Inflated ratings

[Matt Buono]

1070 rated round and your tied in tenth?
More 1100 rounds than any course/ tournament I remember !!

[Jeff Burrows]

I was thinking that too. A 1044 rating is in 18th place and 9 off the lead.

[Josh Connell]

Weren't the first round hot scores rated 1100+ last year too? Maybe it's the course. Didn't seem to be a terribly troublesome course for players of that caliber...flat, relatively open, a bunch of deuce-or-die holes with a few two-shot "par 4s" that everyone threed with ease. Sounded like wind was something that was expected to add the bulk of the difficulty to the layout, only there was no wind.

[Matt Buono]

Yea the wind should be a factor on both courses.
But it was calm and dudes go lights out....
Not sure how the wind affects ratings ?
These guys are shooting lights out and they do on other courses
Why does this one yield the most 1100 + ratings

[Matt Aubin]

big dumb righty hyzer... putt.

big dumb righty hyzer... putt.

big dumb righty hyzer... putt.

[Josh Connell]

Yea the wind should be a factor on both courses.
But it was calm and dudes go lights out....
Not sure how the wind affects ratings ?
These guys are shooting lights out and they do on other courses
Why does this one yield the most 1100 + ratings

Technically, I guess wind doesn't affect ratings directly. My theory, though, is the wind is the only factor that can bring those elite level players down to a more mortal level on a course like that. So with no wind, they're all going extremely low while a lot of the other non-elite players are still finding the water/OB roads a bit more often and are not dropping <20 footers for threes on all the 600-800 foot "par 4s". The bulk of the field being in that "non-elite" class raises the overall SSA.

Gotta wonder how much of a factor winter rust is for some folks, too. Most of the tour guys are living and playing in the south all winter whereas a lot of the other players in the field might be from north spots where they're either playing in snow or in cold enough conditions to be bundled up all the time, if they're playing frequently at all. That could account for some of the score disparity too.

Something's going on with this tournament or those courses, though, because it does seem to yield some outlier ratings.

[John DeBois]

there is a ton of OB on that course, so if there is any wind it's tough to shoot lights out. but if there is zero wind it becomes a pretty easy course for those big arms. like matt said - big righty hyzers and a putt on most holes.

[Paul Oechsli]

Watched several rounds of it on DiscGolfPlanet.

Conditions were ideal.

Several factors drive the higher ratings.

1) Non-wooded, largely open holes with lots of OB
2) Influx of Notherners each year who don't play the course regularly and are "rusty" relative to playing on long courses in summer conditions (see the 1st round scores for the 3 or 4 NEFA folks playing out there)
3) Top pros very familiar with both courses

Keep in mind that high ratings don't happen without counterbalancing low ratings. As always, the "average" rating for all competitors' rounds yesterday is equal to the "average" overall ratings of each competitor coming into the tournament.

Long, relatively open holes with ample OB amplifies the strengths of the best players, hence the top players always outproduce their ratings at this event. Now it may be more boring golf, but as a top pro once said the "fairest hole" (i.e., the best test of skill) is a wide 450' open hole with all OB, excepting a 40 foot circle around the basket. Not a lot of variety and dull golf but the best players, in a relative sense, will do much better on this hole than your 960-1000 rated golfers.

[Chuck Kennedy]

These courses are the closest we have to the equivalent of "bowling" with a lot of relatively repetitive throws for the top dogs and "gutter" OB for the regular joes. Those who can groove similar long throws better, fare relatively better. Discs fly shorter and less stable when temps are 50 degrees colder. Even the snowbirds who have been playing in cold winter conditions then play this event will experience discs flying longer than expected along with big skips producing OB trouble. Not much skipping in the snow other than some ice here and there.

[Dan Doyle]

and what about the notion of "PAR"?

my thought is that the idea of Par on a course like this is watered down, at least for the majority of the MPO field.
there are obviously many things about The Memorial that must be awesome. Filled fields every year attests to that.

But when so many open players shoot so many strokes under Par does that suggest that some re-design should be done?

maybe i'm old school. i'd prefer to see Majors and NT events with designs whereby the winner after 4 rounds would be somewhere around 10-under-Par for the entire 4 rounds - NOT 10-under-Par or more each round. On a course like they played yesterday there can't be too much risk vs reward strategy and not many holes where these players can blow up.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Dan, you would think that. However, the SSA is coming in at 58.5 on a course listed as par 60. So the par for 1000 rated players is about right. The nature of having open holes with lots of OB means if you're good enough to hit the landing areas safely, you can really score. If you can't, then you get some bonus throws for OB added to your score. So these courses produce a wider range and standard devistion in scoring than the typical courses.

