1880 Doubles Oct 29th

[Swede]

I'm excited about the prospect of a tourny that gives a different set of players the spot light. Arguably none more deserving than JD and Fluty given that they've both been paying their dues in the open division of a whole lot of tournys this year. But I'd rather not simply shift the spotlight—I'd like to widen its beam.

I think (like Schoenny predicted) the marriage of the 1880 handicap and the different formats may not be the most effective way to level the playing field. I truly feel yesterday was a success. But I was, and am, really hoping to find a tourny where we can't all immediately identify the front runners.

I'm convinced that no matter what the handicap level, two players with equal, mid-level skills will have an edge over two players with widely differing skills—especially when it comes to Tough, Alt, and Switch+ formats. And I feel like those Tough/Alt/Switch+ holes were the most intense, communicative and challenging sections of my day. So how do we find a balance?

Also, while I expect Smitty, Crispin, and R/B will probably be back simply because of who they are, our showings won't encourage other open players to join us next year. Also, the list of folks hoping to find a teammate was filled with 900ish or lower rated players—all waiting on the top 20 KDGAers to decide to play. I am not interested in excluding players based on skill level.

So I have some questions for Y'all going forward...

What were your favorite formats? More fun birdie hunting in Best Shot? Or doing damage control in the Tough or Alt sections? Making bonus strokes in Switch+?

What about the idea of two Divisions? Say a 1910 and 1820? This *might give a little more parity within each division and would definitely give those 900 and under players a chance to get in on the fun. Or are we better off having everybody in one larger division? I certainly enjoyed that everybody out there was chasing the same gold disc.

Any interest in seeing 1880 go strictly Best Shot? Or Best and Switch only?

[smitty]

I liked all formats. Switch plus was awesome, something that could be looked at might be the holes and the format played on them.

Make the holes that we play "switch +" on 2able by most players. This could be done in a couple of ways. Simply playing the shortest possible hole. The hole behind the barn comes to mind. Straight and short?

Tough shot play on just that, tough holes. It would be interesting to see how that would/could play out. Most of the holes we played tough shot on were pretty easy, and you really had to screw up to not get a 3.

You could also have players of X rating tee from an alt. spot on long or hard holes. Don't know if that would get confusing but could level the field even more. This however may not work in all situations. Some people with low ratings don't have distance as the problem.

2 other things I would like to see would be rules clarifications.

1) Tough shot is just that, tough shot. Integrity is a huge part of golf and disc golf. The teams should do just that, pick the toughest shot. No I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine BS.

2) If you and your partner are laying the same strokes, "who is out" doesn't matter. If you are laying different strokes, "who is out" does matter.
--Ex. The hole with the tower. I throw a hyzer and swing it to wide. This puts Kindy deep in the trees with only a little window to attempt his putt. Kindy throws his drive short. I throw my upshot and am 25 past looking into a series headwind.------

Here is where the rule comes into play.

**I throw my putt and make it. Kindy has no worries and can just fire at will with no worries of making a comeback putt.

The way we played it and it should be played IMO.
**I am closer then Kindy, and we are not laying the same. Since he is out, he needs to putt first. Now he has to be careful to not just run it past by 40 feet.

[RustyMetal]

Great tourney Swede! I appreciate the fact that you tried, and continue to try to make the tournament as fair as possible. I don't have any bright ideas. I felt like two 940 rated players would have the best shot of doing well given the various formats of play. After it got windy, I felt even more so. I say keep the interesting format of shots and and just focus on the rating system. Did you look at league handicaps? I defintely don't feel like a 929 player. Perhaps you could allow players with a rating of 960 and better to have players rated 920. I like Smitty's suggestion of removing outlier rounds.

[b]

Too bad there isn't a perfect ratings system. What a headache it must be to be the #%! who decides how good someone he's never seen is. I know from playing with the locals several players were under rated, including myself. Throwing out my low scores would have raised me over 20 pts. But adjusting the ratings might not have changed anyone but the winners.

We played both rounds with Kintzel and Knox, 2nd place winners, and they beat us because they made putts. That's kind of how this game goes. They did get a bonus 2 on hole 19 switch without either of them throwing a great drive. That seemed a little too easy for a free stroke.

