules.pdf)

Hey Dave,

Only 2 holes without a mando, some with 4 mandos.
Maybe they can put Mandos on the last 2 holes somewhere.
Call it the Golden Mando Classic :cool:

Man. Dose Californians like their mandos.

Did anyone see the commercial during the US Open with Torrey Pines with windmills, dinosaurs, giant shoe houses, etc?

It wasn't that funny, but it reminded me of all the artificial OB and Mandos in Disc Golf.

This is a championship level course without the mandatories; with them, it becomes world class...You driving the van? If you leave now, you should make it in time.

sure, you paying for the diesel? it's about 22 CENTs per mile.

It wouldn't make CENTs for me to pay for your gas, carpool with the FRIZZAKS...

Looks like LeBeau is the favorite in PGM.

Good luck this weekend and have FUN!

<font color="green">GO CELTICS! </font>

Only 36 spots left...Tee times as early as tonight, definitely by tomorrow.

I've been told that that par is now 68...

Based on memory, I think these changes are very good. I like the restriction on hole 15 (at least in principle, will have to see it) as I have never been a fan of righty hyzer crush holes. The mandos are primarily for safety reasons, which is fine considering it is a beautiful park with neighborhood streets and non-DG users. They also add the element of accuracy and precision which is naturally enforced by dense trees in other parts of the country.

I had originally hoped to fly in from Guadalajara to play this weekend but my schedule would not allow it. Maybe for the best as my current condition would require porta-potties on every hole, and....ooops, got to run! DD

oh yes, i was looking over the course and figuring it was a few strokes longer than 64.. glad to see it. hole 1 definitely looks like a tough opening par 4!

Any idea if all three rounds will have the same layout or if there will be any changes?

Looks like LeBeau is the favorite in PGM.



Don't coun't out Jeff Nichols, he whooped up on this youngster in a bag tag challenge this weekend and hit all the clutch shots he needed to hit.

oh yes, i was looking over the course and figuring it was a few strokes longer than 64.. glad to see it. hole 1 definitely looks like a tough opening par 4!

Any idea if all three rounds will have the same layout or if there will be any changes?



All round should be the same layout.

I've been told that that par is now 68...



I count 67...I could be wrong.

I've been told that that par is now 68...



I count 67...I could be wrong.



I am wrong. Forgot 18. It's 68

So is it "hole assignments" or is it the traditional Tee Times method for the first round? :confused:

So is it "hole assignments" or is it the traditional Tee Times method for the first round? :confused:


It's tee times.
Does anyone know when and where the tee times will be posted? I'm driving up in the morning and need to know how early I need to leave.

Looks like LeBeau is the favorite in PGM.



Don't coun't out Jeff Nichols, he whooped up on this youngster in a bag tag challenge this weekend and hit all the clutch shots he needed to hit.



Did I say Rick LeBeau? I meant to say Jeff Nichols. BTW, good luck to all you slingers.

last year's winners:
kenny still in japan??

1st Place Open:
Ken Climo

1st Place Open Women:
Valarie Jenkins

1st Place Masters:
Mark Collicott

1st Place Masters Women:
Tita Ugalde

1st Place Grandmasters:
Mark Horn

1st Place Senior Grandmasters:
John Kirkland

Wow, definitely some hot shooting in Masters during the early morning. Will it keep up? Who will shoot the course record today?? DD

it would be cool to see CENT (Dave Vincent) shoot the course record and get on the top card; dont really know him but he gave me a lot of helpful info. for the San Diego area golf scene when my girlfriend and I went to San Diego last month.I think its going to be hard for anyone to hang with Doss or Rico on their home turf.

Thanks for the support, but I went the other direction today...There's always tomorrow.

So who shot the hot round of the day?

I think Carlo did with a 59, but Wisecup and those guys weren't in when I left...

how's the few hole changes cent? improvement?

too bad bobby musick doesn't play much, that kid has talent and used to live right across the street.
he won this a few years back i believe.

So top group in the final round will be Wisecup, Rico, Doss and Colicott. Uh... if only... Nothing like a GM leading a National Tour, eh? :eek: Yeah, baby! Flash of the former Champ? AARP potential sponsor?

What happened to Feldberg???

Apparently the new layout favors Steves. Way to go Wisecup! I think he played Open last year. Maybe his watch stopped fifteen years ago? Gotta love SoCal where grandmasters still got the funk!!

What happened to Feldberg???



?????

I heard something about his knee, and not sure if he started his round today then quit partially through. He was there though today supporting the top womens card.

What happened to Feldberg???



?????

Talked to Crump, who talked to TThe Borg, and he said that his knee was REALLY swollen, and he did not know why, so he DNF'd for the 1st time ever.

Maybe it was switching from a bag of forty 150 discs to forty heavy weight discs so quickly. Not jet lag, but weight lag... :p

Go Cup!!!! This is not the first time Cup has played the course better than the Open Men...

Spin iTT

What happened to Feldberg???



?????

Talked to Crump, who talked to TThe Borg, and he said that his knee was REALLY swollen, and he did not know why, so he DNF'd for the 1st time ever.



&lt;&lt;&lt; was beginning to think that TThe Borg was a machine that never breaks. Hope all is well.

Hopefully not a Tiger Woods injury. Borg will be standing alone as our officially top rated player tomorrow.

Really.......Nice.....good for him.... he has definitely been shooting some HOTT golf in the last year.

Pick it up Neal Dambra!! (Grandmasters division)

Live scoring? If so, where?

Live Scoring:
www.pdga.com/tournament/live.php?TournID=7288 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/live.php?TournID=7288)

Can the pars on each hole get adjusted so the over/under is correct on the live scoring?

Paul McBeth could place well from the 2nd card, any updates?

Stevie and Natron gots a baTTle goin on

Steve Wisecup sets a new record 54 for the new 68 par course. He was already 1 stroke ahead of the Open going in. If this is true, (second hand source), he will have smoked the open who appear to be on a 58 pace.

thanks for the update, Dave.

yea for Cup! one of the nicest Disc golfers you will ever meet..Next to the King MulleTT ..

Spin iTT

Holy Moly! If Wisecup shot a 54 then that should be a three round total that will be pretty darn magnifitasty!!! DD

How did McBeth deuce hole 16????????

Holy Moly! If Wisecup shot a 54 then that should be a three round total that will be pretty darn magnifitasty!!! DD



Turns out he (only) shot a 55. Still magnifitasty and still a record. Avery got on track in the third round with a 57. That is excellent.

How did McBeth deuce hole 16????????



He threw a 500'+ hyzer and made a 30 footer for eagle...

That 1066 round for Cup is in the top 10 alltime for courses in the 60-66 SSA range. It's likely the highest rated round ever by a player over age 49. We'll have to do some research on that one.

The ratings for the entire tournament are ridiculously low...His rating should have been closer to 1090, maybe higher.

Not for a course in that SSA range. Climo shot 50 on a similar course (Hippodrome) for a 1091. If you notice, more players shoot much closer to their ratings the more our courses become as challenging as ball golf courses.

