Junior Golf Scoreboard Rankings

[heavy_hitter]

I thought I would start with a new thread about JGS.  Have been getting several texts and calls from others in the Junior Golf World about the current state of the JGS rankings.  

 

Specifically, speaking on the course adjustments.  The people at JGS are awesome.  Sadly, the Course Adjustment philosophy and Algorithm is wrong.  The following is on their website.  https://www.juniorgolfscoreboard.com/cca.asp

 

Course Condition Adjustment

From time to time courses do not play as they are rated particularly when comparing different areas of the country during the same months of the year (i.e Michigan vs Florida). This discrepancy can include:

• Weather
• Course setup
• Dry or wet fairways and greens
• Yardage played or mistakenly reported
• Very favorable conditions
• Fast or slow greens
• Course redesign and not re-rated
• Recent re-rating,
• Or other factors such as USGA slope which we do not use

To account for these conditions, the Junior Golf Scoreboard Rankings (c) will now include a round by round Course Condition Adjustment (CCA) for events beginning October 31^st, 2020 or later. Please note, no specific numerical value is assigned to these conditions. Please see our methodology below.

Please note:

• No system is perfect but this represents our best effort from nearly a year of testing.
• As shown below, only fields with 10 or more ranked players will be considered for adjustment.
  • Fields with 5 or more players finishing will still be eligible to have results posted as before.
• Our analysis has shown that out of more than 5,000 age group competitions, the number that have both less than 10 ranked players AND potentially needing a course condition adjustment (CCA) is minimal. Our data also shows that virtually all competitors ranked in the upper part of their grad year play in fields that have 10 or more ranked players.
• Players competing in fields not rating adjusted will still have only 75 % of their best differentials counted in their ranking.

 

To explain, our system:

• For fields with 10 ranked players or larger, statistically looks at the historical playing ability of the field by averaging the scoring differentials for the players in the field from the rankings date closest to the first day of the event.
• Compares that historical average statistically to the field average scoring differential for each round
• Determines if the difference between those two averages is statistically significant and either decreases or increases the course rating accordingly.
• Has a maximum rating adjustment of +/-5 shots and adjusts ratings by whole shots only.

As always, as more data becomes available, we will evaluate refinements and adjustments as they become apparent.

 

The Issue with all of it is they aren't actually adjusting for weather from an email that is being shared as well as in the explanation.  They are adjusting depending on the quality of the field and how they score each day.  Yes, you read that right.  The course rating at a recent AJGA event for Guy's was adjusted from a 76.4 to a 78.4.  Meanwhile in the same exact tournament the Girl's wasn't adjusted at all.  Same course same conditions.  Why?  It is a "Course Condition Adjustment".  Says it right on their webpage.  In a recent email from a parent asking about the CCA, the response was "How do you assign value to wind?  What is the effect of the wind? Did the wind blow all day? Gusts? Steady? What or who do we rely on to report?".  JGS email went on and on about how to justify Wind, Water, Course conditions.  Then why do you have CCA because it isn't a Course Condition Adjustment.   It has become a little of a joke between the parents that CCA for the JGS is the AJGA tournament adjustment.  The biggest head scratcher is adjusting Tournament Ratings for Guys and not for Girls or actually rating the Girls down or vice versa.

 

Likewise, how do you justify decreasing the value of the course rating?  Yes, tournament courses are rated a 72.4 and will be adjusted down.  Really?  So I guess the weather and conditions were too good?  The USGA does a bad job rating the course?  When the fields shoot better than what the ranking or scores for that field are they will decrease the Rating.  I guess a kids can't practice and get better.  I guess that kids need to determine what tournaments they play in based on the field ranking.  This isn't a Course Condition Adjustment, it is a Quality of Field Adjustment.  I guess players with lower rankings can't play well and players with higher rankings can't play bad because this isn't a Course Condition Adjustment at all.

 

I really hope JGS reads this.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by heavy_hitter

[TripleBogeysrbetter]

Totally agreed with your assessment.

 

I feel one factor that has lead them to this CCA is the rising popularity of GJGR.  I like their system.  As stated to me by a tournament director about 2 years ago is you need facts when submitting for a weather rating of Fair or Bad.

 

[tiger1873]

I am not a fan of GJGR. I do not like the search functions and it does not have AJGA.

 

But having said that GJGR course adjustment is superior.

 

My daughters score diff is about 2 points better on the score diff of GJGR. That is a huge difference and most likely closer to her her actual score diff. 