I would rather play the different formats on consecutive holes instead of back and forth like we did. Not sure why it was done other than wanting certain formats on certain holes. The alternate shot holes played so much faster than the others it caused backups on the following holes later in the round. If this is a preferred format, maybe a short 3rd round of 6 or 8 holes played between or right after, all teams starting on the same hole. Or a final 9 with top 4 teams.

[Swede]

Make the holes that we play "switch +" on 2able by most players. This could be done in a couple of ways. Simply playing the shortest possible hole. The hole behind the barn comes to mind. Straight and short?

Good point. Though I did like the two par 4's that could be 3'd for a bonus.

Tough shot play on just that, tough holes. It would be interesting to see how that would/could play out. Most of the holes we played tough shot on were pretty easy, and you really had to screw up to not get a 3.

Interesting. I assumed that tough shot was going to be a format that really punished the lower rated players in the field. That's why we only played 4 holes of it and they were fairly easy holes. It didn't occur to me to make them tough for everyone. I thought about 7 and 8 as options at one point. You could see scores from 2 to 7 on those.

Brings up another point/question. Can we handle switching formats every hole or two? I recognized that certain holes should be played in certain formats but I gave up on most of them for two reasons:
1. I was trying to get some flow by putting as many of the same format holes in a row.
2. I didn't want to play the same hole with the same format twice.

Some of the comments I heard Saturday make me think that flow wasn't too important; that folks were looking at each tee to see which format we were playing. If that is true, we could do quite a bit of tweaking just by pairing holes with formats.

1) Tough shot is just that, tough shot. Integrity is a huge part of golf and disc golf. The teams should do just that, pick the toughest shot. No I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine BS.

Amen. Really dissapointing.

2) If you and your partner are laying the same strokes, "who is out" doesn't matter. If you are laying different strokes, "who is out" does matter.

I understand the sentiment but I can't see everybody taking the time/being able to understand the distinction. Especially since the opposite can be true. My partner throws a great drive on hole 2 within 40 ft. I hit a tree and go in the water. I'm out and we are laying different strokes. I'm sure everyone would expect my partner to go hole out before I play any further.

Great tourney Swede! ... Did you look at league handicaps? I defintely don't feel like a 929 player. Perhaps you could allow players with a rating of 960 and better to have players rated 920. I like Smitty's suggestion of removing outlier rounds.

Thanks, Russ (I finally know which Horning this is now that you told me your rating ) I only got into league handicaps if there weren't any tourney results to use. Unfortunately, that was enough work. I agree that both you and your bro can play above your ratings. But if I start skewing the ratings for the people I do know, it isn't fair for those that I don't. Plus you had a 40+ point cushion.

As far as dropping outlier scores, I agree in principle that it ought to happen. And if someone shows me how to implement it, I will. But of the 10 players in the top finishing teams, 6 move 1pt or less when highest and lowest are removed. Your bro takes the biggest leap (only 6 rounds used) from 908 to 923. But your rating actually drops 1pt so you two were still well under the cap. Fluty jumped 5pts with JD staying the same so they still had some wiggle room. Ring/Kassner and Vest/Doyle each move 1pt as a team. Ft. Cannoli improves a combined 4pts to put them @ 1870.

I understand the sentiment behind pairing 960 and ups with 920 and belows, but I think that just shifts the advantage back to the higher rated players.

That's why I wonder if raising the cap might help. Two players right in the middle will still have an advantage, but the spread between the top player and their partner would be less.

[Swede]

several players were under rated, including myself. Throwing out my low scores would have raised me over 20 pts. But adjusting the ratings might not have changed anyone but the winners.

Was anybody over rated (besides me )? Are you thinking people are either rated too low or about right--not too high? Is that why you want to remove just low scores?

They did get a bonus 2 on hole 19 switch without either of them throwing a great drive. That seemed a little too easy for a free stroke.

Yeah, holes 2 and 19 are par 3 1/2. The only par 4 was hole 21 but we didn't play that switch+ because I was trying to keep a flow. Though I don't think getting 2 3's on 19 is any easier than getting 2 2's on hole 1

I would rather play the different formats on consecutive holes instead of back and forth like we did. Not sure why it was done other than wanting certain formats on certain holes. The alternate shot holes played so much faster than the others it caused backups on the following holes later in the round. If this is a preferred format, maybe a short 3rd round of 6 or 8 holes played between or right after, all teams starting on the same hole. Or a final 9 with top 4 teams.