Then there might be something wrong with the ratings system...There are more OB's and mandatories than safe landing areas, so to shoot a 55 means he played nearly PERFECT golf. He deserves a 1100, come play the course then you'll agree.

Who got the USDGC spots?

Pretty sure it was:

*Collicot -20
Alcala -17
Dietrich -16
Pelg -15
*Wilson -15

*Masters division

Then there might be something wrong with the ratings system...There are more OB's and mandatories than safe landing areas, so to shoot a 55 means he played nearly PERFECT golf. He deserves a 1100, come play the course then you'll agree.


All taken into account automatically by the scores players shoot to determine the SSA just like all the OBs at Winthrop. Every course with the exact same SSA produces the exact same rating for the same score. It's been that way from the beginning. No surprises. We could have determined a 55 was going to be about 1066 before the tournament rather than wait to see it. It's hard to understand why people familiar with tournament results year after year always seem so surprised when the numbers come out the same time after time.

What I'm saying is that some courses can produce an 1100 rated round, and some can't, that shouldn't happen. There must be a better way to calculate round ratings, especially on higher SSA courses. I saw the 55, I'm sure it was as good as Feldberg's 1098 at the Memorial...

What I'm saying is that some courses can produce an 1100 rated round, and some can't, that shouldn't happen.


Yes it should and it does. What would lead you to believe that a 4000 foot course should produce the same ratings dispersion as a 10,000 foot course with OB or lots of woods? That's why we track records in 6 shot SSA ranges because we have to. Ball golf has all tournament course ratings that are within about 4-6 shot range so they don't have that issue. If we did that, less than 500 players would have ratings after 10 years and many of them would be outdated.

The key thing is that we've done the data work to show that players at every rating level still average their rating no matter what the SSA of the course is. It's not any tougher to shoot your rating on a 45 SSA course versus a 65 SSA course. That's the validity right there. The fact it's harder to shoot 1100 on 65 SSA courses doesn't matter. BTW, if we had players with 1070 ratings they WOULD be able to shoot an 1100 round on those courses.

We could have determined a 55 was going to be about 1066 before the tournament rather than wait to see it.



What score would have been 1100?

Probably a 50.

-18?

In relation to the par that was set. Probably more like -16 based on SSA.

I can tell you from experience that the Golden State Layout is more difficult than the Vista Del Camino, or Fountain Hills layouts. The Memorial is filled with &lt; 300' holes, there were none at the Golden State...

Anyway...

Tim ran a very nice event with plenty of ice cold water every 5 holes, which was needed in the 105�+ temps. The players party was excellent, the food was by far better than any other player dinner that I've been to. Idaho Jon was on hand to make some good calls, and the spotters were great.

Anyway...

Tim ran a very nice event with plenty of ice cold water every 5 holes, which was needed in the 105�+ temps. The players party was excellent, the food was by far better than any other player dinner that I've been to. Idaho Jon was on hand to make some good calls, and the spotters were great.




:( I wish I could have been there....LaMa has ALWAYS been one of my favorite venues (playing ALOT of different layouts over the yrs) :D

maybe NEXT yr... ;)

I can tell you from experience that the Golden State Layout is more difficult than the Vista Del Camino, or Fountain Hills layouts. The Memorial is filled with &lt; 300' holes, there were none at the Golden State...


No surprise. Fountain is in the 48-54 SSA range for tracking records and Vista is in the 54-60 SSA range for tracking records where Feldberg got his record round. Golden State is in the 60-66 SSA range for records and almost made it to the 66+ range. It's like comparing batting stats between college, Minor leagues and Majors. Batting .350 in each league is still batting .350. However, batting .400 for a season is much easier in college, tougher in the Minors and really tough in the Majors.

In relation to the par that was set. Probably more like -16 based on SSA.



I think the impression for the players is that birdies on easy courses are not the same as birdies on hard courses. Other than getting an ace, you can only birdie. On a short course it's practically a requirement. The SSA tries to take this into account and does on average. However, as the score on a difficult course goes from (Golden State), 60 to 55, you get the same differential credit. But experience tells us that it is way more difficult to get a 55 compared to a 58. This is similar to a bell curve, I believe. It is not an even distribution. Steve Wisecup shot a genius round, but only gets credit for a superior round. On an easy course, even a -18 would not necessarily be genius as there are few opportunities to bogie. On a difficult course, there are not only opportunities to birdie, but also many opportunities to bogie or double bogie.

However, as the score on a difficult course goes from (Golden State), 60 to 55, you get the same differential credit. But experience tells us that it is way more difficult to get a 55 compared to a 58. This is similar to a bell curve, I believe. It is not an even distribution.



ding ding ding! we have a winner!

But experience tells us that it is way more difficult to get a 55 compared to a 58. This is similar to a bell curve, I believe.


But not for players already at that level. If you look at scoring distributions for the disc golf population at large, a 55 on that course is at the far tail of the curve. However, for players who have ratings around 1000, one would expect them to shoot a round over 1050 every 50 rounds or so. If they have a 1035 rating, they have a round at least 1066 every 7 rounds or so. The probability of shooting a particular round rating has nothing to do with the difficulty of the course but the skill level of the player playing the course.

In relation to the par that was set. Probably more like -16 based on SSA.



I think the impression for the players is that birdies on easy courses are not the same as birdies on hard courses. Other than getting an ace, you can only birdie. On a short course it's practically a requirement. The SSA tries to take this into account and does on average. However, as the score on a difficult course goes from (Golden State), 60 to 55, you get the same differential credit. But experience tells us that it is way more difficult to get a 55 compared to a 58. This is similar to a bell curve, I believe. It is not an even distribution. Steve Wisecup shot a genius round, but only gets credit for a superior round. On an easy course, even a -18 would not necessarily be genius as there are few opportunities to bogie. On a difficult course, there are not only opportunities to birdie, but also many opportunities to bogie or double bogie.



Best post on this topic...Chuck, I know it's hard to admit, but Wisecup's 1066 round was much better than Feldberg's 1098, but the rating system will never reflect that.

Apples and oranges. Comparing a great series in the Minors versus a great series in the Majors. Compare two hitters. One hits 9 for 10 and another hits 18 for 20. They both bat .900 but most would feel the 18 for 20 performance is better. Let's say each made one more hit. The first now batted 1.000 and the other "just" .950. Hard to say who hit better...

I thought both were major league events...

Do you think the PGA playing on an Executive par 60 course would be considered "major league?"

The record we have closest to Wisecup's achievement is Kenny's round of 55 rated 1078 on the 2006 Memorial course with an SSA of 67.8, about 2 shots higher than the Golden State SSA this weekend.

Do you think the PGA playing on an Executive par 60 course would be considered "major league?"



By that logic; do you think that an NT should be held on a par 60 course?

If we're talking about a consistent format for our top level series then in theory we should be playing courses only in the 64-68 SSA range which would be our equivalent to the PGA non-major series. Unfortunately, we would have few venues to do them and several of those potential venues aren't where the resources to run them are located. If we had that consistency, then a 54, 55 or 56 would mean about the same thing in terms of hot rounds.

How did McBeth deuce hole 16????????



He threw a 500'+ hyzer and made a 30 footer for eagle...

