DDC Open Senior Grand Master

Rank	Name	Points
1	Stancil Johnson	46.15
2	Sunny Cade	33.78
3	John Tallent	31.94
4	Bill Richards	29.15
5	Pete McKenzie	26.61
6	Jack Roddick	25.38
7	Der-Hsin Tang	23.07

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	50.76
2	Sunny Cade	37.16
3	John Tallent	35.13
4	Bill Richards	32.06
5	Pete McKenzie	29.27
6	Jack Roddick	27.92
7	Der-Hsin Tang	25.38

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	61.42
2	Sunny Cade	44.96
3	John Tallent	42.51
4	Bill Richards	38.8
5	Pete McKenzie	35.42
6	Jack Roddick	33.78
7	Der-Hsin Tang	30.71

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	67.57
2	Sunny Cade	49.46
3	John Tallent	46.76
4	Bill Richards	42.68
5	Pete McKenzie	38.96
6	Jack Roddick	37.16
7	Der-Hsin Tang	33.78

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	74.32
2	Sunny Cade	54.41
3	John Tallent	51.44
4	Bill Richards	46.94
5	Pete McKenzie	42.86
6	Jack Roddick	40.88
7	Der-Hsin Tang	37.16

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	81.75
2	Sunny Cade	59.85
3	John Tallent	56.58
4	Bill Richards	51.64
5	Pete McKenzie	47.14
6	Jack Roddick	44.96
7	Der-Hsin Tang	40.88

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	89.93
2	Sunny Cade	65.83
3	John Tallent	62.24
4	Bill Richards	56.8
5	Pete McKenzie	51.85
6	Jack Roddick	49.46
7	Der-Hsin Tang	44.96

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	98.92
2	Sunny Cade	72.42
3	John Tallent	68.47
4	Bill Richards	62.48
5	Pete McKenzie	57.04
6	Jack Roddick	54.41
7	Der-Hsin Tang	49.46

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	108.81
2	Sunny Cade	79.66
3	John Tallent	75.31
4	Bill Richards	68.73
5	Pete McKenzie	62.74
6	Jack Roddick	59.85
7	Der-Hsin Tang	54.41

1	Stancil Johnson	119.7
2	Sunny Cade	87.62
3	John Tallent	82.84
4	Bill Richards	75.6
5	Pete McKenzie	69.02
6	Jack Roddick	65.83
7	Der-Hsin Tang	59.85

1	Stancil Johnson	131.67
2	Sunny Cade	96.39
3	John Tallent	91.13
4	Bill Richards	83.16
5	Pete McKenzie	75.92
6	Jack Roddick	72.42
7	Der-Hsin Tang	65.83

1	Stancil Johnson	144.83
2	Sunny Cade	106.02
3	John Tallent	100.24
4	Bill Richards	91.48
5	Pete McKenzie	83.51
6	Jack Roddick	79.66
7	Der-Hsin Tang	72.42

1	Stancil Johnson	159.32
2	Sunny Cade	116.63
3	John Tallent	110.27
4	Bill Richards	100.63
5	Pete McKenzie	91.86
6	Jack Roddick	87.62
7	Der-Hsin Tang	79.66

1	Stancil Johnson	175.25
2	Sunny Cade	128.29
3	John Tallent	121.29
4	Bill Richards	110.69
5	Pete McKenzie	101.05
6	Jack Roddick	96.39
7	Der-Hsin Tang	87.62

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	192.77
2	Sunny Cade	141.12
3	John Tallent	133.42
4	Bill Richards	121.76
5	Pete McKenzie	111.16
6	Jack Roddick	106.02
7	Der-Hsin Tang	96.38

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	212.05
2	Sunny Cade	155.23
3	John Tallent	146.76
4	Bill Richards	133.93
5	Pete McKenzie	122.27
6	Jack Roddick	116.63
7	Der-Hsin Tang	106.02

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	233.25
2	Sunny Cade	170.75
3	John Tallent	161.44
4	Bill Richards	147.33
5	Pete McKenzie	134.5
6	Jack Roddick	128.29
7	Der-Hsin Tang	116.63

Rank	Name	Score
1	Stancil Johnson	256.58
2	Sunny Cade	187.83
3	John Tallent	177.58
4	Bill Richards	162.06
5	Pete McKenzie	147.95
6	Jack Roddick	141.12
7	Der-Hsin Tang	128.29

Open Senior Grand Master
1	Stancil Johnson	282.24
2	Sunny Cade	206.61
3	John Tallent	195.34
4	Bill Richards	178.26
5	Pete McKenzie	162.74
6	Jack Roddick	155.23
7	Der-Hsin Tang	141.12

