Player A plays his first PDGA tourny(as a PDGA member) as an INT. When the ratings are updated, he is rated above a 915.

He goes to play another PDGA tourny and signs up as an AM, at the last second, the TD realizes that Player A is rated above a 915, tears up his card and makes him play advanced. Player A ends up playing really horribly finishing down near the bottom of the advanced players.

4 rated rounds shouldn't determine if he plays ADV or AM. The tourny that player A did really well at was at his home course.

What if Player A only had 1 or 2 of his rounds rated(instead of all 4). If those 1 or 2 rounds gave him an rating above 914, is it fair to judge his playing status(INT or ADV) based on those 2 rounds?

Sorry if this is confusing. I think I have the flu started and nothing is sounding right.

I think that there should be a minimum numbers of rated rounds required before the ADV/INT status is questioned.

Despite your cold, I easily follow what you are asking. I think that doing what you are requesting is making things more complicated than they need to be. To be a good TD, there are already plenty of things to keep up with and finicky little excpetions to handle isolated special cases are not necessary.

The way I see it is that Player A in the scenario you describe will be rated <915 a couple of months later and will be able to play Int again. He get's penalized for a handful of tournaments in the way the ratings guidelines/rules are set up now.

If he is so bent out of shape that he doesn't want to not win plastic for a handful of tournaments, he should spend the time practicing that he would have been competing. Then he should continue competing at an improved level a couple month's later.

$0.02. Hope you feel better.

He doesn't care about winning plastic. I think he was just a little unsettled when he was prepared to play INT in a tourny and then had to change and play ADV. He didn't even know his rating was above a 915.

This happened over the summer, so I don't think he is upset about it.

I don't know how it could be more complicated. When they send out the updated list of current players and their ratings, just put in there the number of rounds used.

The reverse can happen so it's not 'fair' either way. A truly Advanced player could have a bad set of first rated rounds and temporarily be a 'bagger' in Int just the reverse of this situation. Using even one rated round is better than none at all. Once this player has an established rating, you admitted he plays better at his home course where he'll have the advantage in the future playing Int when he's 'really' an Advanced player on that course.

When specified in advance, a player may remain in the same division, even in PDGA events, after their rating has gone up as long as that policy was announced ahead of time for the series. So, if his first event was part of a series with this policy, he would have locked in the option play Int for the remainder of the series regardless how high his rating went for the rest of the series.

Yeah.

I see your point. I was just wondering if there was a lower limit or anything.

The number of rounds used still has nothing to do with the number derived from those rounds. The divisional rules list ratings, not number of rounds.

How would it look if the player was allowed to play in MA2 instead of MA1 and had a good tournament. If he managed to win and maybe beat the field by a few strokes, would the TD look good for letting him play below his rating ?

I see your point. I was just wondering if there was a lower limit or anything.



For a player's rating to be used to generate course SSA and round ratings, we require the player's rating to be based on at least 8 rounds and the rating must be above 799 to be what we call a propagator. There have to be at least 10 'gators' playing a layout during a round for ratings to be generated. So there is some 'quality control' in the ratings system.

Yeah I know about the whole propagating stuff. There were some rounds that I played that didn't get rated because there weren't enough INTs playing those tees with a rating greater than 800 with enough rated rounds.

Thanks for the answers Chuck and Dave.

Will, the exact thing happened to Chris Banning. He won Big Valley in am this summer, at his home course - shot an average of 940 - that was his first 4 PDGA rounds, so that was his rating - he had to move up at Sneeky Pete b/c of that, and will have to play adv. at Bull City

That is who I was talking about MTL. :D

I congratulate the TD on actually checking the ratings. I had to be the bad guy and bump a new tournament player up to advanced at the SoCal Championships. His first rating came out in the May update yet he still played Int for about 5 more tourneys. It was his first year of competing and he had no idea how it was supposed to work, so he wan't intentionally bagging or wrking the system or anything. But those other TDs didn't do their jobs, so I got to be the bad guy.

actually an intermediate golfer checked it and reported it to the TD - this was not realized to after the first round - luckily he had played the same tees at the same time as everyone else, so his card was moved into the advanced.

