Mighty MO - June 16th

[phisherman_77]

Par doesn't mean anything really.

Scores and participating player ratings are what's important.

I'm not 100000000% sure on this, but Timko can probably chime in with some more technical jargon and explain it better.

[Timko]

Ratings are only affected by how you shoot in relation to the rest of the field on a given day.  Nothing about any previous rounds played on that course affects the ratings, nor par does not factor into it.

Here's my simple breakdown of ratings for people.  If you'd like more information, look up information on a multi-player zero sum game.

Propagators are the people that set the ratings.  They are people with a rating over 799.  Each player over 799 has a bucket of points (determined by their rating).  Those players also have a score they shot on that course.  In what I think is a linear fashion, players give points to those who scored lower than them, and receive points from those who scored higher than them.  These points come out of a person's bucket.  So no points leave the game, but no points are added.  In the end, these points are used to determine round ratings.  So as you can see, ratings are simply based on how you played against the competition that day.

[Utz]

a player must have 8 rated rounds and above 799 rating to be a propagator

[Ken Franks]

Ratings are only affected by how you shoot in relation to the rest of the field on a given day.  Nothing about any previous rounds played on that course affects the ratings, nor par does not factor into it.

.    Interesting, you would say that chris. When you were keeping ratings for leagues, and I shot the 46 at cliff, cd shot a 57, the next best score, I said that has to be 1100 plus rated, you didn't give it to me cause you said you had to base everything of Matty-O's 45 at worlds... sounds contradictory a bit...

[coops]

Not that I would presume to speak for Timko, or know anything, but I would posit that because our league attendances have much lower participation the inclusion of other players scores on the same set up in similar conditions would be helpful in making the ratings more accurate and less dependent on an otherworldly round and a few other players having a poor (or even just slightly below average) round.

Does that sound about right Timko?

[Ken Franks]

Pin placements, wind, rain, snow...all play a factor into ratings. That's why its hard to just have a score a certain rating on pins with multiple placements and played at different times of year. Matty-o shot 45 in 95 degree weather, no wind, I did it in 45 degrees and windy... not sure how that translates, but it does....

  Take USDGC for example, That event is only done in early october. There's only a handful of weather situations that can happen and all the pins are always in the same local, Soooo you pretty much know a 68 is gonna be rated between 996-1003, Scratch golf.. It would be a very rare occasion if a 68 would be under 990 or over 1010...

 maybe this is a bad example, but not sure how many people really understand the truth about ratings, not even the creator, Chuck Kennedy... It is the best thing we got... I would like to see it done in a different way...

[eeastwood]

Tank, no matter what it's rated, 46 at cliff is amazing.

[Timko]

While weather and pin placements can affect what an individual shoots, the only thing that affects a round rating is how you shoot against the people you are playing against.

Take the same people (with the same ratings) on the same course with the same weather conditions.  Everyone shoots 10 strokes worse on 1 day than the other.  So even through the scores are significantly different, the ratings will be similar (not the same though, as the number of strokes somehow factor into Chuck's rating system by breaking down to an average number of strokes per hole).

Tank, you are correct; I use previous round ratings to estimate when people ask me about a rating, but the formula itself does not factor any of these things in.

Player rating.  Score.  Those are the ONLY 2 things used in the PDGA's formula.

[jack]

This is why ratings are flawed.....well......not why, but another reason.....the ratings information is based solely against the people and that location during that time.  This is why as well when you have an event (like the Wide Open recently) you can have different values of ratings at the same course from the afternoon and morning round.

This is also why when you play against a field that has an average lower rated players (am, Masters, vs. OPEN) your rating can be different by as much as 10-15 points....I have seen a 51 at WW (I believe, example here) during the MPO field of an event be at a 997, then the am field comes over and it was a 982.......nothing really changed except the field that they played in was lower rated, and their better round wasn't rewarded with the same stat's because the field wasn't the same.......

It's what we got to work with, it is not the best, but it is what we use.........

That is why I typically like to use the OPEN ratings baseline locally over another divsion to feel better or worst about the round....  This is also though why like Timko, I tend to generalize what the rating should be at a 1000, are we accurate with 100% certainty on this guestimate?  As you can tell, no we are not.....

[Timko]

If you'd like to have some fun looking at an older ratings calculator...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvpFzNKtC7ILdE9COC15dVJTWFNFNmlGYm5EeWIxZGc