|
Post by eShuffleboard on Jan 28, 2007 19:27:15 GMT -5
Dear Ms. Harrell: Ron and Debbie Bowers have instructed me to write you as their counsel concerning your duplication and publication of their copyrighted shuffleboard ratings. I feel certain you will stop your activities in that regard for at least two reasons: 1. The Bowers spend an inordinate amount of time working on their ratings system. They do this work in order to be of service to the players and the game. They must, among other things, organize the entire process, arrange for raters, get the raters to send in the ratings, assemble the ratings, and publish them. They sometimes receive donations from recipients of books. This, of course, helps defray their expenses. It would be sad indeed if the burden of providing ratings to the shuffleboard community became so great that the Bowers might decide to discontinue their efforts. For anyone to sell or otherwise distribute the results of their efforts would be most unfair and harmful to the game. 2. As you know, the Bowers ratings are copyrighted. You are not permitted to sell or distribute the Bowers ratings either in written form or on your website. If you do so, you will violate federal copyright law. Please confirm to me at your earliest convenience that you will not print or publish the Bowers ratings either on paper or on your site. That includes a compilation or ratings of players from any state, including Indiana. Yours very truly,
Robert L. Hoffman
|
|
|
Post by eShuffleboard on Jan 28, 2007 19:29:14 GMT -5
Dear Robert,
Yes, I’ve noticed, as have others, that in the last two years the copyright symbol has been added to the Bowers’ Ratings. I’m not exactly sure what is being copyrighted. The numeric ratings themselves? The format and organization of the booklets? Or is it just the words, “Bowers’ Ratingsã”? I think clarification is needed. After all, there would be no ratings if not for each individual player’s name on the list.
I know the Bowers do an immense amount of work. I, and I know others, would like to offer (and have offered in the past) our help and expertise to them in their efforts. Currently the ratings are done in an Excel spreadsheet but there are many, better, faster, more accurate ways to accomplish the same task. Perhaps discussion is needed? People would gladly donate time and money to help lessen the time, effort and expense it takes for the compilation of the ratings to be done each year and lessen the burden of completing those ratings after Reno, but before the Houston Holiday Open where they are distributed.
As for me printing a copy of the ratings, please be advised that I did send a donation and request for a book on December 26, 2006. On January 18th, when the ratings were posted in PDF format, I still had not received my book, so I downloaded and printed a copy for myself at my own expense. I chose to print them in a larger format for my own convenience and shared that information with others that may also be “visually challenged”. The PDF files that are uploaded specifically allow for printing and I will print them for my own use. I do not sell or otherwise distribute the ratings for profit.
Since the ratings are no longer provided in Excel, I laboriously created an Excel sheet for my own use. From there I created the statistics that I posted in my newsletter section and the IN sheets in alpha and decimal order and also the IN, KY, OH, MI ratings the same way. This is a service I provided for local people that have no wish to sort through an alpha list from all across the country. I did this on January 21st. The alpha and decimal lists by state were not posted to the Bowers’ site until the 24th, perhaps in response to my efforts, perhaps pre-planned. I will gladly remove those links now, but I respectfully suggest that restriction of the ratings to a format that people cannot sort, search or print in ways that are convenient for them is more harmful to the game of shuffleboard and tournament directors than anything I might do.
Please advise if all your concerns are addressed.
Ann Harrell
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Jan 28, 2007 22:29:51 GMT -5
Holy Moly... is this for real? Is Mr. Hoffman a copyright attorney? and secondly, are his services available to other shufflers pro bono?
Anyway, I'm still a little baffled as to the attempts to make the ratings as difficult as possible to access. What is wrong with the ratings being available on more than one website, especially if they are made easier and more convenient to read. Further, for tournament directors who are not using Computer Peas, why make it more difficult for them to put them in Excel for easy lookup?
What-ever. I think the bigger issue that really needs discussion is the accuracy of the ratings themselves. Given the fact that our system (sorry - am I allowed to say "our" or must I say "Bower's"? Robert, help me out on this one) - anyway, given the fact that the system is based on the opinions of raters (as opposed to objective performance-based criteria), focus on improving the system is that much more critical. For example, consider the fact that about 40% of all players are rated by only 1 rater (70%-80% are rated by 4 or less raters). These numbers are based on ratings from 2002 through 2007. The disheartening fact is that these percentages have pretty much stayed the same over the years. The ratings are as inaccurate and flawed today as they were 6+ years ago.
Objviously an objective-performance based system is the ideal, but until that day comes, we need to make improvements to the existing subjective system. One way would be to significantly increase the number of raters rating each player. One idea which has been tossed around is the notion of giving everyone the license to rate anyone and everyone. Given the existing methods of collecting ratings this would be a logistic nightmare, but what about the idea of a entering ratings via a website? A website could include the player's rating history, his/her performance in tournaments, and even a mug shot to refresh the rater's memory. Ratings could be fed directly into a database, greatly reducing the amount of man hours needed to collect and compile this information. This may sound a bit grandiose to some, but the thought is to get it started and let it grow.
Another issue is educating the raters on how to rate so we end up with a consistent way of rating. Raters, not only from state to state, but rater to rater use different criteria. I’ve been told that some raters use only whole numbers to rate, while others use fractions. So, if 9 people rate a player, say, 1.49, and 1 rater rates that player a 2.00, that player will end up a 2. Also, consider the fact that many raters are 2’s or even 3’s, and use very different criteria for rating a player than an experienced -1 rater.
And how about the rule that if you are not rated by anyone, your rating doesn’t change from the previous year. One unnamed player I know has been a 0.00 for the last 4 years. The reason he has had no raters is that he has spent the past 3 years in jail where, I would guess, his game has most likely degraded and not stayed the same.