He got to play with me second round, so it was worth it I think

Using a score programs as the one Gary Duke programed, eliminates playing below your rating.

Before a tournament, the PDGA sends you the latest ratings. I forward them to Gary and he sends me back the program with everyone in our region already installed.

I beat MTL in the first round of that tourny(same tees).

It will probably be the last time I beat him also for a while...

TDs that check am ratings seem to be in the minority right now, pizza.

Why do people have such a hard time checking the ratings? At least this does not seem to be a problem in Texas...

Rhett, I don't have to check ratings, the program will not let me enter them in a division below there rating. (or age group)

(that is unless they don't have a PDGA number or are new to the sport)

Why do people have such a hard time checking the ratings? At least this does not seem to be a problem in Texas...



I imagine that it has to do with pre-registrations and the crunch and mad rush that typifies the hour before the players' meeting.

If you do the on-line preregistration thing, that list shows each players' rating if he/she has one. It is as easy as cut-n-pasting from a spreadsheet.

Besides, if you have all the names, divisions and PDGA membership info entered in a timely manner, updating scores after each day is a 2 minute project. It is so easy that it amazes me that the majority of TD's don't take advantage of these features.

Yeah, check those ratings. We wouldn't want pros playing against ams or something outrageous like that... It would be so bad for the sport... ;)

Pizza, I was including you in the minority that checks ratings. :)

Good post. I'd like to expand upon that scenario. I haven't done much research into the ratings stuff, so this may have been answered already, sorry.

Let's say as a TD for a PDGA ratings tourney, you see a casual hacker with a rating for one tourney on his home course, which he's played a thousand times and has evolved his game around it. Then he goes to his second tourney (the one you're TDing) on a completely different type of course, and you, the TD, knowing this hacker's game, knows he's going to be throttled by his peers. If his rating is on the cusp of two tiers, does the TD have the ability to put him in the lower tier? Or, rather, SHOULD the TD have this ability?

As the TD, I would like the ability to move a guy down in this circumstance (I personally would get a concensus [sp?] permission from contestants in the lower tier before doing this, and if there was any stink about it, I'd tell the unfortunate competitor that, too bad, he's got his work cut out for him today).

I understand that letting TD's 'bend' the tiers opens up a pandora's box; because if we let the "only one tourney at home course" guy slide down a division, we can dream up a thousand other excuses to move a guy down a tier:

My knee / elbow / finger / etc is hurt
I haven't played in a while
DUDE! I am SOOO wasted! Where my bag?
I can't play in the wind / rain / cold / heat
JEEZ, I can't play a decent round at friggin 8am!
Putting slump
I'm just playing sidearm / left-handed / putters today
This course HATES me
etc.

Maybe the thing to do is keep the guy in the same tier, and then have a "tier players meeting" where each person can plead to his fellow tier-competitors about all the reasons why he can't play good golf today, and beg for a stroke or two a round from them to make up for it! :)

I guess it comes down to fairness vs. justice. The ratings system appears to be eminently, scientifically fair (without being blindingly complicated with variables). At the same time, it can only attempt to be just, and hopefully it's close enough to justice to be workable so that any one person in a tier usually has a worthwhile chance to win his divison.

-- kurt from Seattle

Let's say as a TD for a PDGA ratings tourney, you see a casual hacker with a rating for one tourney on his home course, which he's played a thousand times and has evolved his game around it. Then he goes to his second tourney (the one you're TDing) on a completely different type of course, and you, the TD, knowing this hacker's game, knows he's going to be throttled by his peers.

Already happened. Robbie Dunn shot a blistering 1042-rated round on his home course in his first-ever PDGA ('03 Bull City Showdown) and ended up with a 975 rating based on a grand total of FOUR rounds. When May ratings came out, he had dropped to 958 (16 rounds total), and in the last rating update, he was down to 950. This year's Bull City Showdown is in two weeks. It'll be interesting to see much his rating jumps afterwards.

Kurt,

One possible solution is to "require" all players playing in PDGA events to "designate" which division they are going to play in at "ALL PDGA Events" for that calendar year. You have to qualify for the Pro Divisions, while with WWCC the Amateur Divisions you must play in a division at or above your rating.

