Fargo rating

[JC]

Here is what 600 players look like. Anthony is still only a 595 to this day which amazes me. He has lots of robustness and he's smooth as silk, at least for this entire event he was. When I watch him I find it hard to believe I'm rated higher.

Ten years ago when he first got here to Oregon from the Philippines I showed him how to hold a stick and make a bridge. I was proud of him when he defeated me and went on to win the tournament.

 

[hang-the-9]

You have been consistent over the years expressing that A,B,C, etc have an absolute meaning, and that it is your meaning, the one used in Massachusetts. Now I see you imagine "90% of places" share your qualitative understanding.

Every pool player in Michigan knows what a BB is. There are 10 million people in MI, same as MA and CT combined.

And then every pool player in WI, MN, and ND --more than 10-million population--know what a AA is. It's not that different from a BB in MI.

And then WA, OR, and ID also have more than 10 million people. You can see here what they used to call "B" is largely players in the 400s.

And I just showed you B for handicapped events in Poland is around 700.

A paragraph or two from an old Phil Capelle book notwithstanding, your sense that A, B, and C have meanings found on gold tablets provided by angels and translated from a long-dead language just isn't the case.





Well, the ratings have gone or are going away. But Western BCA, Midwest Poolplayer's Association, and several more.

They have to have absolute meanings simply going by logic. The scale is ABCD (not counting pro players). So A is the good players, D is the bad players. You then need a range between them to fit in. Like a road, with equally distant towns on it. If town B is 40 miles from town A, town C is 40 miles from B and town D is 40 miles form C, it's silly to have the exit for B sit 2 miles from the exit of A and exit D be 60 miles form exit C. If Poland has their "B" players at 700 Fargo, then A players would be at least 750, which leaves C and D to fill in the range from 0-700? That make any sense at all to anyone? That's the issue with randomly assigned letter or number ratings. Every instruction book I read explained ABCD ratings the same way, based on their skill in relation to the other rating, the fact that areas need to have AA, AAA, BB, B gold star, A with a twist of lemon, shows those areas started out from a bad explanation for the ratings and now need to fill in all those missing town exits in the middle to avoid silly things like a B player that can compete with Pro players.

 

[hang-the-9]

Here is what 600 players look like. Anthony is still only a 595 to this day which amazes me. He has lots of robustness and he's smooth as silk, at least for this entire event he was. When I watch him I find it hard to believe I'm rated higher.

Ten years ago when he first got here to Oregon from the Philippines I showed him how to hold a stick and make a bridge. I was proud of him when he defeated me and went on to win the tournament.

When I was in the Vegas nationals for BCA/USAPL with my son a few years ago there were a lot of players that were well under their Fargo ratings, that were new in the system. I did not see anyone with 300+ games in the system that was much under or over what they should be, but those with 200 games were quite often too low by 50 pts.

 

[hang-the-9]

Here is what 600 players look like. Anthony is still only a 595 to this day which amazes me. He has lots of robustness and he's smooth as silk, at least for this entire event he was. When I watch him I find it hard to believe I'm rated higher.

Ten years ago when he first got here to Oregon from the Philippines I showed him how to hold a stick and make a bridge. I was proud of him when he defeated me and went on to win the tournament.

I'm a 550 and don't see anything amazing that Anthony did I could not do, seems like an even rating for him. I have to add, even though I mostly disagree with equipment difference, it's not hard to look smooth on a 7 footer with clean balls and newer cloth LOL When my son was playing in Vegas in the open 9 ball, he was rated about 550 as well, he broke and ran like 1/3rd of his games but was spotting every single player a game or two even going to the final 16 out of 70. I think even the final person he lost to he was at best even with him if not giving the guy a game.

The changes from something like a high 500/low 600 going to a 650 or up is that the high 600s can run out more racks from a difficult position. A 600 can run out from a clear table well, but if there are tough shots, tough position to small areas or clusters, the 650 and up does it better.

