JGS - Year over Year Improvement

[Pinewood Golfer]

On 10/17/2022 at 12:34 PM, heavy_hitter said:

Here is one for you.  If a 54 hole tournament is played on 2 or more courses with split fields, JGS can't figure out how to give CCA.  Some of the things coming from Junior Golf Scoreboard are just bizarre.  

 

This is one tournament in the several.  They took the average across the the two course and combined them for a 74.6 although the rating.  One course was a 75.2 and the other a 73.7.  So if you played well on the 75.2 and not the 73.7 the kid got screwed with a 74.6.  No common sense was used in this at all.  Same thing happens at the national high school tournament in Pinehurst.

 

https://www.juniorgolfscoreboard.com/smtresultscourse.asp?TID=59578

This is very true. And it’s also a pretty extreme outlier example. And I’m not a JGS apologist

[heavy_hitter]

16 hours ago, Pinewood Golfer said:

This is very true. And it’s also a pretty extreme outlier example. And I’m not a JGS apologist

I understand it is an outlier.  Just because it is, doesn't mean it isn't an issue.  It is a shotty algorithm and or programming.

Edited October 19, 2022 by heavy_hitter

[MahalNeneng]

On 9/6/2022 at 2:14 PM, heavy_hitter said:

I was told by JGS, and I may still have the email somewhere, that on average once a kid hits their freshman year the scoring differential moves -1.5 a year.  I may be off, but that is what I remember.  

its definitely in that range HH, i have noticed that to stay in the top 25 year after year from freshman up it goes from:

Sophomore: Occasional round below par (per tournament)

Junior: 1 or more rounds below par (per tournament)

Senior: 2 or more rounds below par (top tier moves to 3 day tournaments)

[golferdad8]

On 9/6/2022 at 11:56 AM, kcap said:

This is great. I do wish JGS would allow us to download historical ranking and differential.   I made the mistake of not saving/downloading my sons historical numbers.

 

 

 

 

If you call JGS, they can forward the historical info to you. 

[MahalNeneng]

On 9/6/2022 at 2:14 PM, heavy_hitter said:

I was told by JGS, and I may still have the email somewhere, that on average once a kid hits their freshman year the scoring differential moves -1.5 a year.  I may be off, but that is what I remember.  

thats probably pretty close, as long as they keep at it and keep performing and dont hit the distance wall.

[leezer99]

So when do rankings matter?

[kcap]

On 12/9/2022 at 12:21 PM, golferdad8 said:

If you call JGS, they can forward the historical info to you. 

@golferdad8. Thank you,  I just got the all the historical information.   This was extremely helpful and saved me a ton of time.    

[heavy_hitter]

On 1/30/2023 at 8:06 AM, kcap said:

@golferdad8. Thank you,  I just got the all the historical information.   This was extremely helpful and saved me a ton of time.    

Share it with everyone else big dog.

[kcap]

14 hours ago, heavy_hitter said:

Share it with everyone else big dog.

Oh.  I just got my son’s  historical information and his trend.  Never kept a record of his scores ( who does) and getting it from JGS really helped.

 

Saved a few hours of my life! 

[wegobomber31]

It's that time of year again.  Here's some year over year trends for the 2024-2026 classes.  First each class sorted by the top 20 (both last year and this year, depending on how you want to look at it):

 