It was a flex shot probably around 525'+ (pro destroyer) over an OB fence line, around the big leafy mulberry tree and skipped off the street into play and the putt was closer to 40'. Pretty fantastic

I was sitting near the basket, so I couldn't see the initial flight, but Avery tried the same shot and got a birdie.

I wonder if Avery was able to hyzer it the whole way. That would be a safer shot that follows the fairway for most of its flight. In any case, wow

I heard someone shot a 73 with an EIGHTEEN. on a single hole. Do the math, think it was a Par Five Ow.

CRAB!

This question about ratings on high SSA courses has cropped up several times. As I see it the current ratings system, which assumes a linear relation between shots and rating, is based primarily on less demanding courses with SSA &lt; 54. High SSA courses tend to put a premium on skills such as course management, recovery, and decision making that are not tested by traditional low SSA courses. Therefore we should not expect the current system to faithfully capture all of the qualities inherent to a well designed high SSA course. However as long as the round does not deviate too much from the SSA, the current system should work pretty well since it floats on the performances of the competitors.

Problems occur when a round deviates from the norm, especially on a high SSA course that requires good decision making as well as good shot execution. Dave's point about Wisecup's round boils down to the failure of a linear fit between shots and rating for rounds that differ substantially from the norm.

It is a mistake to try and compare ratings for rounds shot on courses with widely differing SSAs at this time, just like it is a mistake to compare rounds of even par at the US Open in ball golf with even par on a standard BG course. However there is a sense that a hot round on a high SSA course should carry more weight than an equivalently rated round at a low SSA course. Maybe that could be factored into the player's rating?

It's factored from the standpoint of their finish position in Open division which then impacts their World Rankings. Remember that all these guys are playing the same SSA course and are subject to the same variances. These guys play more tournament rounds than most on courses over the full range of SSAs and would be the best bellweather if there was a problem where they couldn't shoot their rating.

However, 1030 players do not average any better round ratings on 45 SSA courses versus 65 SSA courses. The only difference is the hot rounds are hotter and the poor rounds poorer on the lower SSA courses. But you don't hear about those "record" low rounds. They are more likely on a low SSA course. If any high rated player shoots a round that will be dropped because it's 2.5SD below their rating, it is highly likely it will be on a course with an SSA under 54, never over 60 SSA.

The type of course has more impact than the SSA which you might expect. That is, a player used to more open courses might have a harder time in the woods on a course with the same SSA as an open course. That difference is greater for some players than their potential to shoot their rating on two courses with similar terrain but one is twice as long as the other.

It's factored from the standpoint of their finish position in Open division which then impacts their World Rankings. Remember that all these guys are playing the same SSA course and are subject to the same variances. These guys play more tournament rounds than most on courses over the full range of SSAs and would be the best bellweather if there was a problem where they couldn't shoot their rating.

However, 1030 players do not average any better round ratings on 45 SSA courses versus 65 SSA courses. The only difference is the hot rounds are hotter and the poor rounds poorer on the lower SSA courses. But you don't hear about those "record" low rounds. They are more likely on a low SSA course. If any high rated player shoots a round that will be dropped because it's 2.5SD below their rating, it is highly likely it will be on a course with an SSA under 54, never over 60 SSA.

The type of course has more impact than the SSA which you might expect. That is, a player used to more open courses might have a harder time in the woods on a course with the same SSA as an open course. That difference is greater for some players than their potential to shoot their rating on two courses with similar terrain but one is twice as long as the other.



I understand that low ssa courses can produce 10 rating points difference for every stroke and high ssa courses only 6 rating points per stroke. What I don't understand is why. Reality tells me that it should be a mix. In other words, high ssa should be 10 rating points on the upside and 6 on the downside. Low ssa courses should be 6 on the upside and 10 on the downside. I never had a problem with the assessment of ratings at the middle. In other words, the starting point of par is assessed properly, in my opinion, it is just the deviation from par that gets skewed when comparing easy ssa to difficult ssa vs rating at either end.

Howdy Chucker

As I stated, the problem is not folks shooting near the SSA or the average round ratings, which the current system should faithfully capture. You would expect a linear fit to work better near the average, regardless of the SSA.

However, as the distance from SSA increases, it is not clear that the points per shot stays the same (linear fit). Speaking statistically, 3 sigma events are much rarer, and hence should not be expected to satisfy the same fit as 1 sigma events near the norm. Swiping an example from physics, at low speeds the air resistance is linearly proportional to v, but it becomes quadratic in v at higher speeds.

My gut feeling is that these non-linear effects become non-negligible as the deviation from average increases, and the non-linear effects are more pronounced for the high SSA courses.

I heard someone shot a 73 with an EIGHTEEN. on a single hole. Do the math, think it was a Par Five Ow.



I shot a 74 with a 12 on that hole! I finished +11 for the entire weekend, with +12 on that hole(14) for the weekend.

I would have flown back from mexico just to see that ;)

So when are we finally gonna get to shoot together ruskill??

I heard someone shot a 73 with an EIGHTEEN. on a single hole. Do the math, think it was a Par Five Ow.



I shot a 74 with a 12 on that hole! I finished +11 for the entire weekend, with +12 on that hole(14) for the weekend.



It was Crabtree, but I "think" it was only a 17 on hole #14 the quadruple mandy par 5. Don't want to make the legend any bigger :-)

From his second shot location, with the angle he had, he tried skipping a bunch of different disc off the street, but the disc all flattened, flexed, skidded or did anything but "hook up."

I think the last few, were probably more frustration with that hole than misplay.

I was sitting right behind the tee watching each group come by. Just reporting what I saw (no snipe...he's a good player).

I understand that low ssa courses can produce 10 rating points difference for every stroke and high ssa courses only 6 rating points per stroke. What I don't understand is why.


Here's the easiest way I can explain it. Let's say two players rated 1000 and 950 play one round on a 50 SSA course that's maybe 5500 feet. They play exactly at their skill level. The one beats the other by 5 throws at 10 pts per throw. They then play the same course again with the same result. Let's call the combined scores for two rounds like one round on an 11,000 ft course with an SSA of 100. The scoring spread was 10 shots and yet they both shot at their rating skill level which is still 50 points apart.

Each throw on this 11,000 ft course now becomes only worth 5 points, otherwise the math doesn't make sense. Now take out the 30 shots which is our standard number of throws around the basket for 18 holes. So the 11,000 ft course now only has 18 holes instead of 36 and drops to an SSA of 70 (100-30) like Winthrop Gold. Due to differences in putting skill they shoot 7 throws different on this course, playing at their skill level which is still 50 pts apart. 50 divided by 7 is about 7 pts per throw which is about what you see at Winthrop.

There's no voodoo math and I'm not using any kind of estimates or adjustment factors in this. This is what players of specific ratings actually shoot on courses at these different SSAs. The same formula is used for all SSAs. I haven't done any tweaking related to SSAs increasing or decreasing and the numbers all hang together. This graph has been about the same from the beginning and it's been regularly checked and validated over 100s of thousands of rounds now in 10 years. The slight break is at 50.4 because that was our ground zero in 1998 when it all started and we had to develop the formulas going upward and downward from that origin point.
http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/score%20graph.jpg

As both DDs can see, it's not a linear function except for the 1000 rated player which is the reference line for everyone.