Damn. There goes that theory.

I felt like we played some less than stellar holes in order to have as much flow as we did. The only back and forth 1st round was to avoid 4 straight tough shot holes and that certain back up--so we played 2 and 2. 2nd round I wanted 2 par 4's on the Switch+ so I split that section up 4 and 2. But you didn't like hole 19 anyway so that was an even bigger fail

Alt Shot we kept together to ensure folks kept the rotation on the drives.

[Darren B]

Swede great time thanks for all the thought and work, the Darren & Tom Show got rounds with DOWNTOWN TRAIN, and SWEDEGRASS all on the same day, then got to take home a little cash and some cool plastic it dont get any better than that. thanks for the fun, see you next time for sure, what ever the format happens to be!!!!

[Ruder]

I would have really liked to make this tournament. Sounds like you all had a great time, and
CONGRATS TO JD AND FLUTY!

Lookin forward to the 2nd annual

[Ruder]

Robin and Logan teaming up? How awesome, I bet they had fun!

[pironix]

As far as dropping outlier scores, I agree in principle that it ought to happen. And if someone shows me how to implement it, I will.

Swede I updated your spreadsheet to calculate ratings based on dropping the 2 worst rounds... I can change that but will get it put online when I get home.

[Swede]

I'm curious to see that. It never occurred to me to only drop low scores. Wouldn't that simply raise everybody's rating? Can someone help me see the reasoning?

[cfluty]

I'm curious to see that. It never occurred to me to only drop low scores. Wouldn't that simply raise everybody's rating? Can someone help me see the reasoning?

I don't see any reasoning, it's supposed to be an average, and eliminating only bad rounds would only make the average inaccurate. Everyone has a terrible round every so often, it's part of the game and is what keeps everyone's rating lower than what they think they are capable of. Someone's opinion of what someone's rating should be just doesn't work when you have numbers backing up how they have performed.

[smitty]

The best thing to do IMO would be to drop rounds that were several rating points below your rating. Drop that round were the person knows they are out of the cash, so they are trying to ace every hole or throw in that sport center highlight putt.

Those rounds aren't really an indicator of the persons skill level.

Don't know what the magic number is? I had a PDGA round that was 90 points lower then my current rating and it didn't count. Also, you most current rounds are the most accurate judge of what your rating really is. Maybe only use your last 10 or 12 rated rounds. ????

[Swede]

I'm willing to listen on how the ratings system can be improved. But I really don't feel we had any problems with the ratings at this event.

"Dine and Dash" was the only real surprise in my mind--well done gents. Basically the teams with players rated between 915 and 965 are all at the top. Fluty and JD are both improving but lets face it, they BOTH played awesome. Remember, 10pts should generally equal about 1 stroke/round. They were 5 strokes clear of 2nd and 7 clear of the log jam. And there WAS a log jam--14 teams were separated by 4 strokes. I'd call that competitive.

In my mind, the ratings worked great. My only concern is the combination of top players tanking and 900ish and lower rated players not finding partners.

We either have to...
1) Find a way for top players to be competitive maybe by tweaking the formats or holes played in certain formats. If we get more top players, we will have fewer players on the eligible bachelor list.
-Or-
2) Adjust the ratings cap upwards and possibly have two divisions.

[b]

I say the rating should reflect your current level. We all know JD is playing at a 970 level now. He's made enormous improvement in the past year. If the TD has the power to give a rating to unknowns based on feedback from those who know a player, he should also have the power to assign a current rating. Throw out all the low rounds, even if it is almost half as would be in my case. At the G-master level there is no incentive to score well once Harv has you beat. I can bring a 950 game if needed, as can many of those between 900 and 925. Your K-ratings for G-masters show a range from low 900's up to 950ish, but we all are the same. Just a difference of where and who we played against. Harv and Rich missed out by 2 pts. from qualifying as a team and they would not have any advantage over the others. How about using your powers to assign players into pools based on all factors, K-rating, personal knowledge, division played, and feedback. Starting at 970 up would give you about 20 top players. They could only pair with someone in the 920ish and lower pool. Whether to have 1 or 2 middle pools could be decided, but they could mix in any combo. The TD would have say on all teams.