 

with JGS it seems like the better she scores the lower the course rating you see.  With even posting better rounds you do not see much movement in ranking overall. 

 

Meanwhile other kids who rank near the top have a bad day and the adjustment goes way up so they do not fall.

 

When a low ranked player wins you can almost guarantee the event gets downgraded with a lower rating. How is that fair.

 

I have seen lower ranked kids regularly beating higher ranked kids in the last few months.  You should very rearly see a 1500 ranked girl beat a 300 tanked girl if they are doing things correctly.
 

I would put examples up but there really is nothing consistent other then it sure looks like the algorithm is wrong and broken based on events we played. Some kids just have a ranking too high based on recent performance.

 

Sadly unless they fix this and over ranking small tournaments. You have to wonder if they stay relevant much longer

Edited August 5, 2021 by tiger1873

[leezer99]

2 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

I am not a fan of GJGR. I do not like the search functions and it does not have AJGA.

 

But having said that GJGR course adjustment is superior.

 

My daughters score diff is about 2 points better on the score diff of GJGR. That is a huge difference and most likely closer to her her actual score diff. 

 

with JGS it seems like the better she scores the lower the course rating you see.  With even posting better rounds you do not see much movement in ranking overall. 

 

Meanwhile other kids who rank near the top have a bad day and the adjustment goes way up so they do not fall.

 

When a low ranked player wins you can almost guarantee the event gets downgraded with a lower rating. How is that fair.

 

I have seen lower ranked kids regularly beating higher ranked kids in the last few months.  You should very rearly see a 1500 ranked girl beat a 300 tanked girl if they are doing things correctly.
 

I would put examples up but there really is nothing consistent other then it sure looks like the algorithm is wrong and broken based on events we played. Some kids just have a ranking too high based on recent performance.

 

Sadly unless they fix this and over ranking small tournaments. You have to wonder if they stay relevant much longer

I know a D1 coach who’s son was top 40 in the state. Then when they made their most recent update to the jgs rankings he dropped out of the top 100. 

[tiger1873]

7 hours ago, leezer99 said:

I know a D1 coach who’s son was top 40 in the state. Then when they made their most recent update to the jgs rankings he dropped out of the top 100. 

 

I can see how that happens.  Very random the examples are endless out there.  It's very unfair to a lot players and the sad thing is the field matter more than ever.

[TripleBogeysrbetter]

12 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

I do not like the search functions and it does not have AJGA.

 

 

I will give you that on the search its not that great.  In the grand schemes I believe they are still new.  I believe Hurricane was only a recent adopter in the past few years.

 

Never got involved with AJGA.  To far to travel or the scheduling was bad.  I can see them adopting eventually.

[heavy_hitter]

2 hours ago, TripleBogeysrbetter said:

I will give you that on the search its not that great.  In the grand schemes I believe they are still new.  I believe Hurricane was only a recent adopter in the past few years.

 

Never got involved with AJGA.  To far to travel or the scheduling was bad.  I can see them adopting eventually.

It isn't as much adoption is it is AJGA not reporting their scores to them.  JGS and AJGA do have an arrangement, so I don't see AJGA ever reporting score to GJGR.  It isn't in AJGA's best interest.  JGS is smart to partner with AJGA because if you don't have AJGA your rankings aren't worth squat.

[tiger1873]

4 hours ago, TripleBogeysrbetter said:

I will give you that on the search its not that great.  In the grand schemes I believe they are still new.  I believe Hurricane was only a recent adopter in the past few years.

 

Never got involved with AJGA.  To far to travel or the scheduling was bad.  I can see them adopting eventually.

 

Right now the only game in town for younger  juniors is JGS.  Both Golfweek and Rolex (which is AGJA) seem to track more tournaments as kids get older. I like the golfweek rankings but it seems to miss way too many tournaments out there.

 

WAGR is great but really more for college and up almost impossible to get any traction unless you do the highest tournaments or college.

 

More and more tournaments are submitting to GJGR but honestly there lacking in a lot tournaments still and like heavy said without AJGA no one will take them seriously.

 

. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by tiger1873

[heavy_hitter]

This is the stupidity of the CCA.  It is not a course adjustment.  The following is the FJT Team tournament that was played this past weekend.  Same exact course in the same exact conditions.  Can't even wrap my head around it.  

 

[ConcernedBoutCOVID]

The playing conditions on the same course can change dramatically throughout a single day.  The algorithm it uses may have flaws, but it's better than anything else anyone has come up with.