[

Open Senior Grand Master
1	Stancil Johnson	310.46
2	Sunny Cade	227.27
3	John Tallent	214.88
4	Bill Richards	196.09
5	Pete McKenzie	179.02
6	Jack Roddick	170.75
7	Der-Hsin Tang	155.23

Open Senior Grand Master
1	Stancil Johnson	341.51
2	Sunny Cade	250
3	John Tallent	236.36
4	Bill Richards	215.7
5	Pete McKenzie	196.92
6	Jack Roddick	187.83
7	Der-Hsin Tang	170.75

Open Senior Grand Master
1	Stancil Johnson	375.66
2	John Tallent	260
3	Bill Richards	237.27
4	Pete McKenzie	216.61
5	Jack Roddick	206.61
6	Der-Hsin Tang	187.83

Open Senior Grand Master
1	Jack Roddick	227.27
2	Der-Hsin Tang	206.61
2	Stancil Johnson	206.61

Open Senior Grand Master
1	Stancil Johnson	250

In the past, there were two phases to the rankings: fixed and relative. The fixed phase awarded points based on the level of the tournament, a letter ranging from A to D (see below). The relative phase awarded points based on who you beat, in order to account for the depth and quality of a tournament. Either three or five years' worth of results were considered, and older results would be reduced a bit depending on their age. Your ranking was the sum of your best five scores.

That worked pretty well, and was typically quite accurate as a predictor when used for seedings. However, it did have a logical flaw that was never corrected: In the relative phase, you got a percentage of the ranking points (from the fixed phase) of the ten players who finished immediately below you. However, those ranking points were current, rather than the ranking points they had at the time you beat them. Not a huge problem, but wrong. If the ranking of someone you beat changed significantly between the time you beat them and when rankings were done, you'd get the wrong number of points for beating them.

There are several reasons I've gone to a new system (though it's not all that different):

The whole results site was being overhauled, so now's the time.
I wanted to be able to generate historical results.
The relative phase is clever but complicated.

Warning: There's a fair amount of math involved. Shocking, I know. The DDC rankings are now fairly similar to (as well as inspired by) the freestyle ranking system. Divisions are considered separately for rankings.

Step 1: Determine the point base

We start (as before) by giving the tournament a level. Note that the level is a measure of the importance of the tournament, and may not correlate to the quality and/or depth of the field. Each level has a point base. The winner gets that many points, and on down from there. The levels are:

Level	Points	Type	Description	Examples
A	50	Small	Local and/or impromptu tournament	Stanford KOC
B	125	Medium	State championship or series event	Hostkastet Open, North Carolina States
C	200	Major	Top-tier tournament and/or a regional championship	Virginia States, Swedisc
D	250	Championship	WFDF or US Open	WFDF, US Open

Step 2: Award points based on finish

One thing to note here is that points are awarded to individual players, so a two-player team splits the available points (they also split with any team they tied with).

Points start with the base, and go down based on an exponential function. That means that there are bigger gaps at the top. The idea behind that is that the difference between first and second is more significant than the difference between 11th and 12th. The number that controls how fast points go down is currently set to 1.1. (If set to 1.2, points go down faster.) Here is the equation for awarding points:

points = base * (1 / 1.1 ** place)

** means "raised to the power of". With 1.1 and a point base of 100, points go down as follows: 100, 91, 83, 75, 68, 62, 56, 51, 46, 42, ...

Step 3: Age results

Recent results count more than old results. We used to only look at tournaments from the last three or five years, but since we're degrading results over time there's no reason we can't consider all of them. That third place you got 20 years ago isn't going to count for much unless you've hardly played since then. Results are aged in terms of seasons, with each season being the calendar year. That means you just need to look at the year of the tournament. Older results fall off the at the same rate that points do, using that same factor of 1.1. A result from two years ago will be worth 83% of its points.

Step 4: Award bonus points

Instead of accounting for who you beat by giving you a portion of their ranking points (a bit self-referential), a simpler system of bonus points is used, where you earn them based on the ranking of each player you beat.

Ranking	Bonus
1 - 5	10
6 - 10	7.5
11 - 20	5
21 - 50	2.5
51 - 100	1
101 - 200	0.5

Step 5: Calculate the ranking

Every player gets a score for every tournament they've ever played. A player's top 10 scores are added up to form their ranking.

Experiment with Rankings

at: http://doubledisccourt.com/results/rankings_form.html

DDC Open Senior Grand Master

How rankings worked 1994-2017

How rankings work starting in 2018

Experiment with Rankings

Recognised by

Member of

Partner with

Signatory to

Partners