I replied to a post on t he pdga discussion board but felt the post was informative enough for my blog,,, so here you go.
My biggest complaint about ratings is on tougher par 72 style courses, where a stroke is only worth 4.5 points, compared to 13 points on a deuce or die par 54 course where top players ( or really good putters) shoot low 40’s.
The points per stroke should have another factor,, like how much scoring spread there is per hole or per round. Some courses have scores where the majority are really bunched together ( say 69 – 75 while others may have much wider range of say 64 – 80, even though both may average 72.
Its my opinion that the course with the TIGHTER grouping should have the points be worth more per stroke as its harder to put a separation on the field therefore the strokes should be worth more points each.
To me a really good course is one with par 3,4’s and 5’s that require a complete game.
This type of course will usually have a lot of scoring spread per hole but have a tighter average of total scores. Course like this get penalized with a 4.5 points per stroke and ratings are usually way,,,,,,,WAY,,,,,, lower then they are on easier courses.
I think the same can be said about the ratings of the players at the event.
If you play with an average field of say 970 your round rating is going to be a lot lower than if the average were 1010.
Its seems to me that a piece to the formula is missing or something is not proportioned properly.
I really expected the ratings standards to continue to improve and become more accurate by now.
Drifting from ratings to Rankings now,,,,,,
After watching the peaks and dips of players rated 1020 and above the last couple of years its obvious the factors used are TOO subjective to which event ratings fall off that are 1 year old combined with how hot their last 8 rounds were. If a player plays a few consecutive events on really hard courses with weak fields, his rating will certainly drop even though he may be playing better than ever.
On the contrary if a player pops off a few big events right before the cut-off on lets say his home courses,,, his rating will jump up,, especially if he loses a year old round ratings from an event where the ratings were low ( like they typically are on harder courses or events with weaker fields).
Once a player reaches a 1000 rating ( or 955,,,whatever) the ratings should stop and they should officially become ranked nationally.
The ranking should be based more on head to head and finishes in the larger events,,,maybe even include earnings.
(Can anyone provide the list of what goes into the PGA rankings???
I’ve been miffed at how long Tiger Woods held onto the #1 spot.)
I personally feel a players ranking ( not rating) should also drop off from non participation.
If your not playing with the big boys, how can you continue to be highly ranked???
At times I see a player ranked in the top that doesn’t really play too often or at all in the larger events.
Ratings can be a good barometer, especially for everyone under 1000, but Rankings creates much more competition among those that are ranked or even more important “want to be”!!!.