The higher the SSA the more throws difference occurs between players 100 pts apart in rating. That's kind of a no-brainer if you think about it. If the players throw exactly at their skill level, the points per throw HAS to go down as the SSA goes up. Their skill hasn't changed meaning the rating difference between them hasn't changed and yet their scores are getting farther apart. This HAS to result in a value of fewer rating points per throw as SSA increases.

Likewise, if you have 10 players at 1025 and 10 players at 925 and 10 players at 825, all with stable ratings, a score 5 throws better or worse than their ratings on a 50.4 SSA courses will be worth the same 50 point difference higher or lower than their rating at all three levels. Now the 1075 round is much more likely for the 10 players at 1025. But a 975 round is equally as likely for the 1025 players as the 925 players.

Players aren't identical particles or atoms like the physics analogy. The probabilities of a given round score being thrown on any given course is based on the inherent skill level of the player throwing the round which we've shown time and again.

I would have flown back from mexico just to see that ;)

So when are we finally gonna get to shoot together ruskill??


When I get better, or you get worse.

You would have loved to see the huge dent I put in a car during 1 of my OBs. Wonderful hole! It cost 12 strokes and $800 repair estimate.

The next out of towner for me will be Solitude. Less cars, wider fairways :D

There are multiple assumptions that work pretty well to compare long and short courses per se. However, I believe it starts to break down on long/difficult courses. Distance is not simply distance on a tough course, as Kyle Crabtree illustrated on hole #14 at Golden State. It's not just a matter of longer throws. It's also a matter of accurate throws, which are given no value. I realize that it is a relatively easy fix to subtract putting strokes and divide the rest of the strokes. That is making the assumption that all the other strokes are average difficulty on average courses. Not a good assumption on an elite course with lots of OB and Mandatories. The longer throwers are required to be accurate in order to get the longer distance than their lower rated competitors. In other words, the shorter throwers have a somewhat easier course to play. They don't have to worry so much about the OB, because they can't reach it. So, the assumption that the difference is simply putting, doesn't hold in my mind. Maybe an adjustment to SSA for elite courses is a partial answer. That way, when you do the math magic for rating points per stroke, you get a slightly larger number than merely 50 divided by 10.

They aren't assumptions anymore because they've been validated as the way things appear to work. Our members shouldn't expect anything less. There may be some subtler effects happening that we don't have the ability to determine due to lack of enough data to test any theories on how those might work at a detailed level. But everything we've done with the formulas have been tested over and over and the numbers hang together with no adjustment factors in them that haven't been verified. If a model has been proposed and then shown to work with actual scores, what would indicate that it's not working? You know, scientific experimental method and all - hypothesis, experiment, analysis, which either confirms or requires tweaking the hypothesis and trying again.

You're suggesting some magic adjustment that would be "made up" but I have no idea who or how those factors would be generated and on what basis? There's no question that challenging structures like OB and mandos do operate differently than just trees or elevation for specific challenges on holes. However, Rodney did an extensive data analysis to see if there was something similar to "slope" in ball golf that adjusts for differences that are magnified between higher and lower rated golfers on tougher courses. But that effect was not seen in disc golf. In other words, with the exception of holes where there's a required water carry over X distance and players below some rating cannot throw X distance, there's no indication there are holes where the scoring average doesn't track with the average ratings of those playing it.

round ratings should be based on probability which is non-linear. were the original round ratings calculated on probability there would be no need to designate different best rounds for different types of course. (this in itself shows the flaw in the system)

it is much like newtonian physics which worked well on our tidy little earth but once things got really big or really small could not handle those instances. as courses in general become more golf-like this will manifest itself more and more. problem is now that the org has so much time/energy put into the flawed system that it may just have to be "good enough".

devine can probably state it in actual math/stats terminology. chuck will now direct the argument elsewhere.

If a model has been proposed and then shown to work with actual scores, what would indicate that it's not working?

You're suggesting some magic adjustment that would be "made up" but I have no idea who or how those factors would be generated and on what basis? There's no question that challenging structures like OB and mandos do operate differently than just trees or elevation for specific challenges on holes. However, Rodney did an extensive data analysis to see if there was something similar to "slope" in ball golf that adjusts for differences that are magnified between higher and lower rated golfers on tougher courses. But that effect was not seen in disc golf.



The vast majority of time, the system seems to work just fine. The only thing that indicates it might not work perfectly is things like Steve's round. When Rodney did his slope analysis, he might not have included courses like Golden State or USDGC. These types of courses are rare. Length with non random difficulty due to narrow fairways bordered by mandos or OB. Most other courses have length or difficulty that are accounted for by the present system.

You must not be reading John because probabilities are directly incorporated in the ratings and always have been at all SSA levels. The probability a 1025 player will average 1025 rounds is identical to the probability 925 or 825 players will also average their ratings. The fact that any person taken at random in the world will shoot a score of 55 on a 66 SSA course is vastly lower than the chance they shoot a round of 75 isn't relevant. But we don't have random people shooting the rounds nor random people generating the ratings. We have known people with specific skills shooting specific scores upon which consistent and validated calculations have been made.

When Rodney did his slope analysis, he might not have included courses like Golden State or USDGC. These types of courses are rare. Length with non random difficulty due to narrow fairways bordered by mandos or OB. Most other courses have length or difficulty that are accounted for by the present system.



While it's true that there have been more longer courses with less conventional challenges than when he did the checking, we have since checked whether there was a continuity break in scoring for different skill levels on some holes that stand out for their unusual design challenges. However, there's no indication that's the case. It's not like we haven't delved into such things to check on them. I know you've been tracking the discussions on proper island hole design over the years, for example, which is along these lines.

You're implying that somehow a 55 on your particular SSA 66 course will look more impressive than someone else shooting a 55 on another more conventional course design with an SSA of 66. I'm saying you would be hard pressed to make that claim. So far we have no one who has done it so it is impressive for that SSA. On the other hand, we still have vastly fewer courses and rounds per year played by elite players on courses like this. We probably had more data on courses near 50 SSA in 1999 alone than we still have on courses over 65 SSA cumulatively in the past 10 years by a wide margin.

chuck, i can read perfectly well and my comprehension is just fine. that does not change the fact that when you apply a set number of rating points per stroke to determine round ratings on any course by any level of player you are using a linear function to describe phenomena best represented by a bell curve whereupon the points per stroke would become greater as the scores diverge from the flat portion of the curve.

I think there are four basic types of courses. One is an easy, relatively flat, relatively obstacleless, OB-less, Mando-less course. Long or short. Two is a flukey picket fence close your eyes and throw course. Long or short. Three is a narrow fairway, maybe some OB or mandies, but excellent shots may or may not be rewarded. In other words, it takes good shots to negotiate the holes, but having a good shot is no guarantee of success, because of treacherous landing areas. Short or long. Fourth is a difficult course, narrow fairways, traps, mandos, with a very high degree of probability that a good shot will produce a good result. Again, long or short. I believe only this fourth type will produce slope.