It seems to me that the more people that understand the current system, the more ideas for improvement will be heard. To copyright, protect, and “hide” not only the ratings, but the system, itself, only seems to slow down the movement towards a more efficient system.
Most importantly is the concept that this is “our” system and there is no room for personal attacks and agendas. I have utmost respect and admiration for all of those who have donated their time, effort, and money to contribute to the growth and success of shuffleboard, but I think just as important as one’s willingness to contribute for little or no compensation is their willingness to listen to suggestions and modify their methods for the betterment and growth of our beloved sport. I am hopeful that my comments are part of a movement towards further open discussion as opposed to nonproductive people bashing. I love shuffleboard and all the people who have contributed so much to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Jan 29, 2007 13:16:48 GMT -5
Just so there's no mistaking my position, let me clarify a few things.
I do believe that the ratings should be more accessible and available for others to post on their sites, HOWEVER, I acknowledge the fact that the Bowers run the rating system and it is their prerogative to protect the ratings in any way they see fit. I present my arguments as a springboard for discussion, in the hopes that I may persuade the Bowers people to change some of their methods. I in no way condone anyone simply taking it upon themselves to blatantly ignore the rules set forth by Bowers.
As the author of Computer Peas I have, and will continue to protect the ratings exactly as requested by Bowers even if I disagree with their decision. Again, my comments on these matters are meant purely for positive discussion and not for personal assaults and disregard for others' wishes. Who needs that crap. We are shuffleboard players and there aren't many of us. Our goal is to persevere and grow, not beat each other down till our sport vanishes.
|
|
|
Post by kyshuffler on Jan 29, 2007 16:53:19 GMT -5
Kudos Pea Head. Our biggest frustration with the system is the inaccuracy of the ratings. There is 1 woman shuffler in KY who keeps getting rated better every year despite the fact that she has not won or even placed in a national event in the 5 years she has played. She was dropped 20 decimal points this last year!!!
It is a general consensus among Kentuckians that she is being mistaken with another woman player who shares the same last name, as KY woman #2 HAS won 1st in a national event, placed 3rd in another and is NOT listed in the Bowers rating system at all. As you can imagine, this is very frustrating to KY woman #1, as she has the added challenge of competing as a 2 without gaining the much needed experience from wins.
There is a male player in Kentucky who in 2006, played in 1 round robin event in KY in September. Although his rating only dropped 1 decimal point, it is curious that 5 people rated him when there was not 1 rater present at the round robin he played in.
I understand the raters wish to remain "anonymous" in their evaluations, but in these 2 circumstances I believe it is in the best interest of the sport to have a meaningful dialog with these raters to make sure they know who they are rating and how they came to their conclusions.
We understand the Bowers just compile the data, not rate themselves, so this criticism is toward the individual raters. We applaud the efforts of the Bowers.
Perhaps we should explore the idea, which has been discussed for years, of forming a card-holding national membership where you pay dues annually. Ratings can then be based on events which are sanctioned by this national card-holding entity. Events would also be required to contribute a very small portion of the tournament earnings to help support it. We can then statistically compile ratings based upon performance, not who was in a good or bad mood when rating, or pad a rating to support or deny a certain state's status.
None of us in Kentucky feel we merit the duty of being a rater, due to lack of experience and national travel. I stepped in once to challenge the rating of KY woman #1 and was heard. They adjusted her rating accordingly. But we have all thrown our hands in the air in years since as it has proved to fall on deaf ears with the raters themselves.
We look forward very much to hearing more on this subject and how we can adapt it to be more fair and calculated.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Martin on Jan 29, 2007 21:20:34 GMT -5
Jim Martin
I just finished reading the message we had discussed. I think you handled it very well with your reply to Mr. Hoffman. The three that later committed, I also thought had some great input. We do need to continue to support each other and push toward making it an improved system for everyone that has a love of the game. I like many other have my thoughts about how the rating are compiled. I too feel that we have a long way to go. It can be better and we need to continue to keep the dialog between us going. Jim
|
|
|
Post by mpnobles on Jan 30, 2007 15:41:08 GMT -5
Putting “The Cart” before “The Horse”
An overview from my perspective after playing for 10 years, I still consider myself a novice when it comes explaining more than just the basics of Shuffleboard to newcomers. I agree with Jim Martin, so please if you find anything below that you may agree with, disagree with or in need of modification, please feel free to do so.
“The Cart” in this perspective is known as “The Bower’s Rating System”. First of all, let me say this. In the years past, I’ve never heard the Bowers’ complain when they received little or no monies for all there hard work. I’m willing to bet they, over the years, are still financially upside down. Personally, I strongly feel the system belongs to them and they deserve a lot more credit and gratitude from all of us. When I started playing, if I’m not mistaken there were less than a few hundred rated players. The reason I and many others started, and are still playing tournaments is due to fact the system separates players, allowing numerous formatted events for all levels of competition. I’m not saying a wheel on this cart doesn’t need a little grease periodically or an alignment. I’m saying, we lost “The Board Talk” and I’m not going to standby and let “The Bower’s Rating System” be ridiculed, condemned or dissolved by anyone lacking the intelligence or understanding of the afore mentioned. It may not the be “The Cart” you are having a problem with, but “The Horse”
“The Horse” in this perspective is not a single item or individual players. Currently, however the field is very limited. Please find the following as part of the limitations and keep in mine they are only my perspectives and/or objectives;
1) The Game? Now this is a big question. Are we playing to 11, 12, 15 or 21 points? Is it positive or negative handicapped or no handicap? What rules are we using and who makes the rule decisions? Why are you enforcing this rule on me but not the other player? When a player brings numerous sets of weights why are they all legal, they can be mixed and is this fare to everyone? Why do we flip for the hammer, shouldn’t everyone have the same amount of hammers (especially if your truly handicapping a game and not playing to a limited amount of points)? When playing doubles, why do we add both players handicap together? Why are there so many different league formats and why isn’t there an organized attempting to standardize the existing leagues and create new ones? Come to think of what has existed in the past, why isn’t there a Shuffleboard Organization that will work towards the support and then support all Shuffleboard Players?
