SSA Ratings for NEFA Courses?

Ken Niu · Post by **Ken Niu** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:47 pm

Does anyone happen to know the SSA Ratings (Estimated "Pro Par" i.e. a 1000-rated round) for the following NEFA courses?
Borderland 2005 White (I figured 46 based on the results for the 2005 SF)
Borderland 2005 Blue (I figured 62 based on the PDGA results)
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tourname ... ngs=1#Open

Wickham (2005 layout)
Warwick (all 4 layouts)
Campgaw (both layouts)
Maple Hill (Elements, Gold, & Airplanes)

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:35 pm

You can look up any course that has been used in a PDGA event over the last few years at the following link.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_r ... course.php

Just plug in the state or the name of the course and it gives you every rated round the course has in the database.

--Josh

Ken Niu · Post by **Ken Niu** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:17 pm

Awesome, Josh. That's exactly what I was looking for (except Wickham's not listed/rated by the PDGA :oops:

)

Dave Mourad · Post by **Dave Mourad** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:21 pm

Kenja,

Wickham will have an SSA rating following the GHDGO. Right now there's no useable data that would provide such information. The C-tier event will be the first PDGA and NEFA sanctioned tournament (other than the Points Finals last year) hosted at the course.

I hope to c ya there... Your scores would help develop the first ever official SSA rating for Wickham! 8)

Ken Niu · Post by **Ken Niu** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:21 pm

Layout Tournament Holes SSA Descending
Maple Hill Elements Yellows / Longs R4 (2004 Marshall Street Championship) 18 61.24
Maple Hill Elements Yellows / Longs R2 (2004 Marshall Street Championship) 18 59.98
Maple Hill Elements Reds / Shorts R3 (2004 Marshall Street Championship) 18 51.19
Maple Hill Elements Reds / Shorts R1 (2004 Marshall Street Championship) 18 48.77

IFIRC Rounds 1 & 2 were played by Amateurs and Rounds 3 & 4 were played by Pros -- wouldn't you expect to see lower SSAs during the Pro round? Or does this mean the course was harder for the Pros than the Ams :twisted:

PS: The GHDGO looks fantastic: I'd love to play, depending on my work schedule.

Dave McHale · Post by **Dave McHale** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:33 pm

what i think that actually reflects Kenja is that Am's typically play above their ratings (pushing the SSA lower), while Pro's have less deviation. In most tournaments when Ams/Pros are playing the same layouts, the pros help balance out some of the erratic results you can see from the Am divisions. At MSDGC when they're seperated, it doesn't surprise me to see lower Am SSA's.

what this also shows is that the Am's technically could have been rated HIGHER for their rounds than they did, if only the pros had been playing at the same time. (a 53 when SSA is 48 is a 950 round where if the pros were playing, the SSA may have been nearer to 50 meaning the Am would have actually thrown a 970). Granted there are always differing factors: maybe the wind was slightly different that day, maybe people were just throwing a little worse on day 2 when the pros got there... of course, only pyramids long/long did the pro SSA actually end up lower than the ams, even though the am's played pyramids after the pros did, so maybe that theory's out the window since short/long the Am SSA is still lower, and even when it WASNT lower, the difference was only 0.15 strokes.

*shrug* who knows. The ratings system isnt perfect and the MSDGC is a great example of why, I think. I think especially among REGIONS the ratings could be bunk, since the level of play in different areas could skew results where, let's just say, 1000 rated golf in NC is only 980 golf in Cali. The level of players at the events greatly influences the numbers that come out of the equasion. But..... it's better than nothing.

Matt Stroika · Post by **Matt Stroika** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:35 pm

Well put DM. I had noticed the same thing about the ratings at MSDGC awhile ago. I agree with what you said 100%.

Fondleham · Post by **Fondleham** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:24 am

I didn't read any of this thread, instead I'm creating a post for fun. The SSA for a course I might play this weekend for a C-Tier is 41.4. That has to be just about the lowest SSA in the country...anyone know offhand? The SSA is so low in fact, that there will be no ratings for this event. It's 4 rounds on the same rinky dink course...

Joseph Mason Proud, III · Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:28 am

well, let's have sum fun then.................

is this a rinky dinky course because your rinky dinky
can't handle the short stuff?
is it too much to ask
your rinky dinky to be precise instead of blindly
throwing bombs into wide open spaces?
is it impossible for your rinky dinky to grasp the
concept of par2 folf?

I think I'll be changing your LiCkAtHoN20o5 name to:

Rinky Dinklick

luv ya

LiCk

Derek Sonderfan · Post by **Derek Sonderfan** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:50 pm

Rinky Dinklink - priceless. A billion times better than Bitchlick Thunderfanny, to say the least.

Bård Soleng · Post by **Bård Soleng** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:28 am

Our training ground.....
:oops:

The SSA at Rennaisance Gold Course is 69........... :oops:

My best is a 62.......but World Champ Stan McDaniel recently shot an outstanding 57, casual.