We aren't talking Chuck's language....

0110101 01001 10001011 1010 00101011 010101 1 010101 1 10 10011 101110 10010 00011 0011 1010110 1001 1 1 101 01010100 0 010101 0101 10 100 11 01010 100101 010110 01110 10100011 1010010

Is that better? :)

http://www.nickciske.com/tools/binary.php

01001101011000010111010001110100001000000111100101 10111101110101001000000110010001101001011001000010 00000110111001101111011101000010000001110011011000 01011110010010000001100001011011100111100101110100 01101000011010010110111001100111001000000110100101 10111000100000011101000110100001100001011101000010 00000110110001100001011100110111010000100000011100 00011011110111001101110100

chuck, i can read perfectly well and my comprehension is just fine. that does not change the fact that when you apply a set number of rating points per stroke to determine round ratings on any course by any level of player you are using a linear function to describe phenomena best represented by a bell curve whereupon the points per stroke would become greater as the scores diverge from the flat portion of the curve.


I'm afraid you can't since what you are proposing would result in every player receiving a different rating for the same score depending on what their rating is to start with. There's no master bell curve that everyone fits into. The bell curve moves based on the skill of the player. What you're proposing does not reflect this reality.

OK, here's a simple explanation.

Each shot is just a coin flip.

Your goal is to get to 2 flips 18 times.

A good drive (heads) would yield a better chance at hitting heads on the next shot/flip.

A bad shot requires another flip. another bad shot is another flip.

The goal is to get each pair of heads in the shortest amount of flips possible.

It's exponentially LESS PROBABLE, not necessarily harder, to do it in a lower and lower amount of flips. At the same time, the 50% probability of flipping a heads or tails will yield on average 54-72 throws. It's also exponentially harder to shoot worse. Therefore, a bell curve.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/statistics.html

http://www.nickciske.com/tools/binary.php

01001101011000010111010001110100001000000111100101 10111101110101001000000110010001101001011001000010 00000110111001101111011101000010000001110011011000 01011110010010000001100001011011100111100101110100 01101000011010010110111001100111001000000110100101 10111000100000011101000110100001100001011101000010 00000110110001100001011100110111010000100000011100 00011011110111001101110100



Shh, I was trying to get Chuck to spend his time decoding it, instead of telling all of us how wrong we are. :)

Fourth is a difficult course, narrow fairways, traps, mandos, with a very high degree of probability that a good shot will produce a good result. Again, long or short. I believe only this fourth type will produce slope.


The problem is we don't have enough data to validly determine this for a single course played for two or three rounds and automatically incorporate that into the calculation process even if we wanted to. Certain holes out there probably have some weird scoring patterns. Fortunately, we don't usually have more than one or two per course so the discontinuities get glossed over in the overall round. I saw where the Grandmaster pool on Blueberry shot better than the Open pools on simple hole 9 which was based on over 100 scores compared from each group. If our game had a way to do scoring down to tenths of a throw, we could get more precise data and calculations. But scoring in one throw increments hampers more precision all the way around.

Winthrop Gold is the most analyzed of the long courses and certainly was a concern that we would see weird patterns with all of the OB. However, the distribution pattern has turned out to be no better or worse than any other course in terms of players playing above or below their ratings. Unfortunately, we don't have scores from very many players below 950 or so to see about possible slope effect. Where we did expect to see it, we didn't see it at Fountain Hills where Ams below 900 who couldn't go directly across several water holes produced the exact same SSA as the top pros who could. Apparently, the top pros took enough OB penalties to offset their distance advantage compared with the number of Ams who were forced to play more conservatively and go around.

am i correct in thinking that the rating process is basically as follows (in simplified form i grant you)

STEP 1- average the propagators ratings and average their scores and then adjust to a scale for 1000 rated play?

STEP 2- (and here is where my problem lies with the system) apply a set number of rating points (number being based on the ssa which was determined in the previous step) per stroke adjustment to determine the individual round ratings for that round?

STEP 3- take an individual's amassed round ratings and average them (given some dropping and double weighting) to generate their player rating over a period of time?

what i'm saying is that in step 2 applying a linear function does not adequately define the set of scores any group of players will shoot on any course at any given time. to say that it does is the same as saying that it is equally likely for any given player to shoot a score of 5,50, or 500 for any given round since there is no difference in the points per stroke awarded for any given score. this is obviously not the case (see matt's example above).

Step 2 is not linear. It's a smooth shallow curved function per the graph shown. The round ratings calculated for the players are as if they already have skills at that level. The ratings values coming in for the calcs are based on players with known skill levels. The values coming out are as if those who get those numbers are actually playing at that level. In which case, there's no validity to variable rating point values based on progressively lower scores because everyone who got a rating got one based as if they actually are that good. In which case, the probabilities that any player gets their particular value is the same with the only increment being how many points each throw is worth.

Imagine if on a scorecard, a player who shoots 50 actually gets an adjustment of -0.3 because of the probability of shooting that score and a 49.7 gets posted. If he shoots 49 he gets 48.6, a 48 is worth 47.5, a 47 is worth 46.3 and 46 is worth 45.1. We don't do that even though it might make more sense based on your argument. If we did, then the effect you're looking for would occur automatically. However, since we value each throw the same in our scoring, the ratings calculations track that same uniform valuation.

It's a smooth shallow curved function per the graph shown.



To Chuck, Olive Oyl is a bodacious babe.

I'm using it now as I oogle a different website

...on cooking

there's no validity to variable rating point values based on progressively lower scores because everyone who got a rating got one based as if they actually are that good. In which case, the probabilities that any player gets their particular value is the same with the only increment being how many points each throw is worth.


<font color="red">RED HERRING!!</font>

Variable point ratings based on lower scores are, indeed, voodoo. However, point ratings based on the significance of each throw are 100% valid &amp; necessary for a decent ratings system. On a "humpback" curve of score distributions, the steepness of the curve (i.e., the significance of a particular difference in scores) should be equal to the points per stroke (at each point on the curve), as opposed to the number of points per stroke being constant. To argue otherwise is just plain wrong, as the significance (and desired round rating difference) of the difference between the 499th &amp; 500th throw (on an SSA54 course, for the sake of example) is nowhere near the significance of the difference between the 50th &amp; the 51st throws.

what is the actual formula used for step 2?? is it not something like:

R=1000+(S-X)C

where R is the round rating, S is SSA(a constant determined in step 1), X is the score for the round, and C is the constant number of points per stroke being applied?

there's no validity to variable rating point values based on progressively lower scores because everyone who got a rating got one based as if they actually are that good. In which case, the probabilities that any player gets their particular value is the same with the only increment being how many points each throw is worth.


<font color="red">RED HERRING!!</font>

Variable point ratings based on lower scores are, indeed, voodoo. However, point ratings based on the significance of each throw are 100% valid &amp; necessary for a decent ratings system. On a "humpback" curve of score distributions, the steepness of the curve (i.e., the significance of a particular difference in scores) should be equal to the points per stroke (at each point on the curve), as opposed to the number of points per stroke being constant. To argue otherwise is just plain wrong, as the significance (and desired round rating difference) of the difference between the 499th &amp; 500th throw (on an SSA54 course, for the sake of example) is nowhere near the significance of the difference between the 50th &amp; the 51st throws.