Note that these 1100 rounds don't happen on these courses when mostly locals and regional players are playing them in events at other times in the year, even with some 1125+ players in them. It would imply the snowbird effect is important in what happens at the Memorial in addition to having more top players playing who can shoot those types of rounds thus raising the probability.

[Bobby Direnzo]

Talk about inflated ratings.. where is Buzzz saw?

[Dan Doyle]

chuck...

i dont have a complete grasp of the statistics associated with SSA computation, so my next question might indicate some misunderstanding or ignorance on my part....

SSA is what a 1000-rated player would score. but it is computed as a result of ALL of the propagators that played that layout y'day, not just 1000-rated players, correct?

i would be curious to know what the SSA would have been if you calculated it using ONLY players rated 1000 or better.
i bet instead of it being 58.5 it would be around 50 or 51, or 8 to 9 strokes under Par, or birdie on every other hole.

and that is my point. i hate seeing the top 10 players in the MPO division having scores of around -40 to -55 after 4 rounds. maybe i'm making too big of a deal about it, but for those outside the sport who only know PAR as it relates to the PGA (ball golf), from that perspective when they see scores like that i "worry" that they conclude that Disc Golf must be very easy if players shoot that much under Par.

PAR should mean something. Should PAR be based on how a 1000-rated player scores? a 1050-rated round? 950? less?

[Craig Cutler]

It will be hard to design a course (without woods) that will prevent these guys from shooting -15's. . They all throw 450 backhand and forehand and rarely miss within 40 feet. Plus, they have been in the AZ for weeks, practicing the course every day. dialed in.

[Chris Young]

I have to agree with Dan's point that seeing a player at 40 or 50 under after 4 rounds seems ridiculous. You dont see ball golfer's at the sports best events going that far under par. Doesn't seem right.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The average score of all 86 pro (not just Open) players at the event with ratings above 974 (gold level) happens to be 1001. Their average score in the first round was 57.3 which is an SSA of 57.2. The SSA for the whole pro field was 58.4 in the first round. So having the other 125 pro players there below 975 rating boosted the SSA 1.2 providing about a 10-point boost to the ratings of the top players versus if those lower rated players weren't there, and in theory, just one throw more under "true" par.

[Karl Molitoris]

We know that we have a "problem" with par (both its definition and its practical application) and such discussion is for another thread, but just to reiterate my beliefs Chuck (that I've mentioned to you in past 'discussions'), I think (maybe years from now) you'll find out that this specific scenario will be an exemplary test case for showing how having a linear algorithm trying to describe / calculate an asymtotic situation is not the best solution (or ratings system).

Karl

[John DeBois]

It doesn't make sense to have traditional Pars for individual holes while the sport has such limited access to land.

Course designers are usually not able to design the exact holes they want due to space limitations.

There are 3 options to fix this while the current course/land model is being used:

1. Allow some holes to be par 2.

2. Use non-integer values for par. Example: Hole 1 SS Warwick should be a par 2.2.

3. Replace individual hole pars with a course par. Warwick SS should be par 47, because that is the number of strokes that a scratch (or 0 handicap) golfer should require to complete the course. Calling it a par 54 is a misrepresentation of it's difficulty.

I've suggested the above ideas to several TDs in NEFA but most feel uncomfortable breaking the conventional approach. But, it's either break tradition or deal with the outrageous 50-under scores.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Karl, it's not the rating system that's the issue but the issue brought out by the ratings system. The ratings system is expected to do some amazing things when you consider that it "works" for courses ranging from 3800 ft pitch and putts to 12,000 ft behemoths regardless whether they are wide open or heavily wooded or riddled with OB traps. There's no indication it doesn't properly assess skills in all of those venues. Sometimes the numbers don't feel right but humans are notorious for selective reasoning.

That's off the point I was shooting for which is more along the lines where Dan was heading. The ratings system shows some courses have a wide range of scoring and others a very narrow range. The question that should be asked is whether the numbers are showing a flaw in the course design where perhaps it should be considered unsuitable for some competitions. We already have a minimum SSA guideline of 49 for NTs and Majors. If we're getting rating results that are seen as weird such as the extremely high rated rounds at the Memorial, maybe those courses shouldn't be used for NTs or Majors? I'm not arguing either side, just that the ratings system is a potential tool that can be used to flush out issues like this for the movers and shakers to consider.

