My name is Matthew Gardner, I would like to propose a Rating system for the SN similar to that of the PDGA. I have been playing around with it and have the ability to do this for the SN. I truly believe that this will help with the sandbagging and make tournament play fair for every individual. With the guidelines being:

PRO. 940 +
ADV. 876-939
INT. 816-875
NOV. 815 and below

I would do all the work on this project and I could have the first ratings out by August for the new season. I would put together a printable sheet of player and ratings for tds to download.

This would cut out the complaining of sandbagging and help make the sport better. I believe this is the only way to truly get people in the right divisions.

Please consider this and let me know what the Board thinks because I think over all the players will benefit from this and we can get the bagging talk stoped and taken care of.

Thank you so much for what you do and I hope I am elected so that I can help the Sport grow even more.

Matthew Gardner

matthew; i am all for anybody stepping up and trying a new system regardless of the area of concern; i would think that you will get your info from tournaments or would you allow folks to give you scores after playing a weekend or so at diffirent courses; as far as it becoming a permanent answer for sand bagging etc. i am sure you would agree that only time would tell; your comments please; also i will bring it up at our next board meeting; but for one i would have to see the results after 6 months to a year.

Most def. it will take time to see that it works. The scores would comr from the tournament results only no casual play. I have been playing with some of the last years tournaments and I checked out me and a few friends on what our ratings would be and mine ended up right at what my pdga rating is now and my friends all ended up in the the right divisions.

But yes it will take 6 months to a year to fully get going but it would work out great

I have the first 3 months of the new season ready all i need now is scores and names from the tournaments

Got the first rating for the first tourney the fling with the king and here are my results

The 2008 Elvis Fling With the King Ratings Results

RD 1 Rating RD 2 Rating RD 3 Rating Tourney Rating

Clayton Nash- 46 1001 67 985 78 988 991
Daniel Philley 47 988 65 1001 81 967 985
Todd Alexander 47 988 66 993 80 974 985
Chris Griffin 48 976 73 939 77 995 980
Sean Portilla 50 952 71 954 83 954 957
Drew Davis 50 952 70 962 83 954 956
Bobby Armstrong 48 976 68 977 93 885 946
Lee Gresham 55 891 79 892 95 871 884

Craig Williamson 49 964 71 954 88 919 945
Keith Teeple 48 976 72 946 89 912 944
Todd Harrell 51 940 72 946 89 912 932
Matthew Gardner 54 903 82 869 91 899 890
Zach Hudson 51 940 80 884 96 864 896
Cory McClellan 53 915 91 799 100 837 850

Richard Lowe 54 903 69 949 91 924 925
Patrick Crews 51 940 77 883 94 905 909
Thomas Walker 59 842 73 916 93 911 889
James Shook 56 879 78 875 91 924 892
Chris McMillan 54 903 77 883 101 860 882
Gordan Hopper 57 867 79 866 100 866 866
Chip Strain 59 842 82 841 105 835 839
Lance Howard 62 806 82 841 102 854 833
Kevin Coward 64 781 86 808 105 835 808
William Hall 62 806 94 742 106 828 792

Joey Ingle 50 952 72 924 83 975 950
Stevie Shaw 49 964 74 908 87 949 940
Devin Smith 57 867 78 875 93 911 884
Thom Copeland 54 903 84 825 104 841 856

Val K 60 830 89 783 104 841 818

question:

did all divisions play the same tees, same courses?

no they didnt

Re: SNDG RATINGS FOR SN PLAYERS
Posted by: chris lasonde (IP Logged) [ignore user]
Date: June 22, 2008 07:41PM


question:

did all divisions play the same tees, same courses?


Interesting , I never thought of that. How would that come into play if we are just talking numbers and stats of played events?

I tuely believe a rateing system is needed in the SN , to rightfuly put people were they belong division wise. Where deminishing returns comes into play for non play over a period of time. Only exception to the rule is injury.
Nice thread and Great Idea.

Good to see ya Chris

Stephen9973

It is of my opinion that the numbers need to be changed... I don't think they should look like pdga numbers... it would muddy up things and cause them to get their panties in a bunch. The numbers are just references and kind of inconsequential right? So just pick a different set... subtract 500 or something, just make it look different.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database

good idea i will look into it thanks gilligan

ALL facade, no presentation. Subtract 500? what a silly suggestion, frankly...
Gilligan. Is it 2010 yet? Ready to start selling those tags?

Change it 500 for no other reason than to be different from the PDGA?
What? In other words it has nothing to do with accuracy or insight?

You ever even been a PDGA member, three hour tourboy? Or is that just something ELSE
you gossip about that you have never actually experienced yourself?

Ratings are for those who "try their best" and come in second.
Overcome and adapt if you want to win, don't fudge a speadsheet.

Never was a fan of basing a system on statistical anomalies, and that is all ratings are.

You might be wasting your time with ratings for SN, but that is just my opinion.

you are way behind dude this was discussed in August and has been dropped a long time ago. this is old news

who let Miss-Information back on this website?