2022 Rk	Class of 2024 - Last Year	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2023 Rk	Class of 2024 - This Year	2023 Diff	2022 Diff	2022 Rk	Diff Change
1	Nicholas Gross	-7.21	-7.46	2	-0.25		1	Jay Leng	-7.91	-5.66	4	-2.25
2	Andrew Ramos	-6.21	-2.90	111	3.31		2	Nicholas Gross	-7.46	-7.21	1	-0.25
3	Matt Moloney	-5.97	-5.75	16	0.22		3	William Jennings	-7.30	-5.65	5	-1.65
4	Jay Leng	-5.66	-7.91	1	-2.25		4	Wheaton Ennis	-7.33	-4.34	16	-2.99
5	William Jennings	-5.65	-7.30	3	-1.65		5	William Ma	-7.20	-4.12	23	-3.08
6	Logan Kim	-5.63	-4.51	43	1.12		6	Byungho Lee	-7.04	-5.26	7	-1.78
7	Byungho Lee	-5.26	-7.04	6	-1.78		7	Ethan Paschal	-6.92	-3.91	28	-3.01
8	Kai Hirayama	-4.96	-4.11	61	0.85		8	Gerardo Gomez	-6.89	-4.56	14	-2.33
9	Boston Bracken	-4.86	-6.17	12	-1.31		9	Billy Davis	-6.69	-4.14	22	-2.55
10	Supapon Amornchaichan	-4.81	-4.96	35	-0.15		10	Asher Whitaker	-6.43	-4.69	11	-1.74
11	Asher Whitaker	-4.69	-6.43	10	-1.74		11	Brady Smith	-6.46	-3.20	45	-3.26
12	Trey Marrion	-4.62	-5.69	19	-1.07		12	Boston Bracken	-6.17	-4.86	9	-1.31
13	Eduardo Derbez Torres	-4.61	-5.74	15	-1.13		13	Christian Pardue	-5.87	-4.21	20	-1.66
14	Gerardo Gomez	-4.56	-6.89	8	-2.33		14	Bowen Ballis	-5.83	-4.22	19	-1.61
15	Jaden Dumdumaya	-4.45	-3.86	80	0.59		15	Eduardo Derbez Torres	-5.74	-4.61	13	-1.13
16	Wheaton Ennis	-4.34	-7.33	4	-2.99		16	Matt Moloney	-5.75	-5.97	3	0.22
17	Billy Abdow	-4.33	-2.55	132	1.78		17	Parker Sands	-5.80	-4.10	24	-1.70
18	Grant Roscich	-4.26	-5.58	25	-1.32		18	Tyler Spielman	-5.74	-4.17	21	-1.57
19	Bowen Ballis	-4.22	-5.83	14	-1.61		19	Trey Marrion	-5.69	-4.62	12	-1.07
20	Christian Pardue	-4.21	-5.87	13	-1.66		20	Eric Yun	-5.75	-3.80	31	-1.95
2022 Rk	Class of 2025 - Last Year	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2023 Rk	Class of 2025 - This Year	2023 Diff	2022 Diff	2022 Rk	Diff Change
1	Jackson Byrd	-7.62	-6.31	5	1.31		1	Will Hartman	-7.23	-5.03	3	-2.20
2	Jack Roberts	-6.48	-6.23	6	0.25		2	Michael Riebe	-6.95	-4.22	9	-2.73
3	Will Hartman	-5.03	-7.23	1	-2.20		3	Kihei Akina	-6.77	-5.01	4	-1.76
4	Kihei Akina	-5.01	-6.77	3	-1.76		4	Carson Bertagnole	-6.51	-3.00	21	-3.51
5	John Daniel Culbreth	-4.80	-6.12	9	-1.32		5	Jackson Byrd	-6.31	-7.62	1	1.31
6	Matvey Golovanov	-4.59	-1.77	130	2.82		6	Jack Roberts	-6.23	-6.48	2	0.25
7	Zhengqian Li	-4.64	-4.32	26	0.32		7	Brooks Simmons	-6.29	-3.56	13	-2.73
8	Chase Kyes	-4.56	-6.16	8	-1.60		8	Chase Kyes	-6.16	-4.56	8	-1.60
9	Michael Riebe	-4.22	-6.95	2	-2.73		9	John Daniel Culbreth	-6.12	-4.80	5	-1.32
10	Tip Price	-3.90	-4.12	30	-0.22		10	Joshua Kim	-6.17	-1.39	58	-4.78
11	Natthapatr Kaewpiboon	-3.96					11	Eric Zhao	-5.94	-3.26	19	-2.68
12	Logan Reilly	-3.67	-4.78	18	-1.11		12	Andrew Hinson	-5.55	-2.02	42	-3.53
13	Brooks Simmons	-3.56	-6.29	7	-2.73		13	Jake Albert	-5.37	-3.31	18	-2.06
14	Bowen Mauss	-3.63	-5.24	16	-1.61		14	Tyler Loree	-5.19	-3.47	15	-1.72
15	Tyler Loree	-3.47	-5.19	14	-1.72		15	Jon Ed Steed	-5.06	-2.09	39	-2.97
16	Maddox Crowder	-3.41	-2.74	74	0.67		16	Bowen Mauss	-5.24	-3.63	14	-1.61
17	Edan Cui	-3.30	-4.60	22	-1.30		17	Adam Villanueva	-4.95	-3.12	20	-1.83
18	Jake Albert	-3.31	-5.37	13	-2.06		18	Logan Reilly	-4.78	-3.67	12	-1.11
19	Eric Zhao	-3.26	-5.94	11	-2.68		19	Samuel Duran	-4.74	0.08	139	-4.82
20	Adam Villanueva	-3.12	-4.95	17	-1.83		20	Emile Lebrun	-4.70	-1.33	63	-3.37
2022 Rk	Class of 2026 - Last Year	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2023 Rk	Class of 2026 - This Year	2023 Diff	2022 Diff	2022 Rk	Diff Change
1	Henry Guan	-6.33	-7.43	1	-1.10		1	Henry Guan	-7.43	-6.33	1	-1.10
2	Smith Summerlin	-4.04	-4.79	10	-0.75		2	Blades Brown	-7.47	-3.68	3	-3.79
3	Blades Brown	-3.68	-7.47	2	-3.79		3	Tyler Watts	-7.12	-2.45	9	-4.67
4	Phillip Dunham	-3.11	-5.91	5	-2.80		4	Luke Colton	-5.90	-2.58	7	-3.32
5	Baron Nguyen	-2.58	-4.15	20	-1.57		5	Phillip Dunham	-5.91	-3.11	4	-2.80
6	Brody McQueen	-2.54	-4.17	18	-1.63		6	Alex Zhang	-5.78	-1.00	27	-4.78
7	Luke Colton	-2.58	-5.90	4	-3.32		7	Coltrane Mittag	-5.55	-1.55	21	-4.00
8	Nicholas Logis	-2.51	-4.76	12	-2.25		8	Tyler Mawhinney	-5.30	-2.23	12	-3.07
9	Tyler Watts	-2.45	-7.12	3	-4.67		9	Yanhan Zhou	-5.19
10	Sahish Reddy	-2.26	-3.94	21	-1.68		10	Smith Summerlin	-4.79	-4.04	2	-0.75
11	Hamilton Coleman	-2.31	-4.98	11	-2.67		11	Hamilton Coleman	-4.98	-2.31	11	-2.67
12	Tyler Mawhinney	-2.23	-5.30	8	-3.07		12	Nicholas Logis	-4.76	-2.51	8	-2.25
13	Brooks Harper	-2.18	-4.34	17	-2.16		13	Drew Woolworth	-4.92	-1.97	16	-2.95
14	Daniel McBrien	-2.07	-2.22	47	-0.15		14	Mason Howell	-4.78	-2.03	15	-2.75
15	Mason Howell	-2.03	-4.78	14	-2.75		15	Sterling Hurd	-4.66	-1.95	17	-2.71
16	Drew Woolworth	-1.97	-4.92	13	-2.95		16	Alex Holder	-4.51	-1.29	24	-3.22
17	Sterling Hurd	-1.95	-4.66	15	-2.71		17	Brooks Harper	-4.34	-2.18	13	-2.16
18	Yung-Cheng Lo	-1.91					18	Brody McQueen	-4.17	-2.54	6	-1.63
19	Finn Burkholder	-1.78	-3.35	24	-1.57		19	Frank Cabeza	-4.26	0.34	54	-4.60
20	Charles Cauthen	-1.54					20	Baron Nguyen	-4.15	-2.58	5	-1.57

[wegobomber31]

Here's how the Top 20 from 2 years ago sits today (takeaway: A LOT of turnover)

 