2) Tournaments are growing and most are very successful and this is good for Shuffleboard. It’s not rocket science when each tournament is setup and formatted for drawing participants. As with any sport, there is always something to gripe about or call unfair. Only organized players will ever have a voice about how tournaments are prepared and executed.
3) Raters for the most part are honest and follow the guidelines. As for myself, I became a rater when I was rated a (1). At that time I made a decision of preference not to rate any player better than myself even if I thought they were. I just left them blank. With tournament players I’ve always tried to consider each player’s potential and most often will just circle them for no change. Remember “The Bower’s Rating System” is meant to be a guideline, Tournaments, Establishments and Leagues have the right to change any player’s rating. I’ve played in golf and bowling tournaments and witnessed players being disqualified for dishonesty. I’m sure this will eventually happen in shuffleboard and it should, hopefully sooner than later. I have yet to see a Bower’s rated player that should be ousted because of his/her rating. But I’ve sure seen a few non Bowers’ rated players that should have been kicked out along with whom ever rated him/her and let them play in the tournament dishonestly. The last several major tournaments that I played in, the 6 person draft was prime examples of non rated players not being honest. A good example is that in one, the 7th pick of the first round was a 4 - rated non Bower’s player (picked before the majority of (1’s) and all (2’s) that was participating in his second tournament in a row as a (4). That probably wouldn’t cause any difference in the draft, but it sure does in other events. Most raters are not captains in draft events, but they should review just how players are drafted. The team sheets show the results if you understand how to read them.
4) Players, well we are mere puppets not horses without organization.
5) Organization is what it will take to make any further changes with the game. A few years ago I joined one after I became a (-1). I then ventured into a meeting and asked, “Doe’s your organization have anything to offer members and prospective new player members. They (most officers were in attendance) responded “Hell we don’t even want to be here, much less come up with and incorporate any ideas for promoting the game”. Hopefully things will soon change.
Sincerely, Mahlon Nobles
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Jan 31, 2007 0:46:29 GMT -5
Ridiculed? Condemned? Dissolved? Yipes. Lighten' up, dude. I thought we were talking about suggestions for improving and moving forward. There are at least 4 or 5 comments above that talk about gratitude and kudos for the great job Bowers has done.
Anyway, as much as none of this stuff should be taken personally and nobody should be losing sleep over any of it, toes are going to be stepped on from time to time. So what. We're shuffleboard players. We can take it. The important thing is we have a forum for talking about shuffleboard. Let's use it. Whether it's this site or Bowers site.. wherever.. the important thing is to get more and more of us to voice their opinions.
As far as the ratings go, the fact remains that 37% of us were rated by 1 rater and only a quarter of us were rated by more than 4 raters. The system needs to improve, period. That does not mean that Debbie, Ron, and Lynda haven't done a fantastic job and haven't worked their little tushies off over all these years. Sheesh. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have anything to talk about improving.
Well, that's all I have to say for now. Boston Legal is on in a few minutes and I've got to run. I love ya, Mahlon and I'll see you in a couple of weeks. We can argue then. Kiss, kiss, hug, hug.
|
|
|
Post by mahlon nobles on Jan 31, 2007 12:20:32 GMT -5
Love you to Eddie I meant to be firm and as an argumentum, with “The Cart” in my perspective about “The Cart” before “The Horse. I feel an argumentum for “The Horse” will have to be demonstrated and concluded by a majority of participants, such as a well endowed organization, hopefully the future of TSA. Let’s take an example using bowling handicap, whereas most leagues use 75, 80 or 85% handicap. If they played the game, the first player to reach a score of 200 wins. Another example would be golf, in lieu of playing 18 holes, let’s play to the first one to reach a score of 70 looses the game. If either of the above handicapping was enforced, each membership or amount of players would be significantly reduced. Obviously what I’m trying to say is that our game would have to be slightly modified (without removing player’s strategies and abilities) and (a little more equalized in lieu of many variables) in order to have a near perfect handicap system. How many existing (Pro’s or Semi Pro’s) would go for that crap? Would then and finally at last, ESPN and FOX consider televising the game if change were to be implemented? Most Pro’s would obviously turn down all endorsement monies. I’m trying to understand the issue “37% of players are rated by 1 rater”. I’d much rather see this than the players entering a tournament non-rated. At least then the player is more likely not to be a ringer, which is currently happening and with little or nothing being done about it. If it turns out the (rated by 1 rater) is a ringer, then the rater, player and tournament, should be held accountable, “The Horse” not “The Cart”.
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Feb 1, 2007 0:57:15 GMT -5
Your points are well taken and I don't want to beat a dead horse (so to speak). Anyway, to get down to 2 simple issues that I believe are worthy of discussion and maybe have solutions in the near future...
#1 is the Bowers copyright issue... I''ll preface by stating what I have a number of times before; that I support any actions the Bowers may take in protecting and copyrighting the ratings, however, is it reasonable to prevent others from printing out, and/or posting ratings to their websites, possibly making them available in more convenient forms? Further, is it reasonable to make it more difficult for tournament directors who are not using Computer Peas, to be able to make the ratings available in digital format for easy lookup during registration. If the majority says they should be available and the ratings should be open to anyone creatively posting them for others to access, well then, maybe Bowers will be convinced. If this is not the popular opinion OR Bowers still refuses to bend, well, that's fine, too.
