Who's the best Player?

Who is the best player:

Jack Eldrick Ben

Jack's Course (5) 338 351 346

Eldrick's Course (3) 212 209 210

Ben's Course (2) 139 134 135

Total Score 689 694 691

Ave- Jack's Course 67.60 70.20 69.20

Ave- Eldrick's Course 70.67 69.67 70.00

Ave- Ben's Course 69.50 67.00 67.50

Equal Weighting 207.77 206.87 206.70

Ave of 3 Courses 69.26 68.96 68.90

3 friends, Jack, Eldrick and Ben are having drinks at the 19th hole after a series of rounds at each others home course. Due to scheduling issues, they played Jack's home course 5 times, Eldrick's 3 times and Ben's twice. Jack says he is the best because he had the lowest combined score. Eldrick says he is the best because he won on 2 out of 3 courses. Ben says he is the best because he had the lowest total/equal weight scoring average at the 3 courses.

Who do you agree with? How would you rank these 3 players?

I have no idea, but you’ve definitely triggered some LSAT flashbacks.

> @golfgirlrobin said:

> I have no idea, but you’ve definitely triggered some LSAT flashbacks.

Yes! These kinds of Analytical Reasoning questions gave me some PTSD.

MTLJEFF

Yes, sounds like a logic game question, but I'm not convinced there is a single "correct" answer.

However, it does have relevance in the golf world...if there is not consensus on the rankings of the 3 above, how do you rank 1000s of pros across multiple tours who don't always play home-home matches against each other?

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1765537/discussion-of-changing-eliminating-official-world-ranking/p1

https://www.sport24.co.za/Golf/PGATour/pga-tour-study-shows-disparity-in-ranking-points-20190320

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/is-there-a-better-way-to-rank-players-than-the-owgr/ar-BBWfvon

https://golfweek.com/2017/03/29/pga-tour-players-ignite-twitter-debate-on-owgr-bias/

http://theaposition.com/Articles/21/1632/1/An-Academic-Take-on-Whats-Wrong-With-the-World-Ranking

I tend to lean towards giving equal weight to the average scores on each home course (but realize that these sample sizes are too small to have that be fully justifiable). Others may think that it is ok for a player to potentially benefit from playing more home games and opt not to make an adjustment for the home course discrepancies. Of course, most would agree that wins are important but what what wins are more important.

Had totally forgotten all those pointless crusades against the OWGR.

“Eldrick” - HaHa? Chuckles?

B E J

ben, because he traveled better.

The winner was this guy below because the only winning move is not to play the game.

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> Had totally forgotten all those pointless crusades against the OWGR.

>

> “Eldrick” - HaHa? Chuckles?

>

>

>

>

The more I look at the OWGR, the more I realize how hard it is to consider all factors. While there are some things that I feel can clearly be improved with the OWGR, I have said and continue to feel that there is sound logic behind many of the things they do. I started this post not to crusade against the OWGR, but, in light of the fact that at least one of the links said that the OWGR is being reviewed, see if Golfwrxers can offer any insight or come to any consensus on how to rate players across different tours.

Maybe this is a better scenario- Players A & B always shoot 69 in their home country and 70 when competing abroad. 80% of the time when they compete head to head, it is in A's home country, 10% in B's home country and 10% in neither's home country. Player C is from the same country as B where he always shoots 70 (one shot higher than B when they play head to head), but has never played abroad or directly against A.

1. Do you consider A to be a better player than B?

2. How many shots per round is A better than C?

> @cpeck said:

> ben, because he traveled better.

Thanks...this is the type of response I am looking for. Do you think a world ranking system should consider wins outside your home country to be better than home country wins?

@SkiSchoolPro

It's been a while, but why should the home course matter? I'd think the OWGR ought to be about the fairest way we can think of to compare golfers performances relative to each other for the last 2 years at a diminishing rate..... blah blah blah.

Now where you start it I don't know? Maybe start with the Majors? Or maybe start with the tour championships?

But remember in your scenario they played where they did because of scheduling not because of $$$ or prestige or OWGR points.

What's the problem with the WGR's anyways? Seems like the primary concern is/was people being mad Tiger that was so great. Since he's declined... there hasn't been much hullabuloo except the recent question of the Asian PGA vs American PGA?

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

> Who is the best player:

> Jack Eldrick Ben

> Jack's Course (5) 338 351 346

> Eldrick's Course (3) 212 209 210

> Ben's Course (2) 139 134 135

> Total Score 689 694 691

>

> Ave- Jack's Course 67.60 70.20 69.20

> Ave- Eldrick's Course 70.67 69.67 70.00

> Ave- Ben's Course 69.50 67.00 67.50

> Equal Weighting 207.77 206.87 206.70

> Ave of 3 Courses 69.26 68.96 68.90

>

>

>

> 3 friends, Jack, Eldrick and Ben are having drinks at the 19th hole after a series of rounds at each others home course. Due to scheduling issues, they played Jack's home course 5 times, Eldrick's 3 times and Ben's twice. Jack says he is the best because he had the lowest combined score. Eldrick says he is the best because he won on 2 out of 3 courses. Ben says he is the best because he had the lowest total/equal weight scoring average at the 3 courses.

> Who do you agree with? How would you rank these 3 players?

While we're at it I haven't seen it mentioned how slick the PGA tour has moved to put more tours under it's umbrella. I'd have to think thats a solid move for the PGA tours ownership (players) and not bad for networking and interconnectedness of golf. The same sponsors will likely be available and other opportunities are probably increased. Processes can be streamlined. Lots good there on a surface look.

Good observation about PGA Tour umbrella...I think it was their study which found bias that I linked to above which has created recent interest in reviewing the system.

I understand why many simply want to ignore home advantage in terms of two competitors who actually compete head to head. I see it more problematic when you take the road players performance and use that as a baseline for his skill level, then evaluate a 3rd player against that baseline. I.e. Suppose you had 2 identical golf course 5,000 miles apart with identical weather, etc. If X was the only one who played both courses and averaged 1 shot lower on his home course than he did when he travelled to play the away course, you might conclude that X's home course is a shot easier and go on to conclude that Y is 1 shot better than Z because Y averages the same score as Z on a course that is 1 shot harder (when the reality is that the courses are identical).

hogans!

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

> Who is the best player:

> Jack Eldrick Ben

> Jack's Course (5) 338 351 346

> Eldrick's Course (3) 212 209 210

> Ben's Course (2) 139 134 135

> Total Score 689 694 691

>

> Ave- Jack's Course 67.60 70.20 69.20

> Ave- Eldrick's Course 70.67 69.67 70.00

> Ave- Ben's Course 69.50 67.00 67.50

> Equal Weighting 207.77 206.87 206.70

> Ave of 3 Courses 69.26 68.96 68.90

>

>

>

> 3 friends, Jack, Eldrick and Ben are having drinks at the 19th hole after a series of rounds at each others home course. Due to scheduling issues, they played Jack's home course 5 times, Eldrick's 3 times and Ben's twice. Jack says he is the best because he had the lowest combined score. Eldrick says he is the best because he won on 2 out of 3 courses. Ben says he is the best because he had the lowest total/equal weight scoring average at the 3 courses.

> Who do you agree with? How would you rank these 3 players?

I'm going Ben. He had the lowest average score across the 3 courses both average and when they are equally weighted. Lowest score is all that matters in golf! Low scores win tourneys!