2022 Rk	Class of 2024 - Two Years Ago	2021 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
1	Sihan Sandhu	-5.45
2	Byungho Lee	-5.23	-7.04	6	-1.81
3	William Jennings	-5.16	-7.30	3	-2.14
4	Nicholas Gross	-4.55	-7.46	2	-2.91
5	Parker Paxton	-4.10
6	Aidan Gutierrez	-4.03	-0.95	327	3.08
7	Polakrit Pawichai	-3.96
8	Boston Bracken	-3.88	-6.17	12	-2.29
9	Logan Kim	-3.80	-4.51	43	-0.71
10	Jay Leng	-3.59	-7.91	1	-4.32
11	Kai Hirayama	-3.28	-4.11	61	-0.83
12	Trey Marrion	-3.26	-5.69	19	-2.43
13	Frank Kennedy	-3.21
14	William Hennessee	-3.11	-2.55	143	0.56
15	Daniel Zou	-2.76	-5.13	31	-2.37
16	Alex Long	-2.73	-4.71	37	-1.98
17	Jackson Herrington	-2.48	-3.78	78	-1.30
18	Wheaton Ennis	-2.47	-7.33	4	-4.86
19	Jackson Hymer	-2.42	-4.22	56	-1.80
20	Jaden Dumdumaya	-2.42	-3.86	80	-1.44
2022 Rk	Class of 2025 - Two Years Ago	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
1	Chase Kyes	-4.59	-6.16	8	-1.57
2	Jack Roberts	-4.02	-6.23	6	-2.21
3	Adam Anderson	-3.24	-2.95	67	0.29
4	Kihei Akina	-3.05	-6.77	3	-3.72
5	Jackson Byrd	-2.83	-6.31	5	-3.48
6	Tip Price	-2.68	-4.12	30	-1.44
7	Andre Zhu	-2.49	-3.75	38	-1.26
8	Natthapatr Kaewpiboon	-2.34
9	Mack Edwards	-2.03	-3.21	50	-1.18
10	Cameron Roberts	-1.94	-1.81	136	0.13
11	Will Hartman	-1.88	-7.23	1	-5.35
12	Matvey Golovanov	-1.86	-1.77	130	0.09
13	John Daniel Culbreth	-1.85	-6.12	9	-4.27
14	Shawn Coultoff	-1.50	-4.06	32	-2.56
15	Ingtawan Wangrungwichaisri	-1.02	-0.32	274	0.70
16	Maddox Crowder	-0.75	-2.74	74	-1.99
17	Kent Karlstrom	-0.66	-3.32	49	-2.66
18	Ishdeep Sodhi	-0.66	2.48	681	3.14
19	Logan Reilly	-0.63	-4.78	18	-4.15
20	Reese Roberts	-0.55	-3.77	37	-3.22
2022 Rk	Class of 2026 - Last Year	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
1	Henry Guan	-1.65	-7.43	1	-5.78
2	Phillip Dunham	-1.63	-5.91	5	-4.28
3	Lev Grinberg	-1.33
4	Jirath Maksomboon	-1.14	-0.30	129	0.84
5	Brody McQueen	-1.12	-4.17	18	-3.05
6	Sterling Hurd	-0.94	-4.66	15	-3.72
7	Asher Vargas	-0.71	-2.76	34	-2.05
8	Daniel McBrien	-0.65	-2.22	47	-1.57
9	Jeff Seong	-0.48	-2.56	40	-2.08
10	Tyler Long	-0.33
11	Alex Lee	-0.29	0.03	146	0.32
12	Baron Nguyen	-0.11	-4.15	20	-4.04
13	Drew Woolworth	-0.08	-4.92	13	-4.84
14	Charles Cauthen	-0.04
15	Tyler Mawhinney	0.20	-5.30	8	-5.50
16	Patmon Malcom	0.30	2.19	334	1.89
17	Sahish Reddy	0.33	-3.94	21	-4.27
18	Blades Brown	0.40	-7.47	2	-7.87
19	Aiden Tiet	0.43	-0.51	106	-0.94
20	Nicholas Logis	0.65	-4.76	12	-5.41

Edited August 19, 2023 by wegobomber31

[wegobomber31]

And finally, most improved over the 1 and 2-year time horizons (had to be top 200 in class to start):

 