Issue #2 is the further computerization and automation of the management, collection, and compilation of the ratings, themselves. I, for one, favor creation of an online SQL database, that will allow, at least raters, to view and make submissions to player records. If the future involves a system that would be fully computer based, on the submission side and on the disbursement side, we should be getting those wheels in motion. Not only should the ratings improve in integrity, and not only should we get more raters rating more players, but the labor and time involved in managing a system like this would be significantly less than using the regular mail and doing things manually.
We talk about the eventual day when we might have a performance based rating system. Most react to that notion saying there's no way tournament directors are going to report in the results of every match of every tournament. Not to turn this into a case for Computer Peas, but for those using the software, the infastructure for such a system exists. Without any additional work on the tournament directors' part, Computer Peas offers such information as the results of each match, the durations of each match, and one interesting tidbit that helps guage the rating system, what percent of the time the better rated team wins the match.
I am not saying we should dump our existing system and jump to another. It takes time; years and years. But to get there, we need to take steps. Why not get such an online database in the works?
Right now such a database does exist in a sense. On the Bowers site you can find player profiles, player photos, and of course player ratings. The information is presented in a linear, difficult to maintain fashion. My whole argument is simply to continue what we have already been doing, but just modernize the system a bit so we have the underpinnings of a system that will avail us to complete and easily accessible histories on each player. Properly designed, programs like Computer Peas would feed directly into such a database, and eventually, a performance based rating system will simply fall out.
For the last time, I am not for getting rid of the current system. I'm for the managers of the current system opening up to the notion of improving the system with each passing year. Again, besides the improvements in data integrity, if time, energy, and money are concerns, this is a way to employ the essentially free talents of computers, freeing us up to be able to go out and make money in other ways - 'cause I'm not so sure trying to make it from the shuffleboard community is the answer.
Start somewhere. The first window based computers were slow as dogs and were pretty much unusable. However, if it weren't for those systems we'd still be typing "copy a:foo.* c:" instead of dragging a cute little icon from one place to another.
This, incidentally, is a job for the cart... or at least, the cart's approval.
If you build it, they will come. God bless America. Veni vidi vici. If you can't make fun of yourself, make fun of other people.
|
|
|
Post by mahlon nobles on Feb 1, 2007 16:10:45 GMT -5
Eddie, I really like your remark about “I don't want to beat a dead horse (so to speak).” Now that nearly 250 people have view these postings, why are we the only 2 deadbeats willing to come out of the closet in an open discussion? Where else can players express individual perspectives or what ever for the game of shuffleboard? About your software, I’m convinced it’s far superior than any available or in use to this day. Again I have witnessed mistakes at a recent tournament due to human error. These mistakes wouldn’t happen (keep on happening) and there would never be a doubt about honesty, using your software.
Performance Based Rating System may be helpful, but I believe you’ll discover or maybe even open a can of worms for example a several point difference between the top and bottom pros, several point difference between a best 0 and weakest 1, etc, etc. How would these effect tournaments and the limited few of its best players and what about the Calcutta’s. Are you sure you want to open this can of worms?
Sorry if I stepped on any toes, I’m headed back with the crowd and where I belong, “The Closet.” I might be better off jumping into the can of worms, LOL
Mahlon
|
|
|
Post by eShuffleboard on Feb 1, 2007 20:16:07 GMT -5
Mahlon, Chances are there have been only 30 or so people in here reading the messages. Maybe 40. It counts you each time you enter to see if anyone has posted. You, me and Eddie probably account for half that 250. I've talked to several people on the phone. Some people are tired of posting suggestions that fall on deaf ears, or at least appear to fall on deaf ears as nothing is changed or even acknowledged. Perhaps they are planning a big update next year. Perhaps the TSA is taking it over. I notice that a (c) has also appeared on that website. Others are afraid to "get on the bad side" of the Bowers' or their webmaster. Go here to read the latest: www.shuffleboardcorner.com/Bowers_2007_Rating_Updates.html In my opinion, it's the "geekiest" of us that prefer Excel or Access to Adobe PDF files. It's the geekiest of us that can help bring the system into the 21st Century. When I posted my little searchable database online in 2004, I thought it would be welcomed with open arms. Needless to say, it was not. I would also venture to guess that the people that want Excel files have Excel on their computers! Duh! And we all know it's the geeks that will inherit the earth <G> I sincerely hope these efforts by the "Bowers' Rating System" don't back fire on them. They more than deserve to have their expenses covered but I'm afraid if they make things to restrictive there may be a backlash. I've already heard from several states (not individuals) that are pretty disenchanted with the ratings right now. Anyway, Mahlon, you've outed yourself. There's no going back in the closet now. PS: One thing I wanted to add...I looked over the list of raters for 2007 and at least half have email addresses so one would presume that they also have internet access. Now is the time to develop a system that can be updated online. Save half those postage expenses!!!
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Feb 2, 2007 1:43:41 GMT -5
Hey Mahlon - I'm just about ready to get in that closet with you and let this whole thing go but before I do I just want to say something about that "rated by 1 rater" thing...
I wrote this little program that analyzes the ratings over the years and it surfaces some interesting tidbits. Most of us advance or go backwards slightly each year but their are a significant number of players that made some big changes - in both directions. Players that went from a 4 to a 2 or jumped a point, who knows, maybe they practiced alot in 2006 and really got that much better. Players that went backwards are a little more suspect. Consider these guys...
John Breadwit went from a 0.75 in 2002, to a 1.65, 2.33, 1.20 in 2006... and this year he's a 3.00. Don Moody was a 2 for 5 years. Now he's a 4. Doug Rordal was a 2.25, 2.50, 2.50, 2.65... this year he's a 4.00. Bob Stamm was a 0.95, 1.58, 1.66, 1.65... this year he's a 3.00. Betty Kuebler was a 1.69 for 3 years in a row... this year she's a 3.00. Joe Orfanelli was a 1.65, 1.75, 1.70, 1.70... this year he's a 3.00. Sebastian Bosco, and old buddy of mine who I don't think has picked up a weight in about 6 years went from a 1.40, 1.40 to 0.10, 0.10, then 1.20.
