Chuck you and I have talked about which strokes should be worth more, those with an ssa in the 60s or those in the 40's.
Players who play harder ssa courses seem to have lower player ratings, which is becoming obvious to all who follow the ratings.

Is there something to do with the mean or distance away from the average score that could adjust the points per stroke from each particular event?

Maybe the ratings points per strokes should be re-evaluated and taken a look at from a different perspective.
An 11 point per stroke separation when the ssa is 44 and a 7 point value at 66 seems exactly the opposite that it should be.
The more strokes you play and the more you beat a guy by should mean the strokes are worth more, not less.

I think it's harder to beat a better player on SSA 46 or so course than a 66 or so course. There are less chances for bird on the 46SSA course.

It's tough to say. I've always looked at it like if you mess a shot on a par 4 hole, you have 2 opportunities to make up for it with either a spectacular upshot or a spectacular putt. If you're playing a par 3 hole, if you mess up your drive, you've only got one shot (a long putt) to get your birdie. You almost have to be more perfect on shorter courses.

Dave's course record 58 this weekend was an amazing score. He beat the next best score by 3 strokes with a stacked field of players in a National Tour. I'm sure if you ask him, he feels like that round was better than some of his 1080 rated rounds.

It's tough to say. I've always looked at it like if you mess a shot on a par 4 hole, you have 2 opportunities to make up for it with either a spectacular upshot or a spectacular putt. If you're playing a par 3 hole, if you mess up your drive, you've only got one shot (a long putt) to get your birdie.



Exactly!!

A few weeks ago, I played in the Azealea tournament on a par 64 course. Holes 7 and 15 were legit par 4's and I 3'd both of them every round.

Heres how...

On 7...

First round - perfect drive, bad approach, great putt
Second round - perfect drive, great approach, tap in
Third round - terrible drive, terrible approach that got lucky, great putt
Fourth round - decent drive, great approach (hit the basket), tap in

On 15
First round - great drive, decent approach, average distance putt
Second round - great drive, great approach, tap in
Third Round - amazing drive, HORRIBLE approach - 80 foot putt
Fourth round - bad drive, AMAZING approach, tap in.

I guess my point is even though on paper it looked like I played these holes the same, I really did not.

Par 4 and Par 5's allow the golfer to not be where he wants / needs to be off the tee and still score well.

However, this could be argued the other way saying that Par 4 and Par 5 golf takes more skill b/c you have more chances to mess up and therefore need to recover more.

Personally, give me a teepad, a fair route to the pin and a basket that will catch my putt, and I will be happy.

I think as Par goes up, strokes under par should be worth more. It's understandable that the SSA should be the same, but as you get lower and lower under par, each stroke should be worth a bit more.

It's a bit like Who Wants to be a millionaire. Anyone can get par (if they have the capability of reaching holes), but each putt under par is worth a bit more. You get a couple under, those maybe worth 5 each, the next 2 birdies are worth 6, then a couple more at 7, then they go up to 8 for the next one, then 10, then 12, then 15, then 19, and so on. (I am just giving a general idea how the curve system works. Of course, on a course with no historical data like the IDGC courses, it is hard to say what a good score would be.

While par 54 holes have 18 chances to increase your perfection below par, they have 18 drives that can go awry, Par 64 courses, while they have 18-20 legitimate chances to shave strokes (some holes can be eagled), they also have more potential for drive error, with 28 potential drives to get into trouble on.

I think as Par goes up, strokes under par should be worth more. It's understandable that the SSA should be the same, but as you get lower and lower under par, each stroke should be worth a bit more.

It's a bit like Who Wants to be a millionaire. Anyone can get par (if they have the capability of reaching holes), but each putt under par is worth a bit more. You get a couple under, those maybe worth 5 each, the next 2 birdies are worth 6, then a couple more at 7, then they go up to 8 for the next one, then 10, then 12, then 15, then 19, and so on. (I am just giving a general idea how the curve system works. Of course, on a course with no historical data like the IDGC courses, it is hard to say what a good score would be.

While par 54 holes have 18 chances to increase your perfection below par, they have 18 drives that can go awry, Par 64 courses, while they have 18-20 legitimate chances to shave strokes (some holes can be eagled), they also have more potential for drive error, with 28 potential d
rives to get into trouble on.



brilliant!

It's tough to say. I've always looked at it like if you mess a shot on a par 4 hole, you have 2 opportunities to make up for it with either a spectacular upshot or a spectacular putt. If you're playing a par 3 hole, if you mess up your drive, you've only got one shot (a long putt) to get your birdie.



Exactly!!