 

And it eliminates a disincentive to players avoiding tournaments due to bad weather (No Shows) or playing at different times of the year when conditions are not ideal.  Spring in the northern states is very different than in the southern: adjusting ratings based on how the field does makes sense and doesn't penalize a kid for playing during a time of year that doesn't have perfect weather.

 

[heavy_hitter]

It has NOTHING t

2 hours ago, ConcernedBoutCOVID said:

The playing conditions on the same course can change dramatically throughout a single day.  The algorithm it uses may have flaws, but it's better than anything else anyone has come up with.

 

And it eliminates a disincentive to players avoiding tournaments due to bad weather (No Shows) or playing at different times of the year when conditions are not ideal.  Spring in the northern states is very different than in the southern: adjusting ratings based on how the field does makes sense and doesn't penalize a kid for playing during a time of year that doesn't have perfect weather.

 

 

It has NOTHING to do with bad weather or playing conditions.  JGS does not take weather nor playing conditions into account.  Your argument does not hold water as the 16-18 boys started on the front 9's and 13-15 on the back at the same times.  The course rating is adjusted based on the value of the fields scores and what that rating of the field would normally score in differentiation to the course rating.  So they slide it up and down.  If it were based solely on Weather and Course conditions, I would agree with you.  To base the scores on what that rating of the field usually shoots is absurd.  It is like taking a test and getting it Curved because the class didn't test well or tested too well.

Edited August 6, 2021 by heavy_hitter

[tiger1873]

1 hour ago, ConcernedBoutCOVID said:

The playing conditions on the same course can change dramatically throughout a single day.  The algorithm it uses may have flaws, but it's better than anything else anyone has come up with.

 

And it eliminates a disincentive to players avoiding tournaments due to bad weather (No Shows) or playing at different times of the year when conditions are not ideal.  Spring in the northern states is very different than in the southern: adjusting ratings based on how the field does makes sense and doesn't penalize a kid for playing during a time of year that doesn't have perfect weather.

 

 

 

Have you even read what was posted here??????????????????????  

 

Seriously it has nothing to do with weather. I seen shotguns with all the kids starting at the same time get different CCA adjustments.  You made a complete and utterly clueless statement that makes no sense.

Edited August 6, 2021 by tiger1873

[leezer99]

1 hour ago, tiger1873 said:

 

 

Have you even read what was posted here??????????????????????  

 

Seriously it has nothing to do with weather. I seen shotguns with all the kids starting at the same time get different CCA adjustments.  You made a complete and utterly clueless statement that makes no sense.

Can we go one post without someone starting a fight?

[Pinewood Golfer]

On 8/4/2021 at 12:49 PM, heavy_hitter said:

I thought I would start with a new thread about JGS.  Have been getting several texts and calls from others in the Junior Golf World about the current state of the JGS rankings.  

 

Specifically, speaking on the course adjustments.  The people at JGS are awesome.  Sadly, the Course Adjustment philosophy and Algorithm is wrong.  The following is on their website.  https://www.juniorgolfscoreboard.com/cca.asp

 

Course Condition Adjustment

From time to time courses do not play as they are rated particularly when comparing different areas of the country during the same months of the year (i.e Michigan vs Florida). This discrepancy can include:

• Weather
• Course setup
• Dry or wet fairways and greens
• Yardage played or mistakenly reported
• Very favorable conditions
• Fast or slow greens
• Course redesign and not re-rated
• Recent re-rating,
• Or other factors such as USGA slope which we do not use

To account for these conditions, the Junior Golf Scoreboard Rankings (c) will now include a round by round Course Condition Adjustment (CCA) for events beginning October 31^st, 2020 or later. Please note, no specific numerical value is assigned to these conditions. Please see our methodology below.

Please note:

• No system is perfect but this represents our best effort from nearly a year of testing.
• As shown below, only fields with 10 or more ranked players will be considered for adjustment.
  • Fields with 5 or more players finishing will still be eligible to have results posted as before.
• Our analysis has shown that out of more than 5,000 age group competitions, the number that have both less than 10 ranked players AND potentially needing a course condition adjustment (CCA) is minimal. Our data also shows that virtually all competitors ranked in the upper part of their grad year play in fields that have 10 or more ranked players.
• Players competing in fields not rating adjusted will still have only 75 % of their best differentials counted in their ranking.