The list goes on... and if you look back at recent years, it only gets worse. OK, so this is the horses fault. What-ever. They do, for the most part, have one thing in common. They were rated by 1 rater/horse. One guy, who will remain nameless, has been in the slammer for over 3 years. Thanks to his 1 rater (maybe it's a prison guard), he's remained a 0.00 for at least 6 years.
OK. Open that closet door 'cause here I come.
|
|
|
Post by eShuffleboard on Feb 2, 2007 9:35:19 GMT -5
Actually it may not be a horse/rater issue at all. It may be a data entry issue. With an error checking program such as you have written, these things could be double checked on the fly. Take heart, Eddie. I still love you. Have to go practice for this weekend's Mixed Doubles. If I don't, Mikel Johnson will get a chair and kick my @ss. I have a question for Mahlon. If the Bowers' are the cart and raters are the horse... what are the rest of us?
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Feb 2, 2007 10:33:14 GMT -5
The rest of us are squirrels, monkeys, pigs, and rats.
I really don't think those are data entry problems. I do, however, think they are worth catching so we can eventually find out what's going on in each case. In a subjective rating system it's going to happen. One way it could possibly happen is by someone rating themselves. Those, incidentally, are the rats. If we found that some of these inconsistencies were due to self- raters, we could correct that problem by instituting the policy of no self rating.
|
|
|
Post by mahlon nobles on Feb 2, 2007 14:51:15 GMT -5
Ok, now you’d pissed me off, so allow me to reiterate and drive a few more nails into my coffin.
I never stated your comment, ”If the Bowers' are the cart and raters are the horse”, I simply stated my perspective, raters are a member of the team of horses capable of pulling “The Cart”.
Next, let me reiterate my perspectives on the other Horses which I certainly feel are the key to the future of our loving Shuffleboard. While most of the following are certainly not near a complete argumentum, they are my perspectives, so please, keep an open mind when reviewing;
1) The Game as we currently play to 11, 12, 15 or even 21 points is best described as being convenient. A match the majority of times just involves one game and least often two out three games. Simple logic should indicate handicapping by points isn’t a solution but rather a convenience as well. As I previously stated if a database of players scores, opponents and other attributes were compiled, the outcome wouldn’t be worthy of our current standards of the game. You’d find remarkably several points difference in the Pro’s and several or more points difference between the best of the 0”s thru the worst of the 1”s, etc, etc. The database would only be feasible for Singles as well. Try the following the next time you go play. Make yourself a spreadsheet or if you like I’ll furnish you with one; a) Get yourself a partner if you wish and then find others to play this sample against. b) The only difference you will make is you want be using the scoreboard and in this sample game all 4 players will have 4 hammers @ for a total of 16 frames. c) It doesn’t really matter who starts the game, but at the end of the first frame your opponent will have the hammer on the opposite end. Hammers are then changed every other frame (other words 4th frame your team will have the hammer until the 6th frame) until the game is completed. Yes the games score dictates strategies just as it does in the current way we score it today. There are many variations for even hammer games. d) Write down the score of each frame, who scored and who had the hammer in appropriate places and then summations for each at the end of the game. Now can you visualize just how much information can be obtained from this simple spreadsheet on each player and it doesn’t matter weather your playing singles doubles three person 12, 16 or whatever frame games you can think of. This also doesn’t change the complexity of the game, but it sure would change the convenient Stone Age Scoreboard.
2) Players obviously should become the strongest of the team of horses. The only way for this to ever happen is thru organization. Currently from my perspective the only organizations in the world of Shuffleboard are still in the evolution stage of still being “hunters and gatherers” with only shuffling who’s in charge, in lieu of obtaining player members with enthusiasms towards recruiting all shuffleboard players. It’s also my perspective that sanctioned voting members should be limited to players only and not shuffleboard businesses or non sanctioned tournaments.
3) Organizational Horse (read the above).
Ok, most nails are now in the my coffin, Mahlon
|
|
Chris
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Chris on Feb 2, 2007 23:18:47 GMT -5
I have been reading these posts for a few days and find them to be interesting, amusing and pretty much on target with the way I feel about the Bowers and their rating system along wih all their hard work and efforts. KUDOS to them for sure! And all the other people involved in making this a success.
As far as "skewed" ratings..................It's really not hard to understand that when a player has a single rater or two placing a rating it will be skewed unless we are rateing a Melton, Hitt or Nelson, along with some others as they are at the top of the game and very well known as -1's. It really is simple math, averages, the more raters the more accurate rating can be had, even though all raters don't rate on the same mental level at the same time.
I expect that palyers that haven't played for a period of time due to incarceration, lack of money, interest or whatever will and should remain in the Bowers system at some rateing, likely the most recent one, and that is fair.
What we really need to do to get ratings in line is for all the raters to do the job they accepted to do and do it all the time. Then get a streamlined system in place that allows for routine input from the raters in a more efficient and timely manner, ( computer ) say monthly or quarterly or whatever works to allow the raters to input when their review is fresh. The final rateings can be officially inputed at the normal time using earlier documentd notes.
In the business world we review our employees performance at least quarterly and make documentations to allow for a proper and accurate end of the year evaluation and "rateing".
JCW
|
|
|
Post by Ann Harrell on Feb 7, 2007 10:10:30 GMT -5
Well, I've been waiting for someone else to jump in but...
Eddie probably has some lame excuse like getting ready for his big tournament next week!
I agree with Eddie that the one rater thing can wreck havoc. We in Indiana have several cases where one rater (and not neccessarily the same one) took a 2 to a 1 and locally we don't agree with those ratings.