A few weeks ago, I played in the Azealea tournament on a par 64 course. Holes 7 and 15 were legit par 4's and I 3'd both of them every round.

Heres how...

On 7...

First round - perfect drive, bad approach, great putt
Second round - perfect drive, great approach, tap in
Third round - terrible drive, terrible approach that got lucky, great putt
Fourth round - decent drive, great approach (hit the basket), tap in

On 15
First round - great drive, decent approach, average distance putt
Second round - great drive, great approach, tap in
Third Round - amazing drive, HORRIBLE approach - 80 foot putt
Fourth round - bad drive, AMAZING approach, tap in.

I guess my point is even though on paper it looked like I played these holes the same, I really did not.

Par 4 and Par 5's allow the golfer to not be where he wants / needs to be off the tee and still score well.

However, this could be argued the other way saying that Par 4 and Par 5 golf takes more skill b/c you have more chances to mess up and therefore need to recover more.

Personally, give me a teepad, a fair route to the pin and a basket that will catch my putt, and I will be happy.



I have to agree with the earlier comment that it's harder to compete against the Best in the World on courses that have lower SSA's. Just look at your statistics on the par 4's Robert. Most of them you had a horrible shot and still got birdie. You have a horrible shot on a par 3, most likely you're not getting your birdie unless you're talking of holes like 1 at Orangeburg, SC or 13 at Timmons Park in Greenville... For instance, Earlewood. You can birdie EVERY hole on the course, if you hit an early tree, you're not getting you're birdie without a field ace or if you sail over this hill or that hill, you're 99% of the time just getting par. BUT at a course like GOVAN, SC, on the par 4's a bad drive but good approach can still give you a tap in (on only some of the par 4's cuz the other ones you're extremely satisfied with the 4). Just my view. Now a 58 this past weekend at a course like that should have been WELL up there on the ratings. I think a 12 under score should give you a rating relatively close anywhere you go. 12 under at Earlewood should give you the same ratings as a 52 at Headrick in my belief. Even though I think Earlewood would be much easier to do that on then Headrick. There is about a 10-12 point rating differnce in favor of Earlewood in this comparison. My view, and I don't think the view of many others.

Every added birdie is a little bit of extra perfection. Imagine it in the diamond trade. A perfect diamond is worth a TON. That's because they are exceedingly rare. Now areally close to perfect diamond is not worth 98% of the perfect diamond, it's worth more like 75%. It's a huge difference. Whereas an average diamond is worth probably 1/100th of the perfect one. I am not saying we need to look at it like diamonds, but I think that a sliding scale where a perfect score (let's say 36 on a par 54 course) has a rating of say, 1100. Subtract or add the SSA from that to bring the perfect score to a reasonable level (where pitch and putt courses get diminished closer to 1060, and longer courses with tougher SSA would go higher, say, closer to 1150. Then you get your scratch score based on event participants, and do a sliding scale where less punishment is assessed for below par-ness, and your above par-ness has bigger jumps, something like the curve for payout.

I think a lot of the players would be more closely rated together, and a few of the pros would have much higher ratings, making them seem that much better than the average golfer.

the problem is describing a non-linear function with linear math. the points per stroke should be greater as the deviation from the norm increases regardless of type of course. scores plotted on a graph would be a bell curve not a straight line. the steepness of the curve should dictate the points per stroke.

Random thoughts, perhaps not thought through....

With no exact standards for "par", and thus none for "birdie", might basing ratings on "birdies" be a bit subjective? Earlewood has what are really "Par 2"s, but we don't call them that. On the other hand, if decide to call Owens #13 a par-4 instead of par-5, does that change the ratings of the players who played there?

Might the anecdotal stories or what is possible on a given par-4 be different than what the average is over time?

Whether it is theoretically easier to beat a better player on a low-SSA or high-SSA course, in actuality, does it happen? Or do the same top players win on both types of courses, and same lower-rated players challenge for the lead as often (or rarely) on low-SSA or high-SSA courses?

I understand the ratings are based on a statistical model, calculating all the players' previous scores against their scores in the particular round. I don't pretend ot understand that statistical model. It does seem that the most incredible scores---the best rounds from the best players---should result in similar ratings, regardless of course. If they don't, perhaps a tweak in the formula is needed.

Or perhaps not.

tap in



Arent they drop in's in disc golf, not tap in's?

Robert, were you playing ball golf on this course?

the problem is describing a non-linear function with linear math. the points per stroke should be greater as the deviation from the norm increases regardless of type of course. scores plotted on a graph would be a bell curve not a straight line. the steepness of the curve should dictate the points per stroke.


