world Ranking points at Isleworth

[Clambake]

[quote name='corky' timestamp='1417531250' post='10530345']Who decides that this tournament is eligible for world ranking points...???.......[/quote]

Lots of discussion that completely forgets the OP's original question. The answer is IMG.

IMG is the developer and owner of the OWGR system, and runs the board that administers the rankings process, with additional board representation from various golf organizations.

IMG is also the brand licensing firm employed by the PGA. They also do he brand licensing for the USGA. And the Ryder Cup.

IMG is also the management agent for numerous top Tour and European Tour players, most of them upper echelon players who have a strong vested interest in seeng limited field events gain ranking points.

IMG started the tournament originally in 1999 as the agent for the TW Foundation. They also managed the TV licensing, ad sales, and brought in Williams as the title sponsor.

IMG are also the brand sports licensing agent for Chevron, who was the tournament sponsor when it as determined to award OWGR ranking points to Tiger's tournament.

IMG-Reliance, a joint venture IMG has in India, did the deal for Hero MotoCorp to now sponsor that tournament, plus the deal for Tiger to be their global brand ambassador.

And of course, Tiger's current agent, Mark Steinberg, used to head IMG's global golf division.

Start to see a pattern here? OWGR points are totally driven by a sports marketing company maximizing value for all their clients. Trying to find a different objective logic is not going to happen. Mark McCormack was an extremely powerful person, and even after his death his intricate web of licensing still drives many critical pieces of the golf industry.

[joey2aces]

[quote name='corky' timestamp='1417634303' post='10537445'][quote name='joey2aces' timestamp='1417626904' post='10536671']
rich get richer????? redistribution of points!!!!

Funny how that works... play well and get rewarded. Play poorly and complain about those who play well.
[/quote]

but that isnt how it works....... Tiger has not played well for 12months +..... or even played at all, but here he is...... elligable for ranking points.... it ain't right[/quote]

I equate it to an NFL quarterback going out with a torn ACL. Does he lose his job? Or after he is healed does he get the benefit of the doubt and start? He starts. Tigers decline was due to an injury. Trust me, I'm about as un-Tiger as one can get but if he's healthy he's earned a spot here until his "healthy" play deems otherwise.

[hogans71]

[quote name='Clambake' timestamp='1417646902' post='10538805']
[quote name='corky' timestamp='1417531250' post='10530345']Who decides that this tournament is eligible for world ranking points...???.......[/quote]

Lots of discussion that completely forgets the OP's original question. The answer is IMG.

IMG is the developer and owner of the OWGR system, and runs the board that administers the rankings process, with additional board representation from various golf organizations.

IMG is also the brand licensing firm employed by the PGA. They also do he brand licensing for the USGA. And the Ryder Cup.

IMG is also the management agent for numerous top Tour and European Tour players, most of them upper echelon players who have a strong vested interest in seeng limited field events gain ranking points.

IMG started the tournament originally in 1999 as the agent for the TW Foundation. They also managed the TV licensing, ad sales, and brought in Williams as the title sponsor.

IMG are also the brand sports licensing agent for Chevron, who was the tournament sponsor when it as determined to award OWGR ranking points to Tiger's tournament.

IMG-Reliance, a joint venture IMG has in India, did the deal for Hero MotoCorp to now sponsor that tournament, plus the deal for Tiger to be their global brand ambassador.

And of course, Tiger's current agent, Mark Steinberg, used to head IMG's global golf division.

Start to see a pattern here? OWGR points are totally driven by a sports marketing company maximizing value for all their clients. Trying to find a different objective logic is not going to happen. Mark McCormack was an extremely powerful person, and even after his death his intricate web of licensing still drives many critical pieces of the golf industry.
[/quote]

Did not know that. Thanks for the read!

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Clambake' timestamp='1417646902' post='10538805']
[quote name='corky' timestamp='1417531250' post='10530345']Who decides that this tournament is eligible for world ranking points...???.......[/quote]

Lots of discussion that completely forgets the OP's original question. The answer is IMG.