Why do these arguments make so much sense to everyone but you Chuck?

The formula is done on a per hole basis and the value C is dynamically calculated based on the compression factor we had to first determine experimentally. It's actually a quadratic equation to produce the ratings from the SSA and to also calculate the SSA in the first place. Lots of fun in the beginning when imaginary numbers were generated as one of the roots.

The results were then analyzed, then tweaked then validated. It's not a lookup table. The orignal C was set at exactly 10 points per throw for the original SSA of 50.4 at Cincy but has been calculated ever since for all other SSAs and adjusted slightly perhaps twice when needed to bring real numbers in line with the calcs once we had enough data to do the calculations. In fact, it took us five years before we felt we had enough data on high SSA courses to hone in on the best fit function and factor for those types of courses.

Why do these arguments make so much sense to everyone but you Chuck?


Because they are arguments without any math behind them. For some reason the system that has been set up and tested for ten years with everything hanging together mathematically, consistently and the ability to handle all types of course situations is less valid than proposals on a message board. If there were suspicious or uncertain items in what was developed (and there were several such as a home course factor), they've been checked and tested and adjusted for where needed. I would expect the same effort from anyone who simply proposes an alternative universe to make at least some effort to show how or why it might be better. No one has said how they would actually make adjustments for high SSA courses or hot rounds without some subjective value pulled out of the air or even darker places...

screw ratings! I'm going to go for a new player ranking system. Lifetime under/over par!

Just kidding. We really should move all the chuckraggin to its own thread....

Here is the rating system I prefer

WINS &amp; LOSES (2 &amp; 9 just over the Mendoza line)

;)

Why do these arguments make so much sense to everyone but you Chuck?


Because they are arguments without any math behind them. For some reason the system that has been set up and tested for ten years with everything hanging together mathematically, consistently and the ability to handle all types of course situations is less valid than proposals on a message board.



if it held together we wouldn't have so many people who intuitively see the problems with it. if it handled all course situations you wouldn't need to have different "best rounds" for different styles of courses.


If there were suspicious or uncertain items in what was developed (and there were several such as a home course factor), they've been checked and tested and adjusted for where needed. I would expect the same effort from anyone who simply proposes an alternative universe to make at least some effort to show how or why it might be better. No one has said how they would actually make adjustments for high SSA courses or hot rounds without some subjective value pulled out of the air or even darker places...



i haven't said how i would do it because i don't have the background in statistics to do so. i suspect you do not either. i do however have sufficient background to recognize where the holes are in the system you and roger concocted.

however this paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.3890.pdf) written by a member of the yale physics department does accomplish the task using scores from pga events. It suggests "performance tracking on the PGA tour should be done in terms of the z-score which is calculated by subtracting the mean from the raw score and dividing by the standard deviation. This methodology measures performance relative to the field of competitors, independent of the venue, and in terms of a statistic that has quantitative meaning." (from the abstract)

perhaps dave devine or others with more significant math/stats background can comment?

I would expect the same effort from anyone who simply proposes an alternative universe to make at least some effort to show how or why it might be better. No one has said how they would actually make adjustments for high SSA courses or hot rounds without some subjective value pulled out of the air or even darker places...



Like black holes?

I've always said that ratings are over-rated.
If I have a 6 shot lead with 6 holes to go, I'm playing for the win, not rating points. I may lay up potential birds 6 times if that's what it takes to win. You don't get any bonus ratings points for wins...and I could care less.

There is always going to be some controversy over ratings, but it doesn't matter because ratings don't really amount to anything other than ficticious bragging rights.

Much ado about nothing...

I will say that Chuck's rating system has been one of the greatest feats of brainwashing since the Branch Davidians....It seems that 9 out of 10 golfers are extremely concerned with their rating.

01110100011010000110010100100000011000010110111001 11001101110111011001010111001000100000011010010111 00110010000001100001011011100010000001100101011011 10011000110110111101100100011001010110010000100000 01100010011100100110000101101001011011100111011101 10000101110011011010000110100101101110011001110010 00000110101101100101011110010111011101101111011100 10011001000010000001101000011010010110010001100100 01100101011011100010000001100001011011010110111101 10111001100111001000000111100101101111011101010111 00100010000001110000011011000110000101111001011001 01011100100010000001110010011000010111010001101001 0110111001100111

Here is the rating system I prefer

WINS &amp; LOSES

;)



Um, it sounds like you might be an advocate of Sagarin ratings... you know, the ratings that are good enough for USA Today and all major sports. The same rating system that world-renowned sports statistician Jeff Sagarin proposed the PDGA consider just before the current rating system was rolled out. The same rating system the PDGA was too short-sighted to even investigate or consider.

Even if you want to argue that Sagarin's system is flawed (and some folks will no doubt argue that), his system came with name recognition. PDGA rankings would've been listed on Sagarin's Web page (and maybe USA Today's Sports page) right next to the PGA and NCAA ratings. No offense to the current system that I think is pretty cool, but would anyone argue it has this sort of marketing reach?

Sagarin's system is based on results. You are compared to the others who played in the same conditions on the same course on the same day. Wins and losses. Isn't that what it's all about?

To see the numbers Sagarin ran for a small sampling of disc golf events back in 2001, check out this link:

http://bdgc.org/news/pdga/

And here's Sagarin's USA Today page:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin.htm

Greetings,
In a golf tournament it's like you are playing every other guy head-to-head. I like that W-L-T listing in Sagarin's ratings. Also Sagarin ratings actually look like a GOLF SCORE! If Kenny is a 46 and Barry is a 48, that's a 2 stroke difference. That MIT math makes it way too easy!
Fly on,
Axis

Except that Sagarin does not provide ratings for courses and our ratings are more precise than Sagarin's. His system is weak in comparison unless you're into glamor due to the name.

Here is the rating system I prefer

WINS &amp; LOSES

;)



Um, it sounds like you might be an advocate of Sagarin ratings... you know, the ratings that are good enough for USA Today and all major sports. The same rating system that world-renowned sports statistician Jeff Sagarin proposed the PDGA consider just before the current rating system was rolled out. The same rating system the PDGA was too short-sighted to even investigate or consider.

Even if you want to argue that Sagarin's system is flawed (and some folks will no doubt argue that), his system came with name recognition. PDGA rankings would've been listed on Sagarin's Web page (and maybe USA Today's Sports page) right next to the PGA and NCAA ratings. No offense to the current system that I think is pretty cool, but would anyone argue it has this sort of marketing reach?

Sagarin's system is based on results. You are compared to the others who played in the same conditions on the same course on the same day. Wins and losses. Isn't that what it's all about?

To see the numbers Sagarin ran for a small sampling of disc golf events back in 2001, check out this link:

http://bdgc.org/news/pdga/

And here's Sagarin's USA Today page:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin.htm





http://bdgc.org/news/pdga/



Great! I wondered where that table went. A few years ago i went looking for it online and had NO luck. I remember wishing i had copied or saved it. Now i can! Thanks.