BUTT.. it's not that one raters fault! He or she doesn't know that they are going to be the only rater for that person. If they go with what they truly believe and it changes a rating that much.. well there should be some kind of review.
Our solution for the time being is to keep using the 2006 ratings until we can figure out what to do.
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Feb 7, 2007 13:38:47 GMT -5
Firstly, I didn't say anything about reeking havoc. I'm just a proponent of using more technology to assist with the rating system. Secondly, your line, "Our solution for the time being is to keep using the 2006 ratings until we can figure out what to do." is a bit concerning. What we do is continue using the Bower's rating system as we have for the past 14 years, and continue to have discussions now and again.
|
|
|
Post by Ann Harrell on Feb 7, 2007 14:45:56 GMT -5
Relax, Eddie, I'm only talking about one tournament at one venue. And an Amateur 1.5> (only) tournament at that. Love ya man..
|
|
|
Post by mahlon nobles on Feb 8, 2007 12:39:57 GMT -5
Once again I’ve decided to crack the closet door and try to, with an open mine establish argumentum of the game of Shuffleboard. First, let me reiterate about my previous perspective on “We play to 11, 12, 15 or 21 points because it’s convenient.” Let’s compare our sport with a few others; Baseball is played thru 9 innings. Each team is at bat equally. Can you imagine the game played first team to score 5 runs, wins? Football has 2 quarters in each half with a time limit and each team receives the ball at the start of each half, equally. Can you imagine this game played in another fashion? Basketball, Soccer and Hockey are played similarly to the above. Tennis is a game that is played to certain amount of points, but each serve (frame) is limited to a value of 1 point. Most professionally matches involve 30 or more games and in each match all players have an equal amount of serves. Do they switch serves to the opponent who failed to score? Bowling is a somewhat of an equalized game, even handicapped. Tournament outcomes result from numerous games played by each opponent. Wouldn’t you hate to watch a game played the first to reach 150 points, wins? Curling, now we’re getting close to home. This game has been in the Olympics for over a century and is the closest game I’ve been able to compare with our Table Shuffleboard. If you visit the following website link www.worldcurling.org/Portals/0/FedDocuments/WCFRulesofPlayandCompetition.pdf now scroll down to Page 18 – 9 in the rules and it would be good for all shuffleboard players to read this remarkable and should become a similar set of standards for us to incorporate. Note: The rules of Curling, “Even-Ends” is typical to what we refer to as “up and back”, “2 frames” and/or perhaps “even hammers”. Handicapping shuffleboard players with our current standards also seems to be a convenience. Shouldn’t Ratings be referred to as Rankings? Tournaments and Leagues are the responsible for using Ratings for handicapping in a single game. Now take a wild guess on how many variables there are using this process? How can anyone possibly be accurate with all players’ ratings by using a database only consisting with each game result? Wouldn’t your better handicapping system only be advantageous using compiled statistics and introduced into a database consisting with each individual player’s “Frame” (“End”) results? And last, are we doomed or stagnated if we don’t implement change? Currently it seems Professional Handicappers and Professional Sport Sponsors aren’t likely to take advantage of our beloved sport. It’s not the way we play the game, but it may be the way we conclude it, perhaps it’s just truly convenient. Mahlon
|
|
|
Post by sogger27 on Feb 9, 2007 8:42:08 GMT -5
Hello , I've been a shuffler for almost 40 years. I'm not in the Bowers book and I play with and against Bower book rated 1's, 0's, -1's at least twice a month. I even win about 40% of my games against these great players. When I go to events, whether to play or to watch, I do watch as many different games as possilble when I'm not playing. The one thing I do notice "almost always" is when a Bower rated weaker (1.5> Am) player sends a Pro rated player to the losers bracket on the big board. I'm not talking about one great game out of the Am and a very bad game from the Pro, I'm talking about both playing great and the Am winning the game. I've seen some 1.5's> do this on a regular basis, over years of play and yet they still remain 1.5>. These same 1.5> players usually finish somewhere in the money. I'm in Indiana and in my lowly opinion (which I generally keep to myself), we have several of the best players in the country bar none! What we also have are far to many 0's and 1's that are rated 1.5>! This screams for more attention from the raters to do what they should be doing every time they are at a event. Please rate fairly, as I feel you have been doing 90% of the time, but most of all, please rate all those that are you are seeing and watching at the events you attend, that require a rating change or to be rated for the first time. I know it's a bit time consuming, but it must be done by all raters. Well, there's my 2 cents worth! Please be gental on me with your comebacks! Let's all try to remember that above all that this Game/Sport involves, fun should still be #1. Thanks for your time and concern. Sogger27
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Feb 9, 2007 11:42:08 GMT -5
Sogger27 - I assume you not being on the Bowers listing means you don't get to many tournaments? Judging from you comments, I wish you were traveling more 'cause you seem to have a healthy attitude about the game.
Are you saying that your 2's are consistently beating your 0's and 1's? Since you, yourself, are not rated, what rating do they use for you in these tournaments? Also, why aren't you rated? Who's rating these players; people you're playing with?
|
|
|
Post by PeaHead on Feb 9, 2007 14:42:39 GMT -5
And back to the guy peeking out of the closet...
It's my understanding that there are 2 issues being discussed... 1) should the ratings be copyrighted and appear only on the Bower's website, and 2) should we make any effort to improve the rating process.
I understand your analogies and analysis of other sports and the need for comparisons to shuffleboard. What I still don't know is how you stand on either of these 2 issues.
Again, 1) should Ann (and others) be able to post ratings on their sites? Again, I am neither condoning or suggesting doing so without the full agreement of Bowers. My hope was to find out the general consensus, and get Lynda and Debbie involved in the discussion, and see if it is feasible and reasonable to change. If it is deemed unreasonable, then that's ok too.
