AJGA Rolex Ranking

[allenartlab]

I have seen many comments in this forum about the shortcomings of JGS and ways to "game" it. I agree with most of them. Here I'd like to hear folks opinions on the AJGA ranking system. In my view, it has a couple of potential shortcomings:

1. The minimum points assigned to tournaments do not reflect the field strength variation. For example, most open tournaments get 40 points for the winner. However, the field strength varies quit a bit. I understand that the actual points assigned can increase if a strong field is present. But there is limited granularity and most open tournaments stay at 40-point level and not all 40-point tournaments are equal.  

2. The invitationals get a bit too many points (225 points). This is different from professional events where a major does not carry >5X points as regular tour event. 

What do you guys think? Do you share similar views or can point out the flaws in my observations? 

 

[iteachgolf]

FWIW all my players that are ranked in both have had their JGS and Rolex ranking essentially match.  That goes for players in the top 10 of both, top 50 of both, top 200 of both and top 1000 of both.  I’ve found once a player plays 5+ Rolex ranked events, so the divisor isn’t massively skewing things, the rankings are very similar.   

[jigsaw1011]

The Rolex rankings "rewards" you for playing more of their ranked events.  The more events you play that are ranked by the AJGA the better your rank and the divisor doesn't skew things as iteachgolf said.

 

I definitely agree with your assessment in point 1. Strength of field varies greatly. For instance, an open taking place this week on the east coast has a field where at least 8-10 players in the field are sponsor's exemption. Compare that field to an event like  JT's and the field is not the same. I would have to look to see if the points are different at some of the more popular events. 

[wegobomber31]

My son is an interesting spot on the space and time continuum as he has the exact same JGS, Golfweek and AJGA rating right now.
 

For better or worse, AJGA indexes very heavily on top (1-3) performances so you’re going to see wilder swings as new tournaments come on and others roll off. I think Golfweek is probably a better ranking of skill. 
 

I think some limitations of Rolex are:

- players that all tie for a position all get the same amount of points. So if 12 guys tie for second in an invitational, they all get 135 points. Every other golf points system is going to add up 2nd-13th points and spread them out evenly. As a result, you get tournaments that end up doling more or less points simply based on something random like existence of ties. Seems silly and definitely fixable. 
- the event minimums (and maximums) sometimes don’t end up reflecting the true strength of schedule

- sometimes you can have international players that may be strong on WAGR but add little to nothing to the strength of the field points. Junior Orange Bowl might be the most extreme example.
- my biggest beef is the points awarded doesn’t take into account the field size, so finishing last out 32 in the Polo Junior is worth the same as 32nd out of 156 in the Western Junior or even more than making match play in the US Junior and losing in the first round (a tremendous accomplishment). As a result, I think top-top players may shy away from playing in full field events simply because of the downside risk to their Rolex. It’s unfortunate when the rankings create an incentive not to play against good competition. 

- speaking of US Junior, I think qualifying for the Us Junior should be worth some (20) bonus points so playing in the event is less likely to hurt you relative to somebody who didn’t qualify.  Qualifying for US Amateur should come with some bonus recognition as well, as that’s a heck of an achievement for any junior golfer. 

[Pinewood Golfer]

On 7/7/2023 at 3:02 PM, allenartlab said:

I have seen many comments in this forum about the shortcomings of JGS and ways to "game" it. I agree with most of them. Here I'd like to hear folks opinions on the AJGA ranking system. In my view, it has a couple of potential shortcomings:

1. The minimum points assigned to tournaments do not reflect the field strength variation. For example, most open tournaments get 40 points for the winner. However, the field strength varies quit a bit. I understand that the actual points assigned can increase if a strong field is present. But there is limited granularity and most open tournaments stay at 40-point level and not all 40-point tournaments are equal.  

2. The invitationals get a bit too many points (225 points). This is different from professional events where a major does not carry >5X points as regular tour event. 

What do you guys think? Do you share similar views or can point out the flaws in my observations? 

 

We could analyze their system all we want. Bottom line is the Rolex Rankings are designed to do two things, simultaneously….

 

1. reward players playing AJGA events. Even if the non-AJGA event has equal points it almost certainly has more players, hence a diluted point total. For example, the 225 point events include AJGA Invitationals (max 72 players) and big non AJGA events that have 150+ players. They also reward playing their events through their divisor of 6. Rare that a player can “max out” through non AJGA events therefore motivates them to play AJGA. 