 

[JC]

I'm a 550 and don't see anything amazing that Anthony did I could not do, seems like an even rating for him. I have to add, even though I mostly disagree with equipment difference, it's not hard to look smooth on a 7 footer with clean balls and newer cloth LOL When my son was playing in Vegas in the open 9 ball, he was rated about 550 as well, he broke and ran like 1/3rd of his games but was spotting every single player a game or two even going to the final 16 out of 70. I think even the final person he lost to he was at best even with him if not giving the guy a game.

The changes from something like a high 500/low 600 going to a 650 or up is that the high 600s can run out more racks from a difficult position. A 600 can run out from a clear table well, but if there are tough shots, tough position to small areas or clusters, the 650 and up does it better.

If you are an established 550 then there are a few things Anthony can do that you cannot whether you realize it or not. Not amazing things but solid things. Maybe even just some better decisions. Either you believe in the system or you do not. 45 points are substantial enough to be a heavy favorite and he is a well established 595 with well over a thousand games in.

 

[hang-the-9]

If you are an established 550 then there are a few things Anthony can do that you cannot whether you realize it or not. Not amazing things but solid things. Maybe even just some better decisions. Either you believe in the system or you do not. 45 points are substantial enough to be a heavy favorite and he is a well established 595 with well over a thousand games in.

View attachment 580714

My point is that you think he should be higher than his rating, I did not see that in this match. It's not about me vs him. I was talking about this "Anthony is still only a 595 to this day which amazes me".

For me, I'm just to lazy to not make the mistakes I do, I know what I am doing wrong, I just don't care much to focus on them in a match. I don't play to win every time I'm at the table but to just play and have fun at the table. I am fully aware when I'm shooting a bad shot, I just like to see them go in vs giving me a higher chance to win a game LOL I'd rather execute a 10% shot than a 90% safe, for me personally, I'm not playing for my rent money or anything, and I don't have a personal beef with the players, so win or lose it's not a big deal. For my effort, my 550 rating is pretty spot on, I can play with the low 600s even when I try and can play with the low 500s when I just play to have fun and try silly shots.

 

[JC]

My point is that you think he should be higher than his rating, I did not see that in this match. It's not about me vs him. I was talking about this "Anthony is still only a 595 to this day which amazes me".

For me, I'm just to lazy to not make the mistakes I do, I know what I am doing wrong, I just don't care much to focus on them in a match. I don't play to win every time I'm at the table but to just play and have fun at the table. I am fully aware when I'm shooting a bad shot, I just like to see them go in vs giving me a higher chance to win a game LOL I'd rather execute a 10% shot than a 90% safe, for me personally, I'm not playing for my rent money or anything, and I don't have a personal beef with the players, so win or lose it's not a big deal. For my effort, my 550 rating is pretty spot on, I can play with the low 600s even when I try and can play with the low 500s when I just play to have fun and try silly shots.

It only amazes me because I am rated higher and feel he does a bunch of things way better than I do and I have never been particularly consistent or smooth. But of course I have strengths as well that lead to winning games or I would be rated lower.

 

[MattPoland]

They have to have absolute meanings simply going by logic. The scale is ABCD (not counting pro players). So A is the good players, D is the bad players. You then need a range between them to fit in. Like a road, with equally distant towns on it. If town B is 40 miles from town A, town C is 40 miles from B and town D is 40 miles form C, it's silly to have the exit for B sit 2 miles from the exit of A and exit D be 60 miles form exit C. If Poland has their "B" players at 700 Fargo, then A players would be at least 750, which leaves C and D to fill in the range from 0-700? That make any sense at all to anyone? That's the issue with randomly assigned letter or number ratings. Every instruction book I read explained ABCD ratings the same way, based on their skill in relation to the other rating, the fact that areas need to have AA, AAA, BB, B gold star, A with a twist of lemon, shows those areas started out from a bad explanation for the ratings and now need to fill in all those missing town exits in the middle to avoid silly things like a B player that can compete with Pro players.