2022 Rk	Class of 2024 - Most Improved	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2021 Rk	Class of 2024 - 2Yr Change	2021 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
192	Jason Shwartz	-0.65	-5.03	33	-4.38		85	William Ma	-0.37	-7.20	5	-6.83
79	Charlie Wylie	-2.23	-5.53	26	-3.30		103	Gerardo Gomez	-0.09	-6.89	8	-6.80
45	Brady Smith	-3.20	-6.46	11	-3.26		163	Anthony Purcea	0.89	-5.12	32	-6.01
159	Chance Rinkol	-1.05	-4.28	59	-3.23		170	Francisco Solorza Gutierrez	0.94	-5.00	34	-5.94
191	Matthew Diehl	-0.66	-3.84	69	-3.18		102	Grant Gudgel	-0.09	-5.46	28	-5.37
147	Davis Gochenouer	-1.20	-4.30	55	-3.10		113	Trevor Garus	0.09	-5.26	30	-5.35
23	William Ma	-4.12	-7.20	5	-3.08		98	Charlie Wylie	-0.19	-5.53	26	-5.34
28	Ethan Paschal	-3.91	-6.92	7	-3.01		121	Jason Shwartz	0.24	-5.03	33	-5.27
86	Anthony Purcea	-2.13	-5.12	32	-2.99		138	Connor Cassano	0.55	-4.69	38	-5.24
16	Wheaton Ennis	-4.34	-7.33	4	-2.99		42	Billy Davis	-1.49	-6.69	9	-5.20
157	Nolan Harper	-1.07	-3.91	67	-2.84		52	Brady Smith	-1.27	-6.46	11	-5.19
100	Connor Cassano	-1.86	-4.69	38	-2.83		152	Davis Gochenouer	0.78	-4.30	55	-5.08
65	Jack Vojtko	-2.56	-5.32	29	-2.76		143	Carson Baez	0.64	-4.34	50	-4.98
140	Ismael Encinas Ramos	-1.26	-3.85	76	-2.59		18	Wheaton Ennis	-2.47	-7.33	4	-4.86
22	Billy Davis	-4.14	-6.69	9	-2.55		67	Colin Salema	-0.85	-5.64	23	-4.79
75	Mykhailo Golod	-2.31	-4.71	40	-2.40		25	Ethan Paschal	-2.27	-6.92	7	-4.65
176	Christopher Bettencourt	-0.86	-3.25	98	-2.39		122	Erich Fortlage Arce	0.24	-4.38	49	-4.62
161	Trip Duke	-1.03	-3.41	91	-2.38		64	Grant Roscich	-0.96	-5.58	25	-4.62
106	Camden Goldknopf	-1.82	-4.15	62	-2.33		148	Nolan Harper	0.67	-3.91	67	-4.58
14	Gerardo Gomez	-4.56	-6.89	8	-2.33		53	Eric Yun	-1.23	-5.75	20	-4.52
2022 Rk	Class of 2025 - Most Improved	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2021 Rk	Class of 2025 - 2Yr Change	2021 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
139	Samuel Duran	0.08	-4.74	19	-4.82		194	Andrew Hinson	3.48	-5.55	12	-9.03
58	Joshua Kim	-1.39	-6.17	10	-4.78		91	Joshua Kim	1.76	-6.17	10	-7.93
135	Luke Brandler	-0.03	-4.40	27	-4.37		47	Carson Bertagnole	0.82	-6.51	4	-7.33
199	Aiden Wright	0.83	-3.24	56	-4.07		184	Talan Harrison	3.31	-3.56	44	-6.87
178	Brady McHenry	0.49	-3.57	45	-4.06		189	Matthew Pawly	3.38	-3.35	47	-6.73
102	Hudson Lawson	-0.61	-4.65	21	-4.04		43	Eric Zhao	0.66	-5.94	11	-6.60
177	Gabe Schmitz	0.52	-3.36	48	-3.88		24	Michael Riebe	-0.37	-6.95	2	-6.58
200	Parker Severs	0.79	-2.88	72	-3.67		190	Morgan Riley	3.40	-3.07	58	-6.47
42	Andrew Hinson	-2.02	-5.55	12	-3.53		104	Will Harvey	2.09	-4.38	29	-6.47
21	Carson Bertagnole	-3.00	-6.51	4	-3.51		30	Brooks Simmons	0.15	-6.29	7	-6.44
165	Nicolas Bencomo	0.36	-3.01	63	-3.37		83	Samuel Duran	1.65	-4.74	19	-6.39
63	Emile Lebrun	-1.33	-4.70	20	-3.37		123	Mitchell Maier	2.42	-3.96	36	-6.38
147	Tyler Sanford	0.04	-3.31	52	-3.35		197	Jackson Cook	3.53	-2.77	76	-6.30
96	Will Guthrie	-0.63	-3.97	35	-3.34		166	Jordan Hwang	3.04	-3.25	55	-6.29
153	Jaxon Bandelier	0.20	-3.09	59	-3.29		72	Emile Lebrun	1.53	-4.70	20	-6.23
171	River Stilley	0.41	-2.81	77	-3.22		106	Eli Walker Campbell	2.12	-4.10	31	-6.22
101	Trevor Gutschewski	-0.70	-3.81	39	-3.11		164	Jaxon Bandelier	2.98	-3.09	59	-6.07
141	Preston Howe	0.09	-3.01	66	-3.10		146	Luke Smith	2.72	-3.28	51	-6.00
39	Jon Ed Steed	-2.09	-5.06	15	-2.97		40	Jake Albert	0.51	-5.37	13	-5.88
138	Luke Mueller	0.00	-2.96	69	-2.96		59	Hudson Lawson	1.21	-4.65	21	-5.86
2022 Rk	Class of 2026 - Most Improved	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2021 Rk	Class of 2026 - 2Yr Change	2021 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
179	Austin Randall	2.74	-2.74	39	-5.48		108	Alex Zhang	4.84	-5.78	6	-10.62
194	Cameron Kuchar	2.93	-1.89	56	-4.82		166	Charles David Beeson	6.25	-3.69	23	-9.94
27	Alex Zhang	-1.00	-5.78	6	-4.78		42	Tyler Watts	2.26	-7.12	3	-9.38
9	Tyler Watts	-2.45	-7.12	3	-4.67		87	Alex Holder	4.28	-4.51	16	-8.79
54	Frank Cabeza	0.34	-4.26	19	-4.60		178	Dylan Ramsey	6.36	-2.42	44	-8.78
188	Connor Bryce	2.86	-1.53	67	-4.39		140	Andrea Birolini	5.63	-2.75	33	-8.38
155	Collin Alstrin	2.47	-1.91	53	-4.38		120	Bradford Lacefield	5.09	-3.16	26	-8.25
192	Landon Ashcraft	2.87	-1.45	71	-4.32		186	Ben Wilson	6.52	-1.54	68	-8.06
101	Preston Hage	1.70	-2.52	41	-4.22		200	Luke Gossett	6.78	-1.26	76	-8.04
60	Charles David Beeson	0.42	-3.69	23	-4.11		188	Landon Ashcraft	6.53	-1.45	71	-7.98
46	Owen Bolles	0.22	-3.81	22	-4.03		158	Collin Alstrin	6.06	-1.91	53	-7.97
21	Coltrane Mittag	-1.55	-5.55	7	-4.00		18	Blades Brown	0.40	-7.47	2	-7.87
162	Clark Mason	2.51	-1.32	75	-3.83		145	John Markow	5.72	-2.13	50	-7.85
77	Max Emberson	0.98	-2.83	32	-3.81		114	Max Emberson	4.96	-2.83	32	-7.79
3	Blades Brown	-3.68	-7.47	2	-3.79		163	Braeden Nelson	6.11	-1.65	63	-7.76
84	Dylan Ramsey	1.31	-2.42	44	-3.73		56	Mason Howell	2.94	-4.78	14	-7.72
134	Ben Wilson	2.09	-1.54	68	-3.63		193	Colt Farrow	6.70	-0.97	88	-7.67
134	Ben Wilson	2.09	-1.54	68	-3.63		189	Blake Brown	6.57	-1.10	82	-7.67
108	Hanqin (Hanks) Wang	1.88	-1.75	57	-3.63		95	Zach Huang	4.51	-2.85	29	-7.36
174	Tyson Embry	2.68	-0.85	92	-3.53		61	Owen Bolles	3.29	-3.81	22	-7.10

[wegobomber31]

Plot of Year-over-Year Change for any kid in Top 200 in the class last year.

 

Avg Change by Class

2024: 0.74

2025: 1.32

2026: 1.83

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by wegobomber31

[Pinewood Golfer]

6 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

And finally, most improved over the 1 and 2-year time horizons (had to be top 200 in class to start):

 

 