Except that Sagarin does not provide ratings for courses and our ratings are more precise than Sagarin's. His system is weak in comparison unless you're into glamor due to the name.



LOL, Chuck. More precise? Weak in comparison? Are those more of your scientific terms? So any system that doesn't rate courses is inherently weak. Got it. Any system that doesn't do it your way is less precise. Got it. Let us know when USA Today and the BCS come calling on your rating system. Sagarin glamorous... funniest thing I've heard in a long time!

So you honestly don't see the marketing advantage of the PDGA using Sagarin's ratings in a world where no rating system is perfect? That's a shame. It's also the exact attitude that caused the short-sighted PDGA to never even consider Sagarin's offer 8 years ago. The hubris runneth over.

Sagarin himself admits that the course does not matter in the calculations. We wouldn't have done our system without course ratings being involved. Second, ours is more precise because we rate the actual scores whereas Sagarin just uses relative finish positions. Third, it would take a long time to integrate players from all divisions into a Sagarin type system because they don't play each other to propagate the rankings thru the system. It's primarily an elitist system which is fine when big money is involved. In fact, we've merged Sagarin-like rankings into our World Ranking system.

But we're a member organization and do things so that most members can get the benefit. In fact, you couldn't even start ratings in other countries that would make any sense. We can do that and have because we know how to start from our knowledge of course ratings. And fourth, budget considerations. Not sure what Sagarin would charge annually but I'll bet it's more for one year than what Roger and I have made for the past ten years, and for a less complete and accurate system. Plus our system is organic with the evolving changes with our competition systems and course design efforts and can provide new bells and whistles turning on a dime.

SNot sure what Sagarin would charge annually but I'll bet it's more for one year than what Roger and I have made for the past ten years, and for a less complete and accurate system. Plus our system is organic with the evolving changes with our competition systems and course design efforts and can provide new bells and whistles turning on a dime.



Can you fix the problem with low ratings on high SSA courses then?

Can you fix the problem with low ratings on high SSA courses then?

The ratings are not undervalued on high SSA courses. They just aren't spread as wide. Here's the table for all players with ratings over 900 and whether they shoot rated rounds on average higher (plus) or lower (minus) than their rating on courses in our five SSA ranges. Note that no group averges more than 3 ratings points worse than their rating in any category and several play better. For the top 11 players, the bottom row shows how many of the players average at least their rating or better on these courses. The one thing I'd like to do is work with Roger to get a weighted average because in several cases, a player has a big deviation that gets included in the straight average because he only played one round on a course in that SSA range.
<table> <tr> <td>Rating</td><td>SSA></td><td><48</td><td>48-53.9</td><td>54-59.9</td><td>60-65.9</td><td>66> </td></tr> <tr> <td>900 - 949</td><td>Avg</td><td>-3</td><td>1</td><td>-1</td><td>1</td><td>6 </td></tr> <tr> <td>950 - 999</td><td>Avg</td><td>-2</td><td>0</td><td>-1</td><td>2</td><td>2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>1000 +</td><td>Avg</td><td>-1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>-3</td><td>-1 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Top 11</td><td>Plus/Total</td><td>4 / 9</td><td>5 / 11</td><td>9 / 11</td><td>5 / 11</td><td>8 / 11 </td></tr> </table>

Sagarin himself admits that the course does not matter in the calculations.



Admits? As if it is a flaw? I think you mean he sings the praises of a system that doesn't require the rating of the course or conditions in order to rate the players.


We wouldn't have done our system without course ratings being involved.



And your system is the only correct one, so all others must do as yours does or they are flawed.



Second...
Third...
Etc




You sure do make a lot of assumptions and speculations about Sagarin and his system considering you've never met him, never discussed the system with him, or have any knowledge of what he might've done for the PDGA. You chastise anyone who makes an assumption about your system. Why don't you offer others the same courtesy?


budget considerations.



Why don't we know how much Sagarin would charge the PDGA? Oh, that's right... the PDGA turned him away without even listening to a proposal. This was an opportunity to *consider* aligning our sport with a recognizable and respected sports figure. To not at least "consider* was short-sighted and close-minded.

Are you really arguing that the cheapest solution is the best? We're doing it for pennies so why would we consider hiring a well-known sports statistician to do our ratings? You clearly don't get the marketing slant of using Sagarin's name. You continue to argue the merits of the two systems while I'm simply asking you if it would've been a good idea for the PDGA to *at least consider* the possible advantages of leveraging Sagarin's name. An organization that does not at least explore such opportunities is, once again, short-sighted, closed-minded, and doomed to be marginalized.

Is it possible that Sagarin's name and endorsement could've added credability to our sport and opened the door to potential big name sponsors? I guess we'll never know because (altogether now) the PDGA was closed-minded and short-sighted when they chose to not even entertain a Sagarin proposal.

OK, I'm finished arguing marketing with a mathematician and I'm headed back to the lurking shadows.

Thanks for listening.

I had nothing to do with the decision regarding Sagarin and I understand the marketing angle. As we've discovered, it was a good decision by that Board not to go higher profile back then because we have yet to show there's something to sell (i.e. no spectators). I would say you way underestimate the understanding the PDGA admin has had of the issues involved and my personal efforts behind the scenes in the marketing area. Ratings is just my highest profile effort that more are familair with.

Regardless, Sagarin doesn't do course ratings so that was perceived as a fatal flaw among others. Sagarin indicates his system is better suited for sports where individuals or teams compete directly against each other where there's a win/loss/tie versus sports like golf, disc golf, kayaking, orienteering, steeple chase, etc. that involve a course of some sort.

The way things are a player destroying the competition is factored in. Under Sagarin's system a player winning by one is given the same number of points as he would have had for merely winning by a stroke. Under our system amateurs are given an appropriate rating, as a result of the fact that they're competing on the same courses as the Open players, if not against them directly.


-Chris.

Does he get paid the same if he wins by 1 as he does if he wins by 20?

Does Tiger?

I admit, this is the first I have heard of Sagarin's system while I have cared about the concept, and it does sound interesting.

Sounds a lot like the Marshall Street Ranking System, which Chuck immediately copied and limited it's scope to 1000 rated players and above. But he got bored running the data, so we only get info once in a blue moon.

I miss the Marshall Street Rankings. Hey Steve, How about the PRIME TIME Player Ranking system gets a reboot?

Chuck seems too married to ratings to move on with the rankings, which were a great way to COMPLEMENT the ratings in a less stroke based and more tournament based system. A win is a win is a win. Be it a stroke or 10, you beat em.

Bring back rankings. Now that I'm 1000 rated, I wanna see where I stack up.

The MS Rankings relied on NO RATINGS DATA. Thus it could be updated weekly. This was the genius of that system.

