Discussion of Changing/Eliminating Official World Ranking?

[Rangeballz]

When I joined GolfWRX I was told a thorough understanding of statistics was not required. Therefore, I say leave it alone.

[Darth Putter]

> @Rangeballz said:

> When I joined GolfWRX I was told a thorough understanding of statistics was not required. Therefore, I say leave it alone.

 

Make sure your pencil has an eraser on the end and you'll do fine.

[SNIPERBBB]

> @Rangeballz said:

> When I joined GolfWRX I was told a thorough understanding of statistics was not required. Therefore, I say leave it alone.

 

 

All forum discussios devolve to statistics and Hitler if they go on long enough.

[hdr_ric]

> @bscinstnct said:

> I like the PGA Tour Money Per Event list. The bigger events pay more and have the best fields in general.

>

> https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.154.html

 

While not an exact proxy for what the OWGR is trying to accomplish, I also like this list a lot. Scrolling back through the years, it seems like the correct people are on top - it definitely passes the smell test.

 

As an aside, Tiger's $$/per event in 2009 is sick.

[cdnglf]

> @hdr_ric said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > I like the PGA Tour Money Per Event list. The bigger events pay more and have the best fields in general.

> >

> > https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.154.html

>

> While not an exact proxy for what the OWGR is trying to accomplish, I also like this list a lot. Scrolling back through the years, it seems like the correct people are on top - it definitely passes the smell test.

>

> As an aside, Tiger's $$/per event in 2009 is sick.

 

It is similar to the OWGR in that it overrates the WGCs

[Ignatius Reilly]

I believe a lot of thought and effort has gone into looking at the current formula.

 

One great challenge with some of the proposed alternatives is "how do you measure strength of field"? You cannot do it based on the rankings of the golfers playing in an event, if you don't believe those rankings are done correctly. If a tournament has 80 of the top 100 players that sounds pretty good. Until you question how the top 80 and top 100 were ranked that way.

 

Using purse size as a proxy for strength of field isn't perfect either. Some events throw out large purses in hopes of attracting a stronger field and that works to some extent. But there are also some top players who just won't bother going to Hawaii, or playing the week before a major, or... whatever personal reasons cause them to skip an event with a big purse.

 

As many have said, there is no "perfect" solution. IMO (and in the minds of the players and organizations using OWGR) the current method seems "good enough". Like the rules, it still may get tweaked in the future.

[bulls9999]

OK, how about this. Every course has a USGA rating, like when using it to determine your handicap on any particular course vs your base GHIN rating? How about **scoring average** (used for the Varner trophy) x **course rating** for each tournament. That should be able to distinguish 'strength of field' based on accumulated points from scoring averages adjusted for various courses and totals from their previous results (going back whatever amount of determined time, and rolling averages going forward ; If using scoring average, then a lower number is better). Does there need to be anything else?

 

> @"Ignatius Reilly" said:

> I believe a lot of thought and effort has gone into looking at the current formula.

>

> One great challenge with some of the proposed alternatives is "how do you measure strength of field"? You cannot do it based on the rankings of the golfers playing in an event, if you don't believe those rankings are done correctly. If a tournament has 80 of the top 100 players that sounds pretty good. Until you question how the top 80 and top 100 were ranked that way.

>

> Using purse size as a proxy for strength of field isn't perfect either. Some events throw out large purses in hopes of attracting a stronger field and that works to some extent. But there are also some top players who just won't bother going to Hawaii, or playing the week before a major, or... whatever personal reasons cause them to skip an event with a big purse.

>

> As many have said, there is no "perfect" solution. IMO (and in the minds of the players and organizations using OWGR) the current method seems "good enough". Like the rules, it still may get tweaked in the future.

 

 

[golfortennis]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @hdr_ric said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > I like the PGA Tour Money Per Event list. The bigger events pay more and have the best fields in general.

> > >

> > > https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.154.html

> >

> > While not an exact proxy for what the OWGR is trying to accomplish, I also like this list a lot. Scrolling back through the years, it seems like the correct people are on top - it definitely passes the smell test.

> >

> > As an aside, Tiger's $$/per event in 2009 is sick.

>

> It is similar to the OWGR in that it overrates the WGCs

 

Careful. Some players have dined out on cashing in on the WGCs. Their supporters know it and will descend upon you like vultures.