2022 Rk	Class of 2024 - Most Improved	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2021 Rk	Class of 2024 - 2Yr Change	2021 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
192	Jason Shwartz	-0.65	-5.03	33	-4.38		85	William Ma	-0.37	-7.20	5	-6.83
79	Charlie Wylie	-2.23	-5.53	26	-3.30		103	Gerardo Gomez	-0.09	-6.89	8	-6.80
45	Brady Smith	-3.20	-6.46	11	-3.26		163	Anthony Purcea	0.89	-5.12	32	-6.01
159	Chance Rinkol	-1.05	-4.28	59	-3.23		170	Francisco Solorza Gutierrez	0.94	-5.00	34	-5.94
191	Matthew Diehl	-0.66	-3.84	69	-3.18		102	Grant Gudgel	-0.09	-5.46	28	-5.37
147	Davis Gochenouer	-1.20	-4.30	55	-3.10		113	Trevor Garus	0.09	-5.26	30	-5.35
23	William Ma	-4.12	-7.20	5	-3.08		98	Charlie Wylie	-0.19	-5.53	26	-5.34
28	Ethan Paschal	-3.91	-6.92	7	-3.01		121	Jason Shwartz	0.24	-5.03	33	-5.27
86	Anthony Purcea	-2.13	-5.12	32	-2.99		138	Connor Cassano	0.55	-4.69	38	-5.24
16	Wheaton Ennis	-4.34	-7.33	4	-2.99		42	Billy Davis	-1.49	-6.69	9	-5.20
157	Nolan Harper	-1.07	-3.91	67	-2.84		52	Brady Smith	-1.27	-6.46	11	-5.19
100	Connor Cassano	-1.86	-4.69	38	-2.83		152	Davis Gochenouer	0.78	-4.30	55	-5.08
65	Jack Vojtko	-2.56	-5.32	29	-2.76		143	Carson Baez	0.64	-4.34	50	-4.98
140	Ismael Encinas Ramos	-1.26	-3.85	76	-2.59		18	Wheaton Ennis	-2.47	-7.33	4	-4.86
22	Billy Davis	-4.14	-6.69	9	-2.55		67	Colin Salema	-0.85	-5.64	23	-4.79
75	Mykhailo Golod	-2.31	-4.71	40	-2.40		25	Ethan Paschal	-2.27	-6.92	7	-4.65
176	Christopher Bettencourt	-0.86	-3.25	98	-2.39		122	Erich Fortlage Arce	0.24	-4.38	49	-4.62
161	Trip Duke	-1.03	-3.41	91	-2.38		64	Grant Roscich	-0.96	-5.58	25	-4.62
106	Camden Goldknopf	-1.82	-4.15	62	-2.33		148	Nolan Harper	0.67	-3.91	67	-4.58
14	Gerardo Gomez	-4.56	-6.89	8	-2.33		53	Eric Yun	-1.23	-5.75	20	-4.52
2022 Rk	Class of 2025 - Most Improved	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2021 Rk	Class of 2025 - 2Yr Change	2021 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
139	Samuel Duran	0.08	-4.74	19	-4.82		194	Andrew Hinson	3.48	-5.55	12	-9.03
58	Joshua Kim	-1.39	-6.17	10	-4.78		91	Joshua Kim	1.76	-6.17	10	-7.93
135	Luke Brandler	-0.03	-4.40	27	-4.37		47	Carson Bertagnole	0.82	-6.51	4	-7.33
199	Aiden Wright	0.83	-3.24	56	-4.07		184	Talan Harrison	3.31	-3.56	44	-6.87
178	Brady McHenry	0.49	-3.57	45	-4.06		189	Matthew Pawly	3.38	-3.35	47	-6.73
102	Hudson Lawson	-0.61	-4.65	21	-4.04		43	Eric Zhao	0.66	-5.94	11	-6.60
177	Gabe Schmitz	0.52	-3.36	48	-3.88		24	Michael Riebe	-0.37	-6.95	2	-6.58
200	Parker Severs	0.79	-2.88	72	-3.67		190	Morgan Riley	3.40	-3.07	58	-6.47
42	Andrew Hinson	-2.02	-5.55	12	-3.53		104	Will Harvey	2.09	-4.38	29	-6.47
21	Carson Bertagnole	-3.00	-6.51	4	-3.51		30	Brooks Simmons	0.15	-6.29	7	-6.44
165	Nicolas Bencomo	0.36	-3.01	63	-3.37		83	Samuel Duran	1.65	-4.74	19	-6.39
63	Emile Lebrun	-1.33	-4.70	20	-3.37		123	Mitchell Maier	2.42	-3.96	36	-6.38
147	Tyler Sanford	0.04	-3.31	52	-3.35		197	Jackson Cook	3.53	-2.77	76	-6.30
96	Will Guthrie	-0.63	-3.97	35	-3.34		166	Jordan Hwang	3.04	-3.25	55	-6.29
153	Jaxon Bandelier	0.20	-3.09	59	-3.29		72	Emile Lebrun	1.53	-4.70	20	-6.23
171	River Stilley	0.41	-2.81	77	-3.22		106	Eli Walker Campbell	2.12	-4.10	31	-6.22
101	Trevor Gutschewski	-0.70	-3.81	39	-3.11		164	Jaxon Bandelier	2.98	-3.09	59	-6.07
141	Preston Howe	0.09	-3.01	66	-3.10		146	Luke Smith	2.72	-3.28	51	-6.00
39	Jon Ed Steed	-2.09	-5.06	15	-2.97		40	Jake Albert	0.51	-5.37	13	-5.88
138	Luke Mueller	0.00	-2.96	69	-2.96		59	Hudson Lawson	1.21	-4.65	21	-5.86
2022 Rk	Class of 2026 - Most Improved	2022 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change		2021 Rk	Class of 2026 - 2Yr Change	2021 Diff	2023 Diff	2023 Rk	Diff Change
179	Austin Randall	2.74	-2.74	39	-5.48		108	Alex Zhang	4.84	-5.78	6	-10.62
194	Cameron Kuchar	2.93	-1.89	56	-4.82		166	Charles David Beeson	6.25	-3.69	23	-9.94
27	Alex Zhang	-1.00	-5.78	6	-4.78		42	Tyler Watts	2.26	-7.12	3	-9.38
9	Tyler Watts	-2.45	-7.12	3	-4.67		87	Alex Holder	4.28	-4.51	16	-8.79
54	Frank Cabeza	0.34	-4.26	19	-4.60		178	Dylan Ramsey	6.36	-2.42	44	-8.78
188	Connor Bryce	2.86	-1.53	67	-4.39		140	Andrea Birolini	5.63	-2.75	33	-8.38
155	Collin Alstrin	2.47	-1.91	53	-4.38		120	Bradford Lacefield	5.09	-3.16	26	-8.25
192	Landon Ashcraft	2.87	-1.45	71	-4.32		186	Ben Wilson	6.52	-1.54	68	-8.06
101	Preston Hage	1.70	-2.52	41	-4.22		200	Luke Gossett	6.78	-1.26	76	-8.04
60	Charles David Beeson	0.42	-3.69	23	-4.11		188	Landon Ashcraft	6.53	-1.45	71	-7.98
46	Owen Bolles	0.22	-3.81	22	-4.03		158	Collin Alstrin	6.06	-1.91	53	-7.97
21	Coltrane Mittag	-1.55	-5.55	7	-4.00		18	Blades Brown	0.40	-7.47	2	-7.87
162	Clark Mason	2.51	-1.32	75	-3.83		145	John Markow	5.72	-2.13	50	-7.85
77	Max Emberson	0.98	-2.83	32	-3.81		114	Max Emberson	4.96	-2.83	32	-7.79
3	Blades Brown	-3.68	-7.47	2	-3.79		163	Braeden Nelson	6.11	-1.65	63	-7.76
84	Dylan Ramsey	1.31	-2.42	44	-3.73		56	Mason Howell	2.94	-4.78	14	-7.72
134	Ben Wilson	2.09	-1.54	68	-3.63		193	Colt Farrow	6.70	-0.97	88	-7.67
134	Ben Wilson	2.09	-1.54	68	-3.63		189	Blake Brown	6.57	-1.10	82	-7.67
108	Hanqin (Hanks) Wang	1.88	-1.75	57	-3.63		95	Zach Huang	4.51	-2.85	29	-7.36
174	Tyson Embry	2.68	-0.85	92	-3.53		61	Owen Bolles	3.29	-3.81	22	-7.10

Yay. My son made the most improved over 2 years list

[wegobomber31]

16 hours ago, Pinewood Golfer said:

Yay. My son made the most improved over 2 years list

That’s better than the alternative! Onward and upward. 