DING! DING! DING! Biscuit should definitely trade in his State Coordinator's role for that of Ratings "Consultant". You think you hear a lot of whining now . . .

Par doesn't come into play, just a score in relation to SSA. If you take a score of 58 on any course with a 67 SSA it will get the same rating. Winthrop Gold and the new Jackson are very close in SSA values with quite different terrain. If you check back when a 58 was shot at WG and the SSA came in close to 67, it was rated similarly.

I took the 58 on an SSA 67 course and adjusted the score to its equivalent on the course that Skinner shot the 41 for 1117. That score is a 47.9 on an SSA 53.7 course. It would have been rated a 1057 like a 58 is on a 67 SSA course. Nad we're not using linear math in the function. it's definitely a shallow curve function.

There's no mathematical or player benefit to artificially boosting the point value for shots on higher SSA courses. It actually adds more problems. It will help and hurt the players equally and result in no change in their rating over time. Posters here are focusing on the high side benefit and forgeting that the bad round ratings would get magnified the same amount if the value was artificially boosted.

There's no evidence that players hurt their rating by playing higher SSA courses. In fact there's more evidence to the contrary including Feldberg telling me last weekend that he needed to STOP playing easier courses in B & C-tier events to catch Climo's rating since KC almost exclusively plays A-tier and higher events where higher SSA courses are more likely to be played.

All that happens on higher SSA courses is that you will be less likely to shoot as much over or under your rating as on an easier course. But your average rating over time will be the same assuming you're not a newer player on an improvement curve. In theory, newer players could boost their rating faster by playing lower SSA courses and shooting well. Likewise, players who have stabilized or might be declining like maybe injured or older players, would be better off only playing events with really high SSA courses because the downside ratings risk is reduced. That's assuming they are worried about maintaining their rating.

I understand that the main frustration with what seem like lower ratings values for hot rounds on high SSA courses has to do with record rated rounds. Ball golf doesn't have this problem because their PGA courses have ratings in a narrow 4-5 shot range near 72. You don't have par 3 courses or executive par 63s in the PGA stat mix. If they did, they would have the same problem blending stats records. What Roger and I are going to do is to break out the best 5 rated rounds on courses in different 6-shot SSA ranges: Under 48, 48-53.99, 54-59.99, 60-65.99 and 66+. This will showcase the best rounds from a realistic stats standpoint. From my preliminary review, no one is even close to KC's round of 50 at Hippo last summer on a 62.5 SSA course.

if the greater the slope, the greater the points per stroke (where y is rating and x is score), then higher ssa courses have a steeper curve than lower ssa courses.

i'd love to see scores over time plotted this way for calvert tourneys vs. HH tourneys.

Might want to revisit this graph which shows the shallow curve for ratings of scores at different SSA levels. The bump at 50.4 SSA is related to how we had to Adjust/smooth the functions to work properly above and below the original 50.4 SSA reference value derived from Cincy Worlds which started the whole process. This older graph might be off just a few points from what we're using now since we added the adjustment to the formula that resolved the lower rated player groups getting lower ratings than higher rated groups.

http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/score%20graph.jpg

There's no evidence that players hurt their rating by playing higher SSA courses. In fact there's more evidence to the contrary including Feldberg telling me last weekend that he needed to STOP playing easier courses in B & C-tier events to catch Climo's rating since KC almost exclusively plays A-tier and higher events where higher SSA courses are more likely to be played.





I believe I heard Ken Climo say in an interview that he prefers to play courses with higher SSA's and not courses that are birdie or die type courses, then again he does have the highest rating so maybe we should listen! I also think his interview was in reference to the National Tour, and his feeling that everythng should be more standardized, like the same baskets on NT courses, similar SSA's, similar teepads and such....

It's not any easier for me to quickly determine whether a player shoots better on higher or lower SSA courses without digging up the numbers round by round. Terrain certainly is a factor for some players. Those who are on here that play lots of rounds could check and see whether their average ratings are better or worse on higher SSA courses. Use the same SSA ranges I proposed for record rounds above.

if i wasn't so wrapped up crunching numbers for work, i'd love to go back and do a study like the one i mentioned above.

Par doesn't come into play, just a score in relation to SSA. If you take a score of 58 on any course with a 67 SSA it will get the same rating. Winthrop Gold and the new Jackson are very close in SSA values with quite different terrain. If you check back when a 58 was shot at WG and the SSA came in close to 67, it was rated similarly.