 

To explain, our system:

• For fields with 10 ranked players or larger, statistically looks at the historical playing ability of the field by averaging the scoring differentials for the players in the field from the rankings date closest to the first day of the event.
• Compares that historical average statistically to the field average scoring differential for each round
• Determines if the difference between those two averages is statistically significant and either decreases or increases the course rating accordingly.
• Has a maximum rating adjustment of +/-5 shots and adjusts ratings by whole shots only.

As always, as more data becomes available, we will evaluate refinements and adjustments as they become apparent.

 

The Issue with all of it is they aren't actually adjusting for weather from an email that is being shared as well as in the explanation.  They are adjusting depending on the quality of the field and how they score each day.  Yes, you read that right.  The course rating at a recent AJGA event for Guy's was adjusted from a 76.4 to a 78.4.  Meanwhile in the same exact tournament the Girl's wasn't adjusted at all.  Same course same conditions.  Why?  It is a "Course Condition Adjustment".  Says it right on their webpage.  In a recent email from a parent asking about the CCA, the response was "How do you assign value to wind?  What is the effect of the wind? Did the wind blow all day? Gusts? Steady? What or who do we rely on to report?".  JGS email went on and on about how to justify Wind, Water, Course conditions.  Then why do you have CCA because it isn't a Course Condition Adjustment.   It has become a little of a joke between the parents that CCA for the JGS is the AJGA tournament adjustment.  The biggest head scratcher is adjusting Tournament Ratings for Guys and not for Girls or actually rating the Girls down or vice versa.

 

Likewise, how do you justify decreasing the value of the course rating?  Yes, tournament courses are rated a 72.4 and will be adjusted down.  Really?  So I guess the weather and conditions were too good?  The USGA does a bad job rating the course?  When the fields shoot better than what the ranking or scores for that field are they will decrease the Rating.  I guess a kids can't practice and get better.  I guess that kids need to determine what tournaments they play in based on the field ranking.  This isn't a Course Condition Adjustment, it is a Quality of Field Adjustment.  I guess players with lower rankings can't play well and players with higher rankings can't play bad because this isn't a Course Condition Adjustment at all.

 

I really hope JGS reads this.

 

 

Ok, I’ll fire in…

 

the name they’ve given it is very misleading because the adjustment has nothing to do with actual course conditions. 
 

the adjustment is a mathematical equation that measures actual scores relative to expected scores based upon the average differential of the players prior to an event. 
 

there can be any number of reasons that scores deviate from what’s expected relative to course rating. Maybe course hasn’t been re-rated in 40 years. Wind could have blown, course could have been a racetrack with easy pins.  Actual yardage could deviate from reported yardage in either direction. Etcetera etcetera. 
 

we just hosted The Gator. Same course, same conditions for boys and girls. And the attempt was to set it up “evenly” for boys and girls.  
 

however, we have had a rainy summer and have rough much taller and thicker than normal. This rough had a greater impact on the girls than the boys due purely to swing speed and how that affects your ability to play out of tall rough. 
 

as a result, girls scores were higher than boys scores, relative to what was expected. Boys was adjusted downward and girls left neutral. 
 

it’s an imperfect system but it’s the best one that exists. 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Pinewood Golfer

[Jkhogbear]

I agree with Pinewood.  At the USGA junior at Columbia the course rating was adjusted as it should have been.  I think only 2 girls out of like 156 were under par after 2 days.  These were the best girls in the country.   USGA setups are tough and it was was playing way more difficult than the course rating.  It’s not a perfect system.  The golfweek ranking is probably the best but only covers really big events.

[tiger1873]

 

My take is JGS is losing credibility. Multiple college coaches have told me in parents meetings JGS means nothing because it is unreliable.

 

USGA has a pretty reliable handicap system JGS is failing trying to do their own. They need to focus on reliable rankings.

 

Other then a repository of scores JGS is sort of useless as a ranking

 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by tiger1873

[ConcernedBoutCOVID]

3 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

 

My take is JGS is losing credibility. Multiple college coaches have told me in parents meetings JGS means nothing because it is unreliable.

 

USGA has a pretty reliable handicap system JGS is failing trying to do their own. They need to focus on reliable rankings.

 

Other then a repository of scores JGS is sort of useless as a ranking

 

 

 

LOL.  I can take the petty personal attacks.  Par for the course on the anonymous(?) internet.  But this is a pretty absurd comment.

 

JGS is still the standard for college coaches.  It's like democratic capitalism: flawed with many critics, but by far the best system out there.