 

2. determine All-American Teams. They actually state this in their purpose. They aren’t trying to identify best players in any sort of a chronological order. They’re simply trying to identify “the best”. They do a good job at this. 
 

rolex is a horrible ranking system overall though. It’s far too exclusive with the events it ranks. Only ranks about 10 non-AJGA events and the entry process for getting into AJGA events is heavily skewed towards funneling them money. 
 

so, for my money, AJGA is the worst ranking system. While JGS could easily make improvements theirs is universal. And Golfweek has the best methodology but simply needs another 500 events included

Edited July 11 by Pinewood Golfer

[allenartlab]

10 hours ago, jigsaw1011 said:

The Rolex rankings "rewards" you for playing more of their ranked events.  The more events you play that are ranked by the AJGA the better your rank and the divisor doesn't skew things as iteachgolf said.

 

I definitely agree with your assessment in point 1. Strength of field varies greatly. For instance, an open taking place this week on the east coast has a field where at least 8-10 players in the field are sponsor's exemption. Compare that field to an event like  JT's and the field is not the same. I would have to look to see if the points are different at some of the more popular events. 

Yes but JT's event gets 90 points so that accounted for the stronger field. Overall it's a granularity issue so likely not systematic way to account for field strength variation in those 40-pointers.

[allenartlab]

6 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

My son is an interesting spot on the space and time continuum as he has the exact same JGS, Golfweek and AJGA rating right now.
 

Congratulations on this achievement! 😀

 

For better or worse, AJGA indexes very heavily on top (1-3) performances so you’re going to see wilder swings as new tournaments come on and others roll off. I think Golfweek is probably a better ranking of skill. 
 

I think some limitations of Rolex are:

- players that all tie for a position all get the same amount of points. So if 12 guys tie for second in an invitational, they all get 135 points. Every other golf points system is going to add up 2nd-13th points and spread them out evenly. As a result, you get tournaments that end up doling more or less points simply based on something random like existence of ties. Seems silly and definitely fixable. 
- the event minimums (and maximums) sometimes don’t end up reflecting the true strength of schedule

- sometimes you can have international players that may be strong on WAGR but add little to nothing to the strength of the field points. Junior Orange Bowl might be the most extreme example.
- my biggest beef is the points awarded doesn’t take into account the field size, so finishing last out 32 in the Polo Junior is worth the same as 32nd out of 156 in the Western Junior or even more than making match play in the US Junior and losing in the first round (a tremendous accomplishment). As a result, I think top-top players may shy away from playing in full field events simply because of the downside risk to their Rolex. It’s unfortunate when the rankings create an incentive not to play against good competition. 

- speaking of US Junior, I think qualifying for the Us Junior should be worth some (20) bonus points so playing in the event is less likely to hurt you relative to somebody who didn’t qualify.  Qualifying for US Amateur should come with some bonus recognition as well, as that’s a heck of an achievement for any junior golfer. 

 

I would agree had the US junior adopted 36-hole qualifier. 

 

 

[allenartlab]

I also wonder if anyone here has insight on how a tournament's point level is determined based on the accumulative quality points of the field. AJGA's website clearly defines the accumulative quality points. However, it does not disclose how the quality points are converted to a tournament's point level. Why AJGA wants to hide this info?

[jigsaw1011]

14 hours ago, allenartlab said:

Yes but JT's event gets 90 points so that accounted for the stronger field. Overall it's a granularity issue so likely not systematic way to account for field strength variation in those 40-pointers.

Yeah I wasn't sure. It would seem to make sense to do that but just because it makes sense doesn't mean it necessarily happens!

[wegobomber31]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:27 PM, allenartlab said:

I also wonder if anyone here has insight on how a tournament's point level is determined based on the accumulative quality points of the field. AJGA's website clearly defines the accumulative quality points. However, it does not disclose how the quality points are converted to a tournament's point level. Why AJGA wants to hide this info?

 

There are some details on the website, but basically it's a summation of the players in the field performances over the last 52 weeks.  For an Open event, it starts at 10 points for first, 9 for second, etc down to 1 for 10th.  For JAS, points are earned for Top 5 and Invitationals it's Top 15.  Then there are thresholds on how many points equates to 45, 50, etc points for the event.  I think it's largely a linear scale.

 

You can move up points over the course of the calendar year (never down) but the points are set in stone and can't move after the end of the year.