[Dan Doyle]

good points mr debois.

i agree with your examples using the warwick course i am obviously somewhat familiar with. for example, calling #1 S-S a Par 3 is fine if Pars are based on what a 900-rated golfer would shoot. but obviously if a 1000-rated player played that hole 100 times they'd probably deuce it at least 80 times.

the idea of a non-integer-based Par makes statistical sense. but even though i love statistics, it feels funky to think of a "Par 2.2". it just doesnt feel right.

in the grand scheme of disc golf design issues it isnt at the top of the priority list. but the scores at the Memorial could be used as a reminder to designers to at least take into more consideration the notion of Par. that is one of the main reasons why i pushed for 4 different layouts at warwick: so the hole Pars on various layouts are more suitable for various skill levels.
understandably, not all design projects allow for that much flexibility due to various constraints.

[John DeBois]

Warwick SS was just the first course that came to mind where people consistently shoot under par. It seemed there was a suggestion that course designers should change holes like 1SS so that they are a true Par 3 - but like you mentioned, various constraints prevent that from happening. I think calling it a Par 2 during sanctioned events is a good way to prevent 50-under type numbers.

[Dan Doyle]

jdb....

the purpose of 4 layouts at warwick was so that for sanctioned events, if we wanted Par to be meaningful, not all divisions would play all layouts. for example, hole 1 S-S IS a Par 3 for the lower-rated divisions (e.g. Recreational) while 1 B-B IS a Par 3 for the higher-rated divisions and is probably a Par 4 for lower-rated players.

[Karl Molitoris]

Or just NOT list the course's par (and thus no one will know how many under par someone is, etc.)! This seemingly flies in the face of convention but WE in dg know that "par" can be goofy (until (if we ever do) we 'fix it'), so there's no 'fooling us'. As for the rest of the unknowing (who we may be trying to teach / impress?) they may ask how many under par someone is but since it seems that SO many dg'ers wish to 'rebel' away from their unacknowledged roots in ball golf, maybe this is the time to pretty much delete the par concept and use some other more meaningful (to dg) measure!

Along these lines would be the following:
A number like 273 is a wonderful number by itself but relatively meaningless UNLESS you also know that the leader is (after say 4 rounds) at 268 - and thus you know the first player is 5 shots out of the lead. Who cares how many under / over par someone is? Most people know what a shot is and know that 5 shots in 1 round (when the leader is averaging about 67 shots per 18 hole round) is....

If you think about it, there are an incredible number of 'solutions' to the 'problem' (if it even is one); it's just that old habits die hard, people ability to see potential improvements in a system is rare, and those same person's desire to work toward change is still even more fleeting.

Karl

[Matt Buono]

Guessing Ricky shot anther 1100

[Chuck Kennedy]

Ricky missed it by one point but Doss and Schusterick shot one better and got 1108s.

[Paul Oechsli]

Extrapolating from Karl's post, why not make par relative to a 1000 rated round for the tournament in question (rounded down, not up so that a 1037 round is "3 under")? Raw score still wins, but to me this is essentially a truer metric in terms of a proxy to what ball golf par means. Yes, the Memorial would still produce some a leader board with a few guys ~ 20 under after 2 rounds but it everywhere else it would bring the pars into a much closer calibration with "true par" (as defined in ball golf). A hot round of "1067" on a tough A-tier course would equate to 6 under, equivalent to shooting a 66 at Augusta (a really good accomplishment by a top player).

For lower tier tournaments simply define course par as SSA - 1 (as a proxy).

[Chuck Kennedy]

Using rounded down SSA par at the Memorial, Nikko's 16 down at Vista would have been 14 down and Doss/Schusterick 42s at Fountain would have been 11 down. The current leaders would still be 22 under SSA par than the listed par for those courses. Not much impact using SSA par. Have to make putting tougher or only count one for putts instead of two when setting par on a hole.

[Dave Jackson]

Chuck, you da man.

The ratings system however is not da man

[John DeBois]

imo ssa should be based off of a 1030 rating instead of 1000.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Climo was the only player with an initial rating over 1030 in 1998 when the SSA was established. Only 8 players in the World had initial ratings of 1000 or higher. If anything, the SSA could have been set around 970 or 975 at the point where we start to consider a player has a "pro" rating. However, at the time we didn't even have a concept of what a pro versus am rating would turn out.