[leezer99]

From Bard:

 

Explain how the junior golf scoreboard comes up with their rankings

 

The Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) is the most comprehensive junior golf ranking system in the world. It ranks players ages 5-19 based on their performances in 36-hole or longer tournaments over the last 365 days. Tournaments drop out of the calculation after one year. A player must have four events within the year to be ranked.

The JGS ranking system is based on three factors:

• Scoring differential: This is a measure of how well a player scores relative to the course rating. The JGS uses a player's average score for the 75% of their rounds that are their lowest scores.
• Strength of field: This is a measure of the quality of the competition a player faces. The JGS uses a variety of factors to determine strength of field, including the average ranking of the players in the tournament and the number of top-ranked players in the tournament.
• Finish: This is a measure of how well a player performs in tournaments relative to the other players. The JGS uses a player's average finish in tournaments, with consideration given to the size of the field.

The JGS ranking system is weighted as follows:

• Scoring differential: 65%
• Strength of field: 25%
• Finish: 10%

To calculate a player's ranking, the JGS first calculates a score for each of the three factors. The scores for each factor are then weighted and added together to produce the player's overall ranking.

Here is an example of how the JGS ranking system works:

• Player A: Scoring differential of -2.0, strength of field of 0.8, finish of 10th place in a field of 100 players
• Player B: Scoring differential of -1.5, strength of field of 0.7, finish of 5th place in a field of 50 players

Player A would have a higher ranking than Player B because they have a better scoring differential and a stronger strength of field.

The JGS rankings are updated weekly and can be viewed on the JGS website. The JGS rankings are used by colleges, universities, and other organizations to evaluate junior golfers.

It is important to note that the JGS rankings are not the only way to evaluate junior golfers. Other factors, such as a player's potential and their ability to perform under pressure, should also be considered.

what algorithm do they use for figuring out the course condition adjustment?

 

The Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) uses a statistical-based algorithm to calculate the Course Condition Adjustment (CCA). The algorithm uses the middle range of players in the field at the start of the tournament, and these player's scores are then used for this analysis, resulting in a CCA.

The algorithm works by comparing the actual scoring differentials of the middle range of players to their expected scoring differentials. The expected scoring differentials are calculated based on the USGA course rating and slope, as well as the player's handicap index.

If the actual scoring differentials of the middle range of players are significantly better or worse than their expected scoring differentials, then the CCA will be adjusted accordingly. A positive CCA indicates that the course conditions were easier than expected, while a negative CCA indicates that the course conditions were more difficult than expected.

 

The JGS CCA algorithm is designed to be objective and to minimize the influence of tournament officials, players, parents, or other outside influencers.

 

Here is an example of how the JGS CCA algorithm works:

• A tournament is played on a course with a USGA course rating of 72.0 and a slope of 128.
• The middle range of players in the field have an average handicap index of 18.0.
• The expected scoring differential for the middle range of players is 7.2 strokes.
• The actual scoring differential for the middle range of players is 6.0 strokes.

 

Based on this information, the JGS CCA algorithm would calculate a CCA of -1.2 strokes. This indicates that the course conditions were more difficult than expected, and that the players in the middle range of the field scored an average of 1.2 strokes higher than their expected scoring differentials.

The JGS CCA is then applied to the scoring differentials of all players in the field. This means that all players in the field will receive a CCA adjustment of -1.2 strokes to their scoring differentials.

The JGS CCA is an important tool for evaluating the performances of junior golfers. It allows for a more accurate comparison of scores from different tournaments, taking into account the difficulty of the course conditions.

Edited October 12, 2023 by leezer99

[TroyB123]

9 minutes ago, leezer99 said:

From Bard:

 

Explain how the junior golf scoreboard comes up with their rankings

 

The Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) is the most comprehensive junior golf ranking system in the world. It ranks players ages 5-19 based on their performances in 36-hole or longer tournaments over the last 365 days. Tournaments drop out of the calculation after one year. A player must have four events within the year to be ranked.

The JGS ranking system is based on three factors:

• Scoring differential: This is a measure of how well a player scores relative to the course rating. The JGS uses a player's average score for the 75% of their rounds that are their lowest scores.
• Strength of field: This is a measure of the quality of the competition a player faces. The JGS uses a variety of factors to determine strength of field, including the average ranking of the players in the tournament and the number of top-ranked players in the tournament.
• Finish: This is a measure of how well a player performs in tournaments relative to the other players. The JGS uses a player's average finish in tournaments, with consideration given to the size of the field.

The JGS ranking system is weighted as follows:

• Scoring differential: 65%
• Strength of field: 25%
• Finish: 10%

To calculate a player's ranking, the JGS first calculates a score for each of the three factors. The scores for each factor are then weighted and added together to produce the player's overall ranking.

Here is an example of how the JGS ranking system works:

• Player A: Scoring differential of -2.0, strength of field of 0.8, finish of 10th place in a field of 100 players
• Player B: Scoring differential of -1.5, strength of field of 0.7, finish of 5th place in a field of 50 players

Player A would have a higher ranking than Player B because they have a better scoring differential and a stronger strength of field.

The JGS rankings are updated weekly and can be viewed on the JGS website. The JGS rankings are used by colleges, universities, and other organizations to evaluate junior golfers.

It is important to note that the JGS rankings are not the only way to evaluate junior golfers. Other factors, such as a player's potential and their ability to perform under pressure, should also be considered.

what algorithm do they use for figuring out the course condition adjustment?

 

The Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) uses a statistical-based algorithm to calculate the Course Condition Adjustment (CCA). The algorithm uses the middle range of players in the field at the start of the tournament, and these player's scores are then used for this analysis, resulting in a CCA.