 

Does your beef have anything to do with recent drop in rankings for your child, specifically?

[heavy_hitter]

On 8/7/2021 at 8:31 AM, Jkhogbear said:

I agree with Pinewood.  At the USGA junior at Columbia the course rating was adjusted as it should have been.  I think only 2 girls out of like 156 were under par after 2 days.  These were the best girls in the country.   USGA setups are tough and it was was playing way more difficult than the course rating.  It’s not a perfect system.  The golfweek ranking is probably the best but only covers really big events.

And???  Why does there have to be red numbers?  There should be zero curve because that is what it is.

[Noles]

4 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

 

My take is JGS is losing credibility. Multiple college coaches have told me in parents meetings JGS means nothing because it is unreliable.

 

USGA has a pretty reliable handicap system JGS is failing trying to do their own. They need to focus on reliable rankings.

 

Other then a repository of scores JGS is sort of useless as a ranking

 

 

My son's future coach told me that he has never once looked at JGS.

[Jkhogbear]

Because the course rating is not accurate if only two girls broke par out of 150.   Girls shouldn’t be penalized for a tough USGA setup when non participants can play in some lower level tournament that plays right at its course rating.   So if Girl #1 at a lower level tournament shoots 72-72 at a course rating of 75 she would do better than than Girl #2 that shot 73-73 at at USGA event that wasn’t playing even close to the course rating of 75.    This is probably why golfweek is probably the best anyway. 

[Noles]

I think course ratings in general are not very accurate in many cases.  I know a lot goes in to rating a course, but I don't think the rating system is very good.

[Pinewood Golfer]

1 hour ago, heavy_hitter said:

And???  Why does there have to be red numbers?  There should be zero curve because that is what it is.

Course Ratings are set and based upon the course being played in “normal conditions”. So if a course has rough more challenging than normal, pins set more challenging than normal, green speed more challenging than normals then the course is more difficult than normal. 
 

Truth is, this system was implemented for two main reasons. First, to adjust for  the tournaments who turned in events at distances much longer than what was actually played. 
 

to stop discouraging winter play when courses simply play more difficult. 
 

there are other benefits that mainly have to do with how pins are set and how that affects difficult, rough length, etc. 

 

To me there are a couple of flaws, one of which could be addressed. 
 

First, it encourages younger kids to “play up” earlier. When kids are 11/12/13 they are constantly improving, even if it’s just shooting the same scores from longer distances. Most 6th, 7th and 8th graders improve around 3 strokes per year. So, if you have a 12-13 division of players who have scores from a year earlier in the rankings, then you expect them to “beat their ranking differential”.   That puts an upper bound on amount of improvement available in younger divisions so more 12 and 13 year olds are playing up even if they aren’t ready. 
 

second, it appears to me that large fields are adjusted very consistently. You can take average diff prior to tourney, compare to average diff of tourney and predict the adjustment. 
 

however, with smaller fields (less than 20), the Rsquared value that determines statistical significance can’t get high enough for these smaller fields to actually adjust. 
 

In some instances I think JGS has enough data to make more adjustments. I’ll give an example. Say the 16-18 boys division had 42 players and saw an upward adjustment of 2 shots/day. Boys 13-15 had 35 players and saw the same. However, boys 12 & Under and Girls 13-18 only had 14 players each and their scores were very much in line with the other divisions. Well, right now they probably won’t get adjusted but if you use the other divisions as a guide they could be. 

[heavy_hitter]

4 hours ago, Jkhogbear said:

Because the course rating is not accurate if only two girls broke par out of 150.   Girls shouldn’t be penalized for a tough USGA setup when non participants can play in some lower level tournament that plays right at its course rating.   So if Girl #1 at a lower level tournament shoots 72-72 at a course rating of 75 she would do better than than Girl #2 that shot 73-73 at at USGA event that wasn’t playing even close to the course rating of 75.    This is probably why golfweek is probably the best anyway. 

Your argument holds no weight.  Breaking par had nothing to do with the course rating.  The USGA Girl’s tournament recieved no adjustments.

 

https://www.juniorgolfscoreboard.com/smtresultscourse.asp?tid=56259

[Jkhogbear]

That’s weird.  When they first posted them it was adjusted to a 79 but now you are right it’s not adjusted now.  