So the PDGA Ratings AND Division on your card is the one you are going to compete in for the "Year" printed on that card. This info could be sent to all TDs, just as it is now, only it would not change throughout the year, unless an Am qualified as a Pro.

Ramifications:

MPMs flip flopping between MPO and MPM to gain an advantage would be completely stopped. You're a Master you play in the Master Division (this is the death of this proposal I realize).

Advanced Players would not be able to test the waters of Open. You're an Advanced Player, hey, guess what? You play in the Advanced Division (strange though that may seem).

Intermediate Players would not be able to drop back and forth between MA1 and MA2. Pick one and stay with it until you have no other choice.

Of course at events that are truly "OPEN", with just one Pro and one Am division, any Pro and any Am could compete.

This would have to be some kind of Player Tour Agreement. This has about a snowballs chance in hades of happening because it takes the bottle away from the 2 biggest babies in organized disc golf (Masters and Advanced in case you didn't know).

Regards,
Nick

What of the Masters players that play masters always regardless of the field size (unless there is not enough for the field to be offered) or competition. I have never changed divisions to go for easy money or points or to hide from "better" competitors. Does that make me one of the Master Babies ?

What of the Masters players that play masters always regardless of the field size (unless there is not enough for the field to be offered) or competition. I have never changed divisions to go for easy money or points or to hide from "better" competitors. Does that make me one of the Master Babies ?



No, you are a Macho Master Gary. But then again you wouldn't have any issue signing a tour agreement to play in only the Masters Division then would you?

Eh, eh, eh; if only Open is offered then yes anyone can play it. (Non-WWCC Amateur that is..)

move to arizona and try to play masters nick!

i play masters out of state and open in state as that is the ONLY option (except for the memorial which is like an out of state event)

move to arizona and try to play masters nick!

i play masters out of state and open in state as that is the ONLY option (except for the memorial which is like an out of state event)



I'm sure this comes as no surprise, but you ARE a masters baby Keith. :D;)

wait until you can play the us masters next year in september nick.....then we can go head to head in the SAME division and settle it once and for all :D

Nick -

1. What is WWCC? I realize I'm out of the loop here. [do we need a discussion board glossary? :)]

2. As for rating and division on PDGA card, are you saying that, for example, my card says 997 on it, so I should be a 997 all year? If so, what is the advantage of that as opposed to a fluctuating rating thru the year?

3. I'm toying the idea of a first-time-in-the-NW informal (probably non-PDGA) ratings tourney for 2005. Can anyone link me to a tutorial for TDing a ratings tourney? I've seen a few debriefings online and have a general idea of what's what, but that's all.

Thanks guys

There are no weekly ratings events for 2005 because they're not really needed. You can create the equivalent of one in the 2005 system by specifying in your tournament flyer that no age restricted divisions will be offered. These are the maximum number of divisions that would offered:

Open 955+
Advanced (includes any pros with ratings under 955 who choose it)
Intermediate (anyone under 915)
Recreational (anyone under 875)
Advanced Women (women over 800 rating)
Int. Women (women under 800)
Rec. Women (women under 750)

The only players not truly supported in this format like they were with true ratings events are men with ratings under about 825.

Nick -

1. What is WWCC? I realize I'm out of the loop here. [do we need a discussion board glossary? :)]



�What We Currently Call�


2. As for rating and division on PDGA card, are you saying that, for example, my card says 997 on it, so I should be a 997 all year? If so, what is the advantage of that as opposed to a fluctuating rating thru the year?



It sets the divisional options available according to rating throughout the year.


3. I'm toying the idea of a first-time-in-the-NW informal (probably non-PDGA) ratings tourney for 2005. Can anyone link me to a tutorial for TDing a ratings tourney? I've seen a few debriefings online and have a general idea of what's what, but that's all.



All events are Ratings Based this year Kurt.


Thanks guys



Our pleasure. :)

Yes, I had to play Open recently as it was the only division offered, and I played Advanced I think last year because there was no Adv Masters division. Other than that, I have always played here, but still would not like to sign anything swearing to play in only this division. Even when our PDGA membership cards had our division on them, You could always play up/over.