The algorithm works by comparing the actual scoring differentials of the middle range of players to their expected scoring differentials. The expected scoring differentials are calculated based on the USGA course rating and slope, as well as the player's handicap index.

If the actual scoring differentials of the middle range of players are significantly better or worse than their expected scoring differentials, then the CCA will be adjusted accordingly. A positive CCA indicates that the course conditions were easier than expected, while a negative CCA indicates that the course conditions were more difficult than expected.

 

The JGS CCA algorithm is designed to be objective and to minimize the influence of tournament officials, players, parents, or other outside influencers.

 

Here is an example of how the JGS CCA algorithm works:

• A tournament is played on a course with a USGA course rating of 72.0 and a slope of 128.
• The middle range of players in the field have an average handicap index of 18.0.
• The expected scoring differential for the middle range of players is 7.2 strokes.
• The actual scoring differential for the middle range of players is 6.0 strokes.

 

Based on this information, the JGS CCA algorithm would calculate a CCA of -1.2 strokes. This indicates that the course conditions were more difficult than expected, and that the players in the middle range of the field scored an average of 1.2 strokes higher than their expected scoring differentials.

The JGS CCA is then applied to the scoring differentials of all players in the field. This means that all players in the field will receive a CCA adjustment of -1.2 strokes to their scoring differentials.

The JGS CCA is an important tool for evaluating the performances of junior golfers. It allows for a more accurate comparison of scores from different tournaments, taking into account the difficulty of the course conditions.

I don't think they really use handicap indexes?   Or slope?   Do they?   I thought they used JGS differentials, and doubt they cross reference everyone's handicap index (which is probably impossible with the data they have).

[wegobomber31]

9 minutes ago, TroyB123 said:

I don't think they really use handicap indexes?   Or slope?   Do they?   I thought they used JGS differentials, and doubt they cross reference everyone's handicap index (which is probably impossible with the data they have).

Bard just making stuff up. About 85% of that info is factual and comes from their website. 

[golferdad8]

On 9/6/2022 at 11:56 AM, kcap said:

This is great. I do wish JGS would allow us to download historical ranking and differential.   I made the mistake of not saving/downloading my sons historical numbers.

 

 

 

 

If you want detail info & you're a paying subscriber (esp if you bought the resume pkg), call them up and ask them to help you with historical data. 

Note: the coaches see the entire history of the students, much beyond the 12 months that the players see, so they do see the entire multi-year trend/differential. 

[golferdad8]

7 hours ago, leezer99 said:

From Bard:

 

Explain how the junior golf scoreboard comes up with their rankings

 

The Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) is the most comprehensive junior golf ranking system in the world. It ranks players ages 5-19 based on their performances in 36-hole or longer tournaments over the last 365 days. Tournaments drop out of the calculation after one year. A player must have four events within the year to be ranked.

The JGS ranking system is based on three factors:

• Scoring differential: This is a measure of how well a player scores relative to the course rating. The JGS uses a player's average score for the 75% of their rounds that are their lowest scores.
• Strength of field: This is a measure of the quality of the competition a player faces. The JGS uses a variety of factors to determine strength of field, including the average ranking of the players in the tournament and the number of top-ranked players in the tournament.
• Finish: This is a measure of how well a player performs in tournaments relative to the other players. The JGS uses a player's average finish in tournaments, with consideration given to the size of the field.

The JGS ranking system is weighted as follows:

• Scoring differential: 65%
• Strength of field: 25%
• Finish: 10%

To calculate a player's ranking, the JGS first calculates a score for each of the three factors. The scores for each factor are then weighted and added together to produce the player's overall ranking.

Here is an example of how the JGS ranking system works:

• Player A: Scoring differential of -2.0, strength of field of 0.8, finish of 10th place in a field of 100 players
• Player B: Scoring differential of -1.5, strength of field of 0.7, finish of 5th place in a field of 50 players

Player A would have a higher ranking than Player B because they have a better scoring differential and a stronger strength of field.

The JGS rankings are updated weekly and can be viewed on the JGS website. The JGS rankings are used by colleges, universities, and other organizations to evaluate junior golfers.

It is important to note that the JGS rankings are not the only way to evaluate junior golfers. Other factors, such as a player's potential and their ability to perform under pressure, should also be considered.

what algorithm do they use for figuring out the course condition adjustment?

 

The Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) uses a statistical-based algorithm to calculate the Course Condition Adjustment (CCA). The algorithm uses the middle range of players in the field at the start of the tournament, and these player's scores are then used for this analysis, resulting in a CCA.

The algorithm works by comparing the actual scoring differentials of the middle range of players to their expected scoring differentials. The expected scoring differentials are calculated based on the USGA course rating and slope, as well as the player's handicap index.

If the actual scoring differentials of the middle range of players are significantly better or worse than their expected scoring differentials, then the CCA will be adjusted accordingly. A positive CCA indicates that the course conditions were easier than expected, while a negative CCA indicates that the course conditions were more difficult than expected.

 

The JGS CCA algorithm is designed to be objective and to minimize the influence of tournament officials, players, parents, or other outside influencers.

 

Here is an example of how the JGS CCA algorithm works:

• A tournament is played on a course with a USGA course rating of 72.0 and a slope of 128.
• The middle range of players in the field have an average handicap index of 18.0.
• The expected scoring differential for the middle range of players is 7.2 strokes.
• The actual scoring differential for the middle range of players is 6.0 strokes.

 

Based on this information, the JGS CCA algorithm would calculate a CCA of -1.2 strokes. This indicates that the course conditions were more difficult than expected, and that the players in the middle range of the field scored an average of 1.2 strokes higher than their expected scoring differentials.

The JGS CCA is then applied to the scoring differentials of all players in the field. This means that all players in the field will receive a CCA adjustment of -1.2 strokes to their scoring differentials.

The JGS CCA is an important tool for evaluating the performances of junior golfers. It allows for a more accurate comparison of scores from different tournaments, taking into account the difficulty of the course conditions.

All of these sound "great" - just know that many people will "game" this system as there's a natural bias to favor/play the tournaments with higher rated courses and/or playing with low differential players. 

 

The smart coaches have figured this out and actually watch junior players who play in amateur events, especially if the tournament has players from that coach's school. If a junior can get top 5 or top 10 against mostly college players/former Korn Ferry guys, that says more a -6 differential player averaging 74 average with only 4 events (and where the bottom 25% of scores are thrown out). 

[wegobomber31]

6 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

All of these sound "great" - just know that many people will "game" this system as there's a natural bias to favor/play the tournaments with higher rated courses and/or playing with low differential players. 