I took the 58 on an SSA 67 course and adjusted the score to its equivalent on the course that Skinner shot the 41 for 1117. That score is a 47.9 on an SSA 53.7 course. It would have been rated a 1057 like a 58 is on a 67 SSA course. Nad we're not using linear math in the function. it's definitely a shallow curve function.

There's no mathematical or player benefit to artificially boosting the point value for shots on higher SSA courses. It actually adds more problems. It will help and hurt the players equally and result in no change in their rating over time. Posters here are focusing on the high side benefit and forgeting that the bad round ratings would get magnified the same amount if the value was artificially boosted.

There's no evidence that players hurt their rating by playing higher SSA courses. In fact there's more evidence to the contrary including Feldberg telling me last weekend that he needed to STOP playing easier courses in B & C-tier events to catch Climo's rating since KC almost exclusively plays A-tier and higher events where higher SSA courses are more likely to be played.

All that happens on higher SSA courses is that you will be less likely to shoot as much over or under your rating as on an easier course. But your average rating over time will be the same assuming you're not a newer player on an improvement curve. In theory, newer players could boost their rating faster by playing lower SSA courses and shooting well. Likewise, players who have stabilized or might be declining like maybe injured or older players, would be better off only playing events with really high SSA courses because the downside ratings risk is reduced. That's assuming they are worried about maintaining their rating.

I understand that the main frustration with what seem like lower ratings values for hot rounds on high SSA courses has to do with record rated rounds. Ball golf doesn't have this problem because their PGA courses have ratings in a narrow 4-5 shot range near 72. You don't have par 3 courses or executive par 63s in the PGA stat mix. If they did, they would have the same problem blending stats records. What Roger and I are going to do is to break out the best 5 rated rounds on courses in different 6-shot SSA ranges: Under 48, 48-53.99, 54-59.99, 60-65.99 and 66+. This will showcase the best rounds from a realistic stats standpoint. From my preliminary review, no one is even close to KC's round of 50 at Hippo last summer on a 62.5 SSA course.



Chuck I'm sure he isn't looking to play higher SSA courses to get a higher rating but instead only wanting to play events where there are a lot of high rated players because it still is easier to get high ratings in that event.

We here in lancaster PA area , play ALOT of SAFARI GOLF .
( in case you dont know what that is it takes an 18 hole short to medium length course and turns it into a 9 hole course LONG course )

When we play safari I normally play BETTER then my rating indicates , and when we play duece or die courses I play worse then my ratings indicate .

Now this could suggest that I cant and dont play duece or die courses well ( which is true ) BUT it also can be used as a basis for comparison. I believe Chuck is RIGHT when he says strokes are worth more on a duece or die course then they are on a long twisty turny courses.

Another way I look at it is
ON one of my home courses the short tee , short pin layout is WCP of about 45 . ( 18 holes , short mostly open course with slight to medium terrian changes , footage about 4625 )
Another courses about 30 minutes away LONG PIN TO LONG TEE LAYOUT is about WCP of about 60 ( 21 holes , long wooded holes , medium terrian changes , footage about 9100 )
NOW when the local 1000 rated pro and I play together on same courses he normally beats me by 3-5 strokes per round ON EACH COURSE .
Lets say he shoots a 45 on the short course and a 60 on the long and I shoot a 49 on the short course and a 65 on the long . IT is my opinion even though he beat me by 4 on the short course and 5 on the long course , I actually played better on the LONG course in compairson to him ( OR ACTUALLY more to the point he is the better , much more accurate player being able to DUECE the DUECE or die holes at the short course where on the long course it might be a little more of not needing the PIN POINT accuracy needed to " par/birdie " the hole )

WHICH ONCE Again I believe Chuck is right. On the lower SSA courses the stroke ( or the loss of one ) wieghs much more then a stroke on a higher SSA course .

With that all said , Even though I do not like duece or die courses , I feel at every major event that has more then 2 courses involved ( worlds ) , there should be ONE duece or die course ( or a bunch of holes on 2 seperate courses ) that allow that PIN POINT accuracy to shine thru .

the problem is describing a non-linear function with linear math. the points per stroke should be greater as the deviation from the norm increases regardless of type of course. scores plotted on a graph would be a bell curve not a straight line. the steepness of the curve should dictate the points per stroke.



I was having these thoughts in a dream the other night and couldn't put them into words in the AM. My wife just kind of stared at me and wondered.

Well put John. This is, imo, exactly how the point differential should be determined. And I like the idea of variable point differential in the same event (as Matt earlier described) in order to accomodate a "golf slope" type of calc in one rating number (which is perhaps "golf handicap").