2) Is it reasonable to attempt to make some improvements to the rating system, itself? I am not making a case for performance based ratings and I am not suggesting a major overhaul of the system, I'm just posing the question, should we put any effort into improvements. A website to make individual performances available to all, as well as a forum for further educating raters on the appropriate, agreed upon criteria for rating is simply suggested as a tool to improve what we already have. It is not intended as an instant overhaul of the current system.
Along those lines let's just consider the notion of web base rater entry. To keep things simple, let's just assume that the only change to the system was going to be that Bowers would allow raters to send in their ratings via website. Those ratings would feed directly into the master database, removing the need for paperwork, snail-mailing, and manual data entry.
Yes, I understand that the majority of raters do not have internet access, but even if 20% or even 10% did, shouldn't we be moving in this direction?
It seems one of the sorest subjects when it comes to managing the ratings is money. Boardtalk would still be around if it weren't for the issue of money. Jim Manders solved that problem to a degree by doing an online publication. No, his publication wasn't Boardtalk, and yes, I enjoyed reading my hard copy Boardtalks during long bowel movements, but Jim's publication was better than nothing.
Further, the ratings listing is not something you sit around reading. It's used more for lookup for tournaments, seeking out potential partners, and curiosity. The nature of the ratings lends itself to digital management and access.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but in an effort to keep this thread on track and possibly arrive at some conclusions in my lifetime, let me say uno mas time...
1) Should others be able to post ratings on their sites as a way to make it more convenient for others to access this information?
2) Should we do anything to improve the sytem (mostly, in the way of putting up a site that will educate raters and give them more information to work with, and finally, greatly ease the process of data collection - money-wise and time-wise?
|
|
|
Post by sogger27 on Feb 9, 2007 23:42:47 GMT -5
PeaHead - Thank You for your questions and input! I do play in at least 2 events per month, and have for years. They always list me verbally as a 1.5> since I'm not in the Bowers book. At the same time a few of the Raters in the event that day will say I should be at least a 1 if not a 0. I reply to them, "then rate me, please!" At most events I attend, if they have an A/B draw the night before the main event of the next day, I am most always put in the A player group for the drawing. I do get uneasy being treated as an AM player when everyone I play with knows I should not be, but as long as they don't put me in the Bowers book, I can play in any and all events, which I will continue to do if it takes that to get someone to accually rate me according to my playing ability. I have honestly been trying very hard for the last 3 years to get rated, I've talked to Raters that say next year you won't be playing as a 1.5>, but no one has submitted any numbers to Bowers pertaining to me, and I'm not sure why. As it stands right now I guess I'll die an Am (only because I'm not rated in the book). I only want to be rated to make my playing in events more accurate and fair to all the other players. Like I said, I'm in Indiana and I know and play against all but 1 of our states raters. I can't rate myself, but if I was to make a call on it I would say I should be a 1 or 0. I'll keep playing and asking to be rated, it's bound to happen eventually. Yes, there are a hand full of 2's and am's in my area that regularly come in the money in open events. Go figure...
|
|
|
Post by mahlon nobles on Feb 10, 2007 13:47:17 GMT -5
Eddie,
Your Question #1) Should others be able to post ratings on their sites as a way to make it more convenient for others to access this information?
My answer; our country club’s golf professionals’ update and post (including our CC's Website) each member’s USGA golf handicap, Monthly. They don’t post the USGA’S complete list.
NOTE #1: Our club like all others will not allow outside USGA players to compete in our tournaments without our golf professionals verifying outsider’s handicap with the outsider’s respective golf professionals’. In fact all tournaments follow player's eligibility guidelines. NOTE #2: If a golf professional falsifies a player’s handicap the golf professional is subject to loosing his/her professional credentials.
NOTE #3 Sure seems to have been a lot of major tournament winners lately, that wasn't in the Bower's System.
My Question #1 - Now tell me, who should be held accountable?
My Question #2 - Shouldn't the person or persons that allowed the player to participate be held accountable?
Your Question #2) Should we do anything to improve the system (mostly, in the way of putting up a site that will educate raters and give them more information to work with, and finally, greatly ease the process of data collection - money-wise and time-wise?
My answer; absolutely, lets handout shuffleboard professional credentials to everyone, LOL.
I agree with you on keeping an open tread with this and other subjects and/or perspectives involving our beloved game. This may be one of the few avenues to help create a “Paradigm Shift” if there is to be one in our lifetime.
Hmm, Ok, I’m heading back into the closet with the other “Hunter Gatherer’s”.
Love you man,
|
|
Chris
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Chris on Feb 10, 2007 15:49:28 GMT -5
Mahlon, See ya in Medford I hope.
Your most recent comments referencing golf handicap postings are good ones and raise an excellent point for the purpose of accountability of our shuffleboard ratings and raters. This post was actually pretty easy to follow( LOL ) since I am familair with golf stuff. This is especially true if sogger27 's comments are considered.
I know as a non rater I have successfully emailed with Linda and Debbie a couple of years ago to change addresses and add a name to the list so that person could get rated. I don't know how cumbersome of a task that was for them or if a different system is needed to make it easier. I do know they responded ASAP and confirmed with emails.
Sogger27, I suggest that you try an email to them to see if you can at least get added to the list even without a rating, that way maybe it will target some of your local raters to place a number by your name. In addition, I would also suggest that you once again lobby at least one rater to rate you. Be persistent and follow up, we all must be accountable, not just the raters.
Chris Wayt
|
|
|
Post by sogger27 on Feb 18, 2007 7:54:40 GMT -5
Thanks Chris! I will be playing in several events in the next 7 weeks and there will be at least 3 rating PRO's at 2 of these events. I am going to lobby these raters/friends to no end about getting my name and a fair rating sent to Bowers. A accurate rating may have to wait until next years list but I think they can get my name on the internet Bower site.