IMG is the developer and owner of the OWGR system, and runs the board that administers the rankings process, with additional board representation from various golf organizations.

IMG is also the brand licensing firm employed by the PGA. They also do he brand licensing for the USGA. And the Ryder Cup.

IMG is also the management agent for numerous top Tour and European Tour players, most of them upper echelon players who have a strong vested interest in seeng limited field events gain ranking points.

IMG started the tournament originally in 1999 as the agent for the TW Foundation. They also managed the TV licensing, ad sales, and brought in Williams as the title sponsor.

IMG are also the brand sports licensing agent for Chevron, who was the tournament sponsor when it as determined to award OWGR ranking points to Tiger's tournament.

IMG-Reliance, a joint venture IMG has in India, did the deal for Hero MotoCorp to now sponsor that tournament, plus the deal for Tiger to be their global brand ambassador.

And of course, Tiger's current agent, Mark Steinberg, used to head IMG's global golf division.

Start to see a pattern here? OWGR points are totally driven by a sports marketing company maximizing value for all their clients. Trying to find a different objective logic is not going to happen. Mark McCormack was an extremely powerful person, and even after his death his intricate web of licensing still drives many critical pieces of the golf industry.
[/quote]

Good stuff.

They are smart to partner with TW. Guaranteed $$.

Cash and points all around!

[Vindog]

[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1417544608' post='10531605']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1417541686' post='10531285']
I agreed with Feinstein on something? Now I feel nauseous...
[/quote]

Really? He explicitly stated that the WGCs and [b]final two playoff events shouldn't give out any world ranking points.[/b] That's the part I thought was baloney.
[/quote]

In this I agree. I'm sorry but a 30 man field should not be awarded the pints that they are. Eds suggestion seems to have some merit, where the amount of piints are proportional to the size of field with all else being equal.

[DavePelz4]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1417657054' post='10539641']
[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1417544608' post='10531605']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1417541686' post='10531285']
I agreed with Feinstein on something? Now I feel nauseous...
[/quote]

Really? He explicitly stated that the WGCs and [b]final two playoff events shouldn't give out any world ranking points.[/b] That's the part I thought was baloney.
[/quote]

In this I agree. I'm sorry but a 30 man field should not be awarded the pints that they are. Eds suggestion seems to have some merit, where the amount of piints are proportional to the size of field with all else being equal.
[/quote]

Mrs Pelz says I have too many pints after golf. I usually have to buy them vs being awarded pints.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='corky' timestamp='1417531250' post='10530345']
Who decides that this tournament is eligible for world ranking points...???

It's a limited field with no cut,,,,,, totally unfair to the rest of the uninvited players........


the rich get richer.......
[/quote]

Who decided Tiger gets to play? Totally unfair to the invited players!

[Shilgy]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1417657054' post='10539641']
[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1417544608' post='10531605']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1417541686' post='10531285']
I agreed with Feinstein on something? Now I feel nauseous...
[/quote]

Really? He explicitly stated that the WGCs and [b]final two playoff events shouldn't give out any world ranking points.[/b] That's the part I thought was baloney.
[/quote]

In this I agree. I'm sorry but a 30 man field should not be awarded the pints that they are. Eds suggestion seems to have some merit, where the amount of piints are proportional to the size of field with all else being equal.
[/quote]so you want just size of fields determines points? Not who is playing? I believe now it is based on essentially the total points of players entered. Roughly world number 1 is worth x points , number 2 a few less and so on. So the John Deere is worth as many points as the Memorial? That seems right? Please correct me if I misunderstood.

[DavePelz4]

There are multiple factors in points. Full field winners on each tour get a predetermined number of points. The minimum winner's points for a PGA Tour event is 24 as is the Euro Tour. Then the strength of field factor is applied which can give everyone additional points. Each of the 4 majors bring 100 points to the winner. There's another category called flagship events. Each tour has 1 which is their top rated event such as The Players or the BMW PGA on the Euro Tour.