Why do y'all assume this is a non-linear function, or that statistical distribution concepts must be employed at all? Does modeling performance through a rating need the concept of statistical distribution, any more than measuring the 40 times of players at the NFL combine?

btw. I liken our ratings system to Beyer speed figures in horse racing, where as the race distance increases (think SSA), the points per distance/time decreases. I am not a modeling wizard by any means, but they treat their model as a linear function.

applying statistical concepts would (imo, i am not a statistician, only had one course too many years ago in college) allow more effective comparison of rounds from one course type to another and eliminate some of the counter-intuitive aspects of the current system. the current system tells you that it is equally likely that any player will shoot 3,54,or 5 million on any given course- that is absurd. it also tells me that a 41 on loriella short (my 949 rated self has shot a 40 in league competition) is a better round than a 51 on loriella long (i have never shot better than 56 and it was my home course until hawk hollow went in)- equally absurd. the current system is like newtonian physics, it works fine until extremes come into play at which point it tends to break down.

all that being said- the current system is good enough for government work, so to speak. i keep swearing i am not going to bring this whole kettle of fish up anymore but my willpower is obviously lacking.

It's a valid issue and needs to be brought up often, John. As long as a very average player like myself can shot -8 or -10 on a pitch-n-putt course that would be like 1000 something rated, but struggles to shoot even my player rating on a high SSA course like Nockamixon, Tyler, or Little Lehigh Parkway, something isn't quite right.

the current system tells you that it is equally likely that any player will shoot 3,54,or 5 million on any given course



It doesn't say that at all. The probabilty a particular player will shoot a score is directly related to their rating and their standard deviation. If their rating (assuming it's stable) says they'll average a 54 and their standard deviation is 3 shots, then they'll shoot 2/3 of their rounds in competition from 51-57 and 19 out of 20 rounds from 48-60 on a course with that SSA.

As far as the popular myth that players score better ratings on lower SSA courses, it's true. However, they also score worse ratings on lower SSA courses. Their rating average should still end up about the same on all SSA courses.

Now, just like horses that do better on shorter or longer or muddier tracks, lower rated players might shoot worse on higher SSA courses because it requires judging approach shots in the field rather than grooving tee shots on mostly par 3s on your home course. That has nothing to do with a ratings problem but a player skill problem just like some players have relatively tougher times in the woods or with elevation. The top players have shown they average the same ratings regardless whether courses are low or high SSA in competition. If you're not scoring these rounds in PDGA competition, any curbstone observations on low versus high SSA ratings should just be left at the curb. Roger is gathering actual data for high activity players with stable ratings and grouping them into the five SSA ranges specified for the records and we'll see how it comes out.

I've said before that Biscoe's idea of using probabilities to determine ratings along the SSA spectrum such that an 1100 round at SSA 54 would feel like an 1100 round at SSA 66 could work in theory. The problem is there's no more accuracy and much more complexity. But the primary problem is we don't have enough data nor an appropriate way to determine what those probabilities would be as the SSA increases. It would be pure guesses that couldn't be verified.

The existing calculations are on a firm math foundation with no estimating or guessing and the numbers can and have been regularly verified. The graph I posted earlier on this thread ties together every SSA and rating in our system. The fact we can forecast scoring averages not only for complete new courses but individual holes in advance is a high level validation. We just forecasted the SSA at 59.0 for the Steady Ed course and nailed it for the HOF Classic. And that's a course with a fair amount of OB to take into consideration.

It's a valid issue and needs to be brought up often, John. As long as a very average player like myself can shot -8 or -10 on a pitch-n-putt course that would be like 1000 something rated, but struggles to shoot even my player rating on a high SSA course like Nockamixon, Tyler, or Little Lehigh Parkway, something isn't quite right.


I think it just means you suck, Jeff. :D

I am the opposite of you, Jeff. I consistently shoot better than my rating on higher SSA courses, like La Mirada GSC layout. I figure that it works out that way for me because I am not a very good/consistent putter, and the higher the SSA then the more non-putting shots there are for me to execute better than my putts.

Maybe you are good putter and just an average upshotter?

Actually, if you approach well, you can have shorter putts on high SSA courses which reduces putting pressure. That's partly how I played so well on Houck's Jackson course at the IDGC. Twelve of my 18 putts were inside 15 feet. And I made the other six that were out to 35 feet. There's a lot more pressure on putting with low SSA courses. Unless the course has been dialed from local experience, I think you're more likely to be trying to sink more 30-50 footers with birdie pressure on lowwe SSA courses.

Agreed. On a short course over 50% of your shots are putts. (Unless you shoot a 36 or less).