 

The smart coaches have figured this out and actually watch junior players who play in amateur events, especially if the tournament has players from that coach's school. If a junior can get top 5 or top 10 against mostly college players/former Korn Ferry guys, that says more a -6 differential player averaging 74 average with only 4 events (and where the bottom 25% of scores are thrown out). 

that’s an interesting hypothesis. I have some numbers from a couple months ago but tried to find high scoring average, low diff, low tournament number players, as you suggested. Here’s what I could come up with (didn’t find any with 4 tournaments, so chose 11 as a cut-off):

 

A: 74.4 scoring avg / 8 tournaments / -5.74 diff

B: 73.3 / 11 / -5.83

C 72.5 / 9 / -5.87

D 72 / 6 / -5.50

Those players have committed to Texas, Vanderbilt, Georgia and North Carolina. 
 

your point about top 75% and JGS is an interesting one. We know Golfweek doesn’t have the depth of events as JGS but I’m willing to bet that most of the top 50 kids are only playing in events that are also included in Golfweek. So the difference in ranking between Golfweek and JGS would just be methodology, namely:

- head to head instead of score relative to the CCA-adjusted rating

- all rounds instead of the top 75%
 

It would be interesting to see where the ratings differ across top 50 kids as an indication of consistency and potentially smart scheduling.

[wegobomber31]

20 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

that’s an interesting hypothesis. I have some numbers from a couple months ago but tried to find high scoring average, low diff, low tournament number players, as you suggested. Here’s what I could come up with (didn’t find any with 4 tournaments, so chose 11 as a cut-off):

 

A: 74.4 scoring avg / 8 tournaments / -5.74 diff

B: 73.3 / 11 / -5.83

C 72.5 / 9 / -5.87

D 72 / 6 / -5.50

Those players have committed to Texas, Vanderbilt, Georgia and North Carolina. 
 

your point about top 75% and JGS is an interesting one. We know Golfweek doesn’t have the depth of events as JGS but I’m willing to bet that most of the top 50 kids are only playing in events that are also included in Golfweek. So the difference in ranking between Golfweek and JGS would just be methodology, namely:

- head to head instead of score relative to the CCA-adjusted rating

- all rounds instead of the top 75%
 

It would be interesting to see where the ratings differ across top 50 kids as an indication of consistency and potentially smart scheduling.

Highest difference between Golfweek rank being higher than JGS, top 50

 

80

36

Tyler Spielman

15

2024

-5.87

 

87

46

Grant Gudgel

11

2024

-5.57

 

81

43

Christian Pardue

9

2024

-5.57

 

71

44

Coltrane Mittag

17

2026

-5.65

 

57

33

Joshua Kim

10

2025

-6.08

I believe that is commits to Auburn, OK State, Tennessee and UCLA

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by wegobomber31

[golferdad8]

4 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

Highest difference between Golfweek rank being higher than JGS, top 50

 

80

36

Tyler Spielman

15

2024

-5.87

 

87

46

Grant Gudgel

11

2024

-5.57

 

81

43

Christian Pardue

9

2024

-5.57

 

71

44

Coltrane Mittag

17

2026

-5.65

 

57

33

Joshua Kim

10

2025

-6.08

I believe that is commits to Auburn, OK State, Tennessee and UCLA

 

Not a fan of Golfweek rankings as they don't include a lot of the big tournaments. In addition, many of the top 10-11th graders will peak or decline over the next 2 years so where they are today so even if the rankings include tournaments, it's not always a good indication of where the players' potential going into (and in) college. As an example, half of the top 50 players from 2024 that I looked at from 2 years ago are no longer top 50. So if you look at the top 50 players for 2025 or 2026, the same might happen. It's like the football prospects where half of the top 300 ends up fading in college. 

[wegobomber31]

35 minutes ago, golferdad8 said:

Not a fan of Golfweek rankings as they don't include a lot of the big tournaments. In addition, many of the top 10-11th graders will peak or decline over the next 2 years so where they are today so even if the rankings include tournaments, it's not always a good indication of where the players' potential going into (and in) college. As an example, half of the top 50 players from 2024 that I looked at from 2 years ago are no longer top 50. So if you look at the top 50 players for 2025 or 2026, the same might happen. It's like the football prospects where half of the top 300 ends up fading in college. 

which tournaments aren’t included in Golfweek?

 

https://rankings.golfweek.com/rankings/default.asp?T=boyst

[golferdad8]

On 8/19/2023 at 5:25 PM, Pinewood Golfer said:

Yay. My son made the most improved over 2 years list

You're son is Shwartz? Congrats! 

[golferdad8]

44 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

which tournaments aren’t included in Golfweek?

 

https://rankings.golfweek.com/rankings/default.asp?T=boyst

Other than AJGA, there's only select HJGTs and some in Texas...NO California tournaments where 15-20% of the top 200 players are from. In other words, garbage in, garbage out - and that's why the discrepancy vs. JGS (which already has lots of its own flaws). 

[Pinewood Golfer]

1 hour ago, golferdad8 said:

You're son is Shwartz? Congrats! 

No. Not Schwartz 

[wegobomber31]

1 hour ago, golferdad8 said:

Other than AJGA, there's only select HJGTs and some in Texas...NO California tournaments where 15-20% of the top 200 players are from. In other words, garbage in, garbage out - and that's why the discrepancy vs. JGS (which already has lots of its own flaws). 

interesting. It’s amazing how consistent the rankings are in general at the top despite the apparent flaws. 
 

 

[golferdad8]

13 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

interesting. It’s amazing how consistent the rankings are in general at the top despite the apparent flaws. 
 

 

Not sure I agree on consistency, and I think it's not good to compare apples to oranges on various years, and top 20 is too small of a sample size (plus it doesn't apply to most players, or college coach recruiting for that matter.

 

If a ranking is going to be considered reliable, it should do a better job up to 150-200 ranking. After all, many top 75 to 150 players will regularly beat top 50 players (especially when JGS deflation regions) go up against inflated regions or players who only do invitationals. 

[wegobomber31]

5 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

Not sure I agree on consistency, and I think it's not good to compare apples to oranges on various years, and top 20 is too small of a sample size (plus it doesn't apply to most players, or college coach recruiting for that matter.

 

If a ranking is going to be considered reliable, it should do a better job up to 150-200 ranking. After all, many top 75 to 150 players will regularly beat top 50 players (especially when JGS deflation regions) go up against inflated regions or players who only do invitationals. 

which regions are inflated vs deflated?

 

What % of the time do 75-150 ranked players beat a top 50 player in a given round on the same course/same day? Is that because the top 50 golfer is artificially ranked high or simply because of normal volatility around scoring average?