The #1 player in the OWGR brings 45 points to the event, second 37, third 32.

As if that isn't bad enough, there's the home rating of players.

Pretty simple, right?

[kemau]

[quote name='Clambake' timestamp='1417646902' post='10538805']
[quote name='corky' timestamp='1417531250' post='10530345']Who decides that this tournament is eligible for world ranking points...???.......[/quote]

[b]Lots of discussion that completely forgets the OP's original question. The answer is IMG.

IMG is the developer and owner of the OWGR system, and runs the board that administers the rankings process, with additional board representation from various golf organizations. [/b]

IMG is also the brand licensing firm employed by the PGA. They also do he brand licensing for the USGA. And the Ryder Cup.

IMG is also the management agent for numerous top Tour and European Tour players, most of them upper echelon players who have a strong vested interest in seeng limited field events gain ranking points.

IMG started the tournament originally in 1999 as the agent for the TW Foundation. They also managed the TV licensing, ad sales, and brought in Williams as the title sponsor.

IMG are also the brand sports licensing agent for Chevron, who was the tournament sponsor when it as determined to award OWGR ranking points to Tiger's tournament.

IMG-Reliance, a joint venture IMG has in India, did the deal for Hero MotoCorp to now sponsor that tournament, plus the deal for Tiger to be their global brand ambassador.

And of course, Tiger's current agent, Mark Steinberg, used to head IMG's global golf division.

Start to see a pattern here? OWGR points are totally driven by a sports marketing company maximizing value for all their clients. Trying to find a different objective logic is not going to happen. Mark McCormack was an extremely powerful person, and even after his death his intricate web of licensing still drives many critical pieces of the golf industry.
[/quote]

the answer was given in [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1107105-world-ranking-points-at-isleworth/page__st__30#entry10532571"]post 55[/url] where an adjustment to reduce the world ranking points for the limited field events is explained

i'll say up front i don't claim the owgr as being perfect and also i agree mark mccormack's business acumen can be viewed strongly as being shrewd (his handling of billy casper not being a part of what should've been the 'big 4' is a bit shady). but the apparent intimation that img and/or mark mccormack having an angle of being mischeivious is what i see is proper and regarding the rankings was nothing more than his attempt to take something abstract and organize it into a system that you can see in front of you. mark mccormack kept [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McCormack%27s_world_golf_rankings"]unofficial world golf rankings[/url] from 1968-1985 in his published "World of Professional Golf Annual" that followed the logic below.

"The McCormack rankings were unofficial world golf rankings published in Mark McCormack's World of Professional Golf Annual from 1968 to 1985, and were a forerunner of the current Official World Golf Ranking. Unlike their replacement they were not used to select fields for tournaments, and served no real purpose other than as a talking point.

The rankings were the first that had been compiled that took account of results from all the world's major professional tours, from the United States, Europe, Japan, Asia, Africa, and Australia. The system rewarded players for their finishing places in tournaments played over a three-year period, with more points awarded for more recent achievements, and more points awarded for major championships and tour events with strong fields than for those in other tournaments. They also reflected McCormack's philosophy that victory should be strongly rewarded, wherever in the world it took place – winners of tournaments received additional bonus points, and only high finishers in tournaments received any recognition - for example just the top ten places received ranking points in major championships.

In 1986 McCormack's system was taken up by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews and became the Sony Rankings. At first the Sony Rankings were only used by the R&A to exempt players from qualifying for The Open Championship (in particular to allow invititations to be sent to the leading American players, some of whom were reluctant to travel to have to pre-qualify), but in 1995 they were endorsed by all of the principal men's professional tours (five at that time) and renamed the Official World Golf Ranking."

as mentioned, his system was vailidated when confirmed by all 5 men's professional tours in 1995 as their ranking system. the company [url="http://www.endole.co.uk/company/04996725/official-world-golf-ranking"]Official World Golf Ranking[/url] or owgr limited was incorporated in 2003, which is also the same year when mark mccormack passed away, and has a registered address at the european tour building in surrey. their description below is from [url="http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/hero-world-challenge/pressrealeases/vijay-singh-takes-trophy-at-tiger-s-chevron-world-challenge-pres.html"]december 2008[/url], which shows they bought all assets of the world ranking from IMG. therefore, img is not the answer nor are they the owner of the owgr nor running their board of directors from what appears to be at least 6 years.