The ability to see a WEEKLY trend is inherently human. Sitcoms do not come out every 2-3 months. We lose interest. Make rankings work with who beat who... AND FOR EVERYONE, and we'll start to develop a ranking system that everyone can fall into, and EVERYONE will use it. Weekly trips to a ranking database equals REAL web traffic. Look at the spikes and drops in hits to the player database. Once every 2-3 months there's a big spike. With weekly updates, we can develop an awesome system that allows us to TRACK ourselves and our friends and our favorite players in general. Having SOMETHING that is not dependent upon Chuck calculations, but is simply a web app that takes 52 weeks of data and processes it, generating a number, ranking that number, and allowing you to show GRAPHICAL representations of your progress, THAT is the future of a ranking system that is worth the value of membership. How is it Steve Dodge was able to crunch numbers so easily, the day after results were out, simply by processing players through a spreadsheet. Run it on a webserver live, and all tournaments can go in on, say, Wednesday.

That represents real world numbers to the PDGA website, a section that could be sponsored by the next BIG sponsor of the World Championships. By big, I mean 200,000 or more. We'll have the web hits to prove they are getting the eyes on their brand.

It's already been built once. All we have to do is create a finite set of rules that makes all players and all events easily quantifiable, and separatable (different divisions playing different tees would have to call for different uploads), I guess...

Not 100% fleshed out, but maybe it's time to start looking at a weekly ranking system again. I miss the MS ratings. Steve did an awesome job there, and it made me visit their site every time I played an event. Get the picture?

Sounds a lot like the Marshall Street Ranking System, which Chuck immediately copied and limited it's scope to 1000 rated players and above. But he got bored running the data, so we only get info once in a blue moon.



Not the order it happened. Steve actually asked for advice on doing their rankings which were fine but time consuming for them to maintain. If anyone gets credit it would be Climo for prodding me to come up with a way to use finish positions in big events for top players after talking about it with him at Pro Worlds 2005.

And Matt, it's not clear whether you'll make it in the next rankings until I see the file from Roger. You have to have a 1000 rating based on all rounds in B-tiers and higher between June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008 with no double weighting. I've been updating the Word Rankings for more than two years now every time we have new data after each ratings update and sometimes just after the next Championship that gets included like The Memorial. This next one will have the JO and the new ratings as new info plus a revised and scaled penalty points process spurred by Jay Reading's analysis and suggestions.

I think weekly rankings for pros is something those on the pro NT committee should consider funding with the difference between am and pro member fees among all of the other things being considered.

well, yet another reason while Marshall Street Rankings rocked. And why a simple system that tabulated rankings and degraded over time made a lot of sense.

WEEKLY rankings for everyone. It's just a matter of creating the functionality and making a simple upload program. Yes, it involves money, but it also gives people a reason to keep coming back, and to keep playing events, as their ranking fades (with time lapsing since the most recent round, it will entice players to play to improve their ranking. And having real world ranking changes before the next weekend can create a HUGE boom in tournament play. Imagine running 1 day events JUST to get your ranking changes. Heck, imagine ranking ONLY events, payout, ranking updates, just no ratings. It might be a good idea...

But it's very hands off, no tinkering with it, which seems to be the hallmark of the current system. Kinda like a surgeon having to hand massage a heart... before the invention of a pacemaker...

It only takes a finite amount of money to develop a ranking system. Yeah, there's server and storage and bandwidth fees, but they probably would be minimal. Once the initial system is implemented, there's not a lot that needs to be done. Members can police for errors and send them to a "moderator/admin"

If it's done, it likely won't be done for Ams since the churn for what divisions people play will be crazy and untenable for TDs. That's a primary reason why the ratings are only updated five times per year. If it's done for pros, then it might make sense as a benefit. There will be so many opportunities to do new things once the new website gets up and stabilized that we can't do now. For those who want instant gratification, enroll with DGU to track your handicap every day you play. It's there and ready to go. www.discgolfunited.com (http://www.discgolfunited.com)

Now that I'm 1000 rated, I wanna see where I stack up.


congraTTs btw

Why don't we know how much Sagarin would charge the PDGA? Oh, that's right... the PDGA turned him away without even listening to a proposal. This was an opportunity to *consider* aligning our sport with a recognizable and respected sports figure. To not at least "consider* was short-sighted and close-minded.




No surprise there. Maybe the PDGA was saving up the $50,000 they gave to SportsLoop in 2002, which IMO was a complete waste of money. Again this is my opinion but i partly blame the PDGA for this sport STILL being where it is today, and where it was 15 years ago.

You hit the nail on the head when you said we could have aligned our sport with a world recongizable sports figure.

Whats this SportsLoop thing?

Whats this SportsLoop thing?



SportsLoop is a marketing firm for sports. They were supposed to help catapult DG into the mainstream. What they really did was took our $50,000, added our name to their "list of clients" on THEIR WEBSITE (http://www.sportsloop.com/sportsloop/) and laughed all the way to the bank. IMO they did absolutely nothing for our sport or the PDGA. If someone disagrees then please add your comments.

http://www.sportsloop.com/sportsloop/

Pppfff!

Hoeniger might be the best to comment on that among those who might read this.

...didn't someone somewhere get a box of clif bars out of it?

I think I got one at some event. Might still have it in the archives. Collectible? E-Bay? I think I see a faint image of Climo in the granola pattern... :eek:

Matt, I am sure you know this but you can go to:
Membership page,
Tour Stats (at top of page)
then search by state or world.

It will list the rankings your looking for based on Ratings.
Maybe this is not what you are looking for.... trying to help.

I'm talking about a different sort of ranking, Player vs player ranking, not player vs field vs course ratings.

The easiest way to raise your player rating is to attend A Tier and above events (and play well). The average of all player ratings will be higher, and somehow, you'll shoot better scores than you do locally. It's not that you stepped up, it's that the ratings are lifted by lots of high rated players.

But Chuck will disagree with me, I am sure...

I don't have to disagree. Just use actual results. I just posted the numbers upthread that show that players are able to shoot their rating on all SSA courses. I also tested your hypothesis at The Memorial and at Pro Worlds. There was no ratings benefit playing with higher rated players and no ratings penalty playing with lower rated players in your group. And of course, Climo and possibly Schultz have never played in a group whose average rating was more than theirs during the past ten years we've had ratings and they've been able to remain on or near the top.

see that...

Chuck's doing it again....

Playing in a FIELD with higher rated players (on average) can definitely boost your round ratings vs playing in a tournament with a lot of intermediate and Rec level players thrown in the mix.

I was not talking about playing with higher or lower rated on your card, I meant the entire field.

Or maybe I just hit a new plateau last year. I had a couple bad days, but for the most part I played well above my rating.

If you want me to reply, I will start a rating vs ranking thread in Skill Based Comps.

Playing in a FIELD with higher rated players (on average) can definitely boost your round ratings vs playing in a tournament with a lot of intermediate and Rec level players thrown in the mix.


Popular myth that had some truth before two years ago when we took a look and made a slight adjustment for that small effect. Now, there are just as many events where a higher rated field might slightly help you or slightly hurt you just due to statistical variance. See you over in the ratings thread.

Well, I, for one, am extremely glad that this ratings issue is over. The real story of this thread is that Steve Wisecup played like a disc golf god and destroyed the field of young guns. He deserves all of the props and discussion.
Way to go, Steve.

Do you suppose he'll go for a title in GM or Master at Worlds this year? Or maybe Open again? :D

I don't know if he's going to worlds or if he's opting for the USDGC.