[tiger1873]

8 hours ago, Jkhogbear said:

Because the course rating is not accurate if only two girls broke par out of 150.   Girls shouldn’t be penalized for a tough USGA setup when non participants can play in some lower level tournament that plays right at its course rating.   So if Girl #1 at a lower level tournament shoots 72-72 at a course rating of 75 she would do better than than Girl #2 that shot 73-73 at at USGA event that wasn’t playing even close to the course rating of 75.    This is probably why golfweek is probably the best anyway. 

 

This a huge problem with JGS. The type of tournament matters very little. I believe this was changed a few years ago to be more fair.

 

i have no problem with players ranked higher when they play USGA and trusted tournaments.  It just makes sense.

 

wirh JGS some parents of higher ranked kids have actually made up tournaments they and there friends play with a few kids.  That sort of tournament should not count very much like it used too.

 

 

[Movingday]

14 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

 

My take is JGS is losing credibility. Multiple college coaches have told me in parents meetings JGS means nothing because it is unreliable.

 

USGA has a pretty reliable handicap system JGS is failing trying to do their own. They need to focus on reliable rankings.

 

Other then a repository of scores JGS is sort of useless as a ranking

 

 

So rankings are useless, but you have started 700 threads about how people are getting ranked higher than your daughter by manipulating the system. Got it. Carry on

[tiger1873]

9 hours ago, Movingday said:

So rankings are useless, but you have started 700 threads about how people are getting ranked higher than your daughter by manipulating the system. Got it. Carry on

 

I didn't start the thread. The only reason I care and so should a lot more people is JGS rankings can help you get into tournaments.

 

There are plenty of tours were you can submit your JGS rank and they will let you into better events without playing lower events or having to qualify.  This helps a lot when you play in different tours.

 

For a junior between 12-16 JGS is really the game in town that has all their scores and makes it easy to submit to tour directors. Most of the kids are not going be ranked that much on Golfweek, WAGR or Rolex.   

 

JGS alone will not get you into College.  The higher ranked players are  chances are those higher ranked players are also in the other rankings by then.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by tiger1873

[heavy_hitter]

21 hours ago, Pinewood Golfer said:

Course Ratings are set and based upon the course being played in “normal conditions”. So if a course has rough more challenging than normal, pins set more challenging than normal, green speed more challenging than normals then the course is more difficult than normal. 
 

Truth is, this system was implemented for two main reasons. First, to adjust for  the tournaments who turned in events at distances much longer than what was actually played. 
 

to stop discouraging winter play when courses simply play more difficult. 
 

there are other benefits that mainly have to do with how pins are set and how that affects difficult, rough length, etc. 

 

To me there are a couple of flaws, one of which could be addressed. 
 

First, it encourages younger kids to “play up” earlier. When kids are 11/12/13 they are constantly improving, even if it’s just shooting the same scores from longer distances. Most 6th, 7th and 8th graders improve around 3 strokes per year. So, if you have a 12-13 division of players who have scores from a year earlier in the rankings, then you expect them to “beat their ranking differential”.   That puts an upper bound on amount of improvement available in younger divisions so more 12 and 13 year olds are playing up even if they aren’t ready. 
 

second, it appears to me that large fields are adjusted very consistently. You can take average diff prior to tourney, compare to average diff of tourney and predict the adjustment. 
 

however, with smaller fields (less than 20), the Rsquared value that determines statistical significance can’t get high enough for these smaller fields to actually adjust. 
 

In some instances I think JGS has enough data to make more adjustments. I’ll give an example. Say the 16-18 boys division had 42 players and saw an upward adjustment of 2 shots/day. Boys 13-15 had 35 players and saw the same. However, boys 12 & Under and Girls 13-18 only had 14 players each and their scores were very much in line with the other divisions. Well, right now they probably won’t get adjusted but if you use the other divisions as a guide they could be. 

It is still predicated on a system of flaws because course ratings aren't a perfect system.

[heavy_hitter]

14 hours ago, Jkhogbear said:

That’s weird.  When they first posted them it was adjusted to a 79 but now you are right it’s not adjusted now.  

 

Just like in a Handicap System, Par really holds no weight.  Handicap is based on a course rating system just like scoring differential for JGS.  

[Pinewood Golfer]

7 hours ago, heavy_hitter said:

It is still predicated on a system of flaws because course ratings aren't a perfect system.

But it is a standardized system. Which is about as good as you can do when you have, literally, thousands of tourneys being played. And putting an algorithm in place to adjust for some of the systemic flaws is a good thing. It’s helps.