"The Official World Golf Ranking, Ltd., which purchased all assets of the World Ranking from IMG, has no shareholders and is managed by a Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is comprised of representatives of the organizations which utilize the World Ranking for tournament eligibility purposes, rather than a panel of golf industry representatives with no vested interest in the accuracy or the credibility of the Ranking system."

btw, the current [url="http://www.owgr.com/about?tabID={30A8C9C7-0A88-4D29-AF92-E44EF02BB899}#"]board of directors or governing board[/url] per the owgr website are Chairman - Sir Michael Bonallack OBE, PGA Tour - Tim Finchem, Commissioner, European Tour - George O'Grady, Chief Executive, PGA of America - Peter Bevacqua, Chief Executive Officer, Augusta National GC - Fred Ridley, Chairman of Competition, The R & A - Peter Dawson, Chief Executive, USGA - Mike Davis, Executive Director and International Federation of PGA Tours - Keith Waters, Director of International Policy

tiger made a request to include world ranking points and 2009 is the first year it did that

given the split between img and mark steinberg in 2011 i doubt either are doing any favors for each other with excel sports management being a direct competitor in the sports/entertainment agent market. you don't feed the competition what could be going on your own table

great write up but with a lot of tmz intrigue and inuendo....img is just doing big things in a big business world. again, owgr isn't perfect and i don't doubt img has some questionable things but not following the "conspiracy"

[Vindog]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1417666931' post='10540491']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1417657054' post='10539641']
[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1417544608' post='10531605']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1417541686' post='10531285']
I agreed with Feinstein on something? Now I feel nauseous...
[/quote]

Really? He explicitly stated that the WGCs and [b]final two playoff events shouldn't give out any world ranking points.[/b] That's the part I thought was baloney.
[/quote]

In this I agree. I'm sorry but a 30 man field should not be awarded the pints that they are. Eds suggestion seems to have some merit, where the amount of piints are proportional to the size of field with all else being equal.
[/quote]so you want just size of fields determines points? Not who is playing? I believe now it is based on essentially the total points of players entered. Roughly world number 1 is worth x points , number 2 a few less and so on. So the John Deere is worth as many points as the Memorial? That seems right? Please correct me if I misunderstood.
[/quote]

I never said any of that. You indeed misunderstood, and that may be because I didn't properly reference the other poster's idea. since I am sometmes on mobile [b](or awarded pints)[/b], I just don't feel like going back and quoting, but it's back there somewhere.

Why should the 30 man field of the Tour Championship have as many points as the full field Barclays, when the top tier players are the same yet the field is 100 players shorter. Logic says that the 125 man field is more difficult to win. in my view The Tour Championshio should carry at the most half of what the Barclays does.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1417697332' post='10541249']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1417666931' post='10540491']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1417657054' post='10539641']
[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1417544608' post='10531605']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1417541686' post='10531285']
I agreed with Feinstein on something? Now I feel nauseous...
[/quote]

Really? He explicitly stated that the WGCs and [b]final two playoff events shouldn't give out any world ranking points.[/b] That's the part I thought was baloney.
[/quote]

In this I agree. I'm sorry but a 30 man field should not be awarded the pints that they are. Eds suggestion seems to have some merit, where the amount of piints are proportional to the size of field with all else being equal.
[/quote]so you want just size of fields determines points? Not who is playing? I believe now it is based on essentially the total points of players entered. Roughly world number 1 is worth x points , number 2 a few less and so on. So the John Deere is worth as many points as the Memorial? That seems right? Please correct me if I misunderstood.
[/quote]

I never said any of that. You indeed misunderstood, and that may be because I didn't properly reference the other poster's idea. since I am sometmes on mobile [b](or awarded pints)[/b], I just don't feel like going back and quoting, but it's back there somewhere.