Post Script: To all Shufflers. Keep playing, have fun, and verbally promote our sport to all the AM's and virgins that you talk to at the events you attend... Thanks for reading...Sogger27
|
|
|
Post by eShuffleboard on Mar 5, 2007 8:13:33 GMT -5
(Posted by Ann Harrell) www.shuffleboardcorner.com/BOWERSRATINGSYSTEM_Ltr-to_Raters_21Feb2007.pdfBOWERS RATING SYSTEM February 21, 2007 To all the Raters, I want to give all of you a big, big “THANK YOU” for all of your hard work. I know sometimes it does not seem worth it, especially when you get criticized by someone because he/she does not like a rating or Rater, etc. Shuffleboard Tournaments have grown significantly because of your efforts and it is my opinion that the future of Table Shuffleboard is largely in our hands. We should do everything we can to support the Table Shuffleboard Association and our Shuffleboard Tournaments. We should continually strive to keep and maintain the integrity of the game and the Ratings. The idea comes up every year or so since the Ratings began (1992) to compile the ratings with statistics in lieu of a cumulative average of our total number of Rater’s opinions. I have looked hard and long at this option, along with several people more knowledgeable on this subject than me. Shuffleboard tournaments have so many variations, divisions, type of games, partners, teams, etc. that it just does not seem feasible to get an accurate rating compiling such a mishmash of statistics on our 2800 rated players. It does seem like it possibly could be done successfully in a League format because all the games are similar, but a lot of tournament players do not like the league type play. Most local areas have their own local league ratings. I still believe that our current rating system is the best solution for rating tournament players. It is certainly not perfect, but with your help, we can make it better. There seems to be a lot of misconceptions and some concerns about the Ratings. I am going to try to clarify the rating process and make some additional safeguards to aid in our attempt to create a viable table shuffleboard handicap rating system. Intent: The purpose for the Ratings is to aid Shuffleboard Tournaments and their directors. The Ratings are provided free of charge to our tournament directors to use to help format a tournament that can offer fair and competitive events. If a tournament director does not agree with a rating, he/she has the right to change it. However, if a tournament’s entry criteria is advertised as Bowers Ratings Used, it is to the tournament director’s advantage to ensure every rated player is made aware of any change(s) before arriving at the tournament. The success of the tournament is on the director’s shoulders and he/she should have the final say. Revisions to the Rating System: Two new safeguards will be added to the Rating process. First, I am forming a Rating Committee. The committee will consist of approximately 20 of our more seasoned Raters selected from different areas of the country, so that all areas will be fairly represented. This committee will have the power to review or change a players rating; and the power to add and delete Raters. They will also have access to view who rated who what. I hope that they will also aid in new ideas to help better the Ratings. Our website will continue to be maintained and updated as any player rating data is updated or changed throughout the year. Please do not duplicate, distribute, or publish elsewhere and/or post on other websites. This is to better ensure data integrity and consistency in the rating information being publicly communicated about our ratings. Second, there will be an additional ratings check for mistakes and or questions before the final printing. This will go out to every rater that has access to email. The Process: I will be contacting Raters more by email in the future. Please send your email address to Ron Bowers at: ronbowers@sbcglobal.net and include your phone number and address. If you do not have an email account, please try to use an email account of a relative or friend. Step 1. - October 1, 2007 You will be asked to send a list of new players and players who should be deleted. You can send earlier if you prefer. Deadline to submit your list of is October 15, 2007 Anyone left off the list will have to wait until next year to be added. Please make sure the names are spelled correctly. This is important because each year we have two or three players who are rated with different names. Please place the names of all known deceased players and players who have been inactive for two or three years that are not expected to return to the game anytime soon on the delete list. If a rated player does not receive a rating in the current year, his/her rating remains unchanged for three years and is shown to have been rated by one rater. The rating is not deleted sooner in an effort to minimize the number of unrated players who appear for tournaments. This procedure is under review and may be changed by the new Rating Committee. Step 2: - October 20, 2007 You will receive the updated list of players for you to rate. I have someone working on a program that will let you do your ratings by email. Hopefully it will be up and going by November, if not, they will be mailed to you. If you cannot get access to email, they will be mailed to you. Step 3: - November 15, 2007 (updated 2/22/07) This is the deadline for you to send your ratings back. Please send as early as possible. Please rate everyone you have seen play recently, the one year is only a guideline; it is not a hard and fast rule. Try to make the ratings a year long job. Take notes, etc, at every tournament. A good time for this might be while players are being introduced before each tournament. The integrity of Raters is the backbone of the Ratings. The ratings are only as good as you make them. Step 4: - December 1, 2007 (updated 2/22/07) The Raters with email access will have the opportunity to review and check the new ratings. If you see anything that does not look right, please advise. Step 5: - December 10, 2007 (updated 2/22/07) The ratings will be sent to the printer. They will be mailed to you as soon as possible. Thanks once more!!! Please call or email with any questions, concerns, or suggestions. Ron Bowers Email: ronbowers@sbcglobal.net Phone: 512- 252 8188
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Oct 31, 2007 11:00:24 GMT -5
I've only been playing this game for 10 mos. Unrated ofcourse. If I get rated a 3 I don't want to wait 3 yrs to be rated a 2. If I'm 2 caliber by end of next yr. then guess what thats where I belong.
I know that I haven't been in this for 20+yrs like alot of you but the future of Shuffleboard is in the hands of the 2-3-4's. There needs to be more pros helping promote the game and taking a time out once in awhile to encourage the up and coming stars of this game that I LOVE.
As for the rating system. Looks to me that The Bowers are trying to update the procedures and are welcomed to suggestions. So, instead of all the insanity that I have read on this blog....Get a Grip people...and be POSITIVE IN YOUR QUEST TO IMPROVE THIS GAME AND RATING SYSTEM...
Jo-Aus
|
|