Knowing town A, B, C and D are equally spaced only occurs if you have a measurement available like “miles”. Without it then you might use another measurement like how much “daylight” it takes to travel in foot from one to the other.

In this example, FargoRate is the miles calculation with measurements supported by GPS technology. With that we can know precisely when those towns are well spaced or not. And that’s what is happening today.

Also in the example, local tournament directors assigning a player to a rating based on how well they seem to play and how well they’ve performed in that local region is like measuring the town in “daylight”. What’s half a day without having a watch to tell time? It’s as if some of these tournament directors gauge it by how much daylight they see without any awareness that Alaska has more daylight in summer than Florida does.

FargoRate isn’t perfect but it’s such a large leap from everything before it that it might as well be perfect for these purposes. It gives tournament directors a universal standard to measure off of. It lets them measure time in hours, minutes and seconds instead of by fractions of daylight. And it lets them measure distance in miles, feet and inches instead of by travel time.

It’s through this that it’s become observable (and observed) just how wildly NOT universal the letter system has been in practice nationwide.

With FargoRate we have the opportunity to make it universal. But that will make regions adapt. That’ll be about as easy as getting the US to adopt the metric system or speak Esperanto. I wouldn’t rule it out. But I also wouldn’t pretend we’ve always already been there.

 

[MattPoland]

It only amazes me because I am rated higher and feel he does a bunch of things way better than I do and I have never been particularly consistent or smooth. But of course I have strengths as well that lead to winning games or I would be rated lower.

That’s the thing about FargoRate. It measures the outcome, not the journey. He might do things a lot better than you. But it seems you must also do some things better. And the things you do better are the things that win games.

 

[hang-the-9]

It only amazes me because I am rated higher and feel he does a bunch of things way better than I do and I have never been particularly consistent or smooth. But of course I have strengths as well that lead to winning games or I would be rated lower.

I've run into a lot of players that I think are not as good as me overall but know certain shots that I have issues with. There was a guy I remember that was shooting a shot with cueball and object ball both on the rail and he was making it like 3x more than I could, but he was a level lower as a player. I also have a hard time shooting softly, many worse players I see can execute slow rolling shots better, probably because that is how they know to play, they don't have the tool of a good stroke but that gives them an advantage when it comes to soft shots that you need when playing on a smaller and/or faster table.

 

[JC]

That’s the thing about FargoRate. It measures the outcome, not the journey. He might do things a lot better than you. But it seems you must also do some things better. And the things you do better are the things that win games.

I watch a lot of 600 players in action that I feel would stomp me but when it gets down to the table, for many reasons they often do not. This is what makes pool so interesting.

 

[CharlesUFarley]

Stumbled on this thread while looking for an answer to this question...What pool Fargo rating is about the same as a scratch golfer? I didn't read every post in this thread, so sorry if I missed it here.

 

[The_JV]

750

 

[hang-the-9]

750

I may go a bit lower, assuming a "scratch golfer" is good enough to make par but won't be able to hang on the pro tour even with the lower level pros. I would liken them to a good regional player, which is abut 700. 750ish is where Jeremy Sossei, Justin Hall, Jeremy Jones, Brandon Shuff, Tyler Styer, John Schmidt, etc.. live, and those guys are a bit over local hero level.

 

[The_JV]

I may go a bit lower, assuming a "scratch golfer" is good enough to make par but won't be able to hang on the pro tour even with the lower level pros. I would liken them to a good regional player, which is abut 700. 750ish is where Jeremy Sossei, Justin Hall, Jeremy Jones, Brandon Shuff, Tyler Styer, John Schmidt, etc.. live, and those guys are a bit over local hero level.

I don't know... Scratch golf is pretty darn sporty.