Why should the 30 man field of the Tour Championship have as many points as the full field Barclays, when the top tier players are the same yet the field is 100 players shorter. Logic says that the 125 man field is more difficult to win. in my view The Tour Championshio should carry at the most half of what the Barclays does.
[/quote]Got it-makes more sense. And for the record I am sometimes on mobile and spell check can be a b#*ch. Funny though, and this is not directed at you. But if you combine many of these threads the Tour Championship or Hero Challenge is as difficult to win as a regular event because the "depth of field on todays tour" is a myth so you are only beating the top 18-30 at most anyway!

[DavePelz4]

Hmmm...this event has more world ranking points than the AT&T at Pebble Beach? Now that just doesn't seem right.

[hogans71]

[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1417878595' post='10552207']
Hmmm...this event has more world ranking points than the AT&T at Pebble Beach? Now that just doesn't seem right.
[/quote]

Hater.

[DavePelz4]

Shocking considering coffee has already been consumed.

[PingG10guy]

I think every tournament should be a field of 30 players. All those other hacks dont need to be there.

And im pretty sure tiger didnt meet the criteria to play in his tournament.

That is all

[indiangolfer]

[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1417879476' post='10552279']
I think every tournament should be a field of 30 players. All those other hacks dont need to be there.

And im pretty sure tiger didnt meet the criteria to play in his tournament.

That is all
[/quote]

They have 2 special exemptions.

[Musky]

I think having to watch Woods chunk his way around the course for the majority of the telecast instead of seeing those that are actually playing well is a bigger travesty than the points.

[ea19]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1417657054' post='10539641']
[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1417544608' post='10531605']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1417541686' post='10531285']
I agreed with Feinstein on something? Now I feel nauseous...
[/quote]

Really? He explicitly stated that the WGCs and [b]final two playoff events shouldn't give out any world ranking points.[/b] That's the part I thought was baloney.
[/quote]

In this I agree. I'm sorry but a 30 man field should not be awarded the pints that they are. Eds suggestion seems to have some merit, where the amount of piints are proportional to the size of field with all else being equal.
[/quote]

But why? The Masters is small, exclusive field. Why can the Masters at 100 players in the field but not the Hero challenge, not tour championship, not WGCs, etc. Seems reasonable that they should reward ranking points. They do in other small field events - that you have to earn your way in. They do in random Japan tour events. I think the question is how many. How much should winning this event but worth. Same as WGC, less, etc.

[corky]

[quote name='ea19' timestamp='1417881707' post='10552391']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1417657054' post='10539641']
[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1417544608' post='10531605']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1417541686' post='10531285']
I agreed with Feinstein on something? Now I feel nauseous...
[/quote]

Really? He explicitly stated that the WGCs and [b]final two playoff events shouldn't give out any world ranking points.[/b] That's the part I thought was baloney.
[/quote]

In this I agree. I'm sorry but a 30 man field should not be awarded the pints that they are. Eds suggestion seems to have some merit, where the amount of piints are proportional to the size of field with all else being equal.
[/quote]

But why? The Masters is small, exclusive field. Why can the Masters at 100 players in the field but not the Hero challenge, not tour championship, not WGCs, etc. Seems reasonable that they should reward ranking points. They do in other small field events - that you have to earn your way in. They do in random Japan tour events. I think the question is how many. How much should winning this event but worth. Same as WGC, less, etc.
[/quote]

partly...... Because there is no cut at the Hero...... Why should you be invited to pickup some Ranling points

[Shilgy]

There is also no cut at the tour championship and some of the wgc events.

[bucky316]

[u][b]NO[/b][/u] OWGR points for silly-season money-grab gatherings, even if Cheetah is in the field....... it's that simple