I know people equate 750 to "pro" pool. However in my mind that's someone who places focus on developing their game, puts serious practice in and experiences a taste of success. To be a 750 pool player. You need to take things real serious. Much like becoming a scratch golfer doesn't happen with haphazard effort.

How about we go 730-750...? I definitely wouldn't go lower than 730.

 

[Cameron Smith]

The best reference point I can find is that a top pga tour pro would be around +6.5, with +8 being the highest recorded, and a top amateur is around +3 or +4. If we assume that our top amateurs are around 730 (good enough to be competitive but not to make a living in international competition), my guess is that a regional scratch pool player would be between 675-700.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I don't know... Scratch golf is pretty darn sporty.

I know people equate 750 to "pro" pool. However in my mind that's someone who places focus on developing their game, puts serious practice in and experiences a taste of success. To be a 750 pool player. You need to take things real serious. Much like becoming a scratch golfer doesn't happen with haphazard effort.

How about we go 730-750...? I definitely wouldn't go lower than 730.

Scratch is sporty but so is 700 in the grand scheme of things. A quick check shows there are 40,000 golfers with a 0.0 or better. Which suggests that scratch players, while good, are a dime a dozen.

 

[hang-the-9]

I don't know... Scratch golf is pretty darn sporty.

I know people equate 750 to "pro" pool. However in my mind that's someone who places focus on developing their game, puts serious practice in and experiences a taste of success. To be a 750 pool player. You need to take things real serious. Much like becoming a scratch golfer doesn't happen with haphazard effort.

How about we go 730-750...? I definitely wouldn't go lower than 730.

I actually had to find some "official" rating for a scratch golfer. Since in here they say they are not at a level even close to a pro, and we have players like Archer, Justin Hall, etc... around 750 level, to me that shows the level of a "scratch pool player" would be low 700s.

"A scratch golfer is by no means at a level even close to pro golfers in terms of consistently playing well and shooting good scores. Still, they are better than nearly 99% of amateur players and possess the ability to shoot level par at all of the courses they step onto.

In America, only 1.5% of male golfers play with a “0” or better handicap index, and for the women’s side of the game, only .5% of players out there are a scratch!"

So let's say we go with the staring point of a scratch pool player as similar to this 1.5% of all players same as golf. In 2019 Fargo put put a listing of top 200 US players, only US players mind you we are looking at here. The #200 player is a 690. So that means if there are 15,000 rated pool players in the US, the top 1.5% of players starts at 690. And I think there are easily 15,000 players in the US that play pool even once a week that are worse than 690, by a good margin.

If we look at players that are 730 Fargo, that is at the top 50 US players. I would put that 730 at the top of "scratch" pool players and start the pro ratings at 750ish. Another litmus test, how many of the guys under 750 are known outside of their region? I recognize pretty much all the names up to 750ish, then a few up till like 700, then almost none below that. To me that puts the "scratch" players in the very low 700 range or they would be more well known as "pro" players that play in higher level events. Check this list out and see the names that are in the 750 range https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2302124666506528&set=a.962903843761957

 

[The_JV]

Scratch is sporty but so is 700 in the grand scheme of things. A quick check shows there are 40,000 golfers with a 0.0 or better. Which suggests that scratch players, while good, are a dime a dozen.

Fair enough... but then I guess we need to also determine the volume of players of each game. 40k seems like a big number, but is it 40k of 4M...?..., 40M?

Maybe I'm giving golf's difficulty too much credit...?. I do golf and know several people that obsess over both games. I can think of 5 people off the top of my head that are low 700spd pool players that aren't scratch golfers. However if they weren't playing one game, they were playing the other.

Again, maybe I'm just assigning too much difficulty to obtaining a scratch avg in golf.

 

[JolietJames]

Another vote for scratch = 700.
Styer was a 750 when he won the Kremlin cup, wasn't he?
I would consider that level a ball better than scratch.
What's a ball's worth in fargo?