Charlie Woods exempt into AJGA

[Tugu]

This is why I don't get fired up over stuff being unfair in golf. It's literally never ending. How many families spend thousands to give their kid a chance at what Charlie just walks into? This after his pops gave a HOF speech about "earning" the right to create, deserve and own positive outcome.

 

Maybe he should go play the underrated tour next.😁

 

 

Edited February 22 by Tugu

[leezer99]

54 stars would have gotten you in to this event. Imagine if you're the kid with 53 stars that didn't get in. 

[TroyB123]

It's annoying and it's not.   I don't know that Charlie getting it is any worse than the son of some country club member who'd normally get the spot.  It's just a sponsor exemption spot he is taking away, not someone trying to get in by merit, and sponsor's exemptions seem to be a necessary evil for ajga getting access to courses.

 

That said, I am surprised Tiger would go this route and not have Charlie at least appearing to be trying to earn his spots.   He could play a slate of the 12-15yo AJGA events and probably do well enough to get some status next year.   

[leezer99]

There's a sheriff with their group. 👀

[Tugu]

4 hours ago, TroyB123 said:

It's annoying and it's not.   I don't know that Charlie getting it is any worse than the son of some country club member who'd normally get the spot.  It's just a sponsor exemption spot he is taking away, not someone trying to get in by merit, and sponsor's exemptions seem to be a necessary evil for ajga getting access to courses.

 

That said, I am surprised Tiger would go this route and not have Charlie at least appearing to be trying to earn his spots.   He could play a slate of the 12-15yo AJGA events and probably do well enough to get some status next year.   

Charlie doesn't seem to be able to break par in junior golf tournaments for the most part (FJT and SFPGA). So no, the "earning" it part would require time and effort. Which I would guess is something most kids would have to go through.

 

But why "earn" it to "deserve" it, as Tiger stated in his HOF speech, when you can just use your position in life and gift it to your son?

 

Tiger is not the first or the last to help his son along in life. What percentage of IVY entry is legacy? So on this front I'm not fussed. But I just don't want to listen to more sugar coated hypocritical revisionist history about the life lessons his pop supposedly instilled in him.

 

Tiger to me - amazing at projecting a ball into a hole. That's about it. When I goto Sunday Mass, his statue does not reside anywhere near the altar.

 

Edited February 22 by Tugu

[golferdad8]

4 hours ago, gerryluvsgolf1 said:

Charlie had 7 stars when he entered the event.   Charlie is the poster child and greatest example of everything that is wrong with AJGA.

 

This at least is just an Open.  Look at some the invitationals out there.  Kids who have no business playing are getting into every invitational this year.  Can't tell you how much it been helping there rankings too. 

 

Lots of exemptions given at all levels so imho, Charlie shouldn't be excluded just because of his last name. 

 

Agree with your observation. When my son went to AJGAs & Invitationals, we were surprised at the many exemptions. Just look at the recent AJGA Simplify...the bottom guys couldn't break 80. However, it's not just the exemptions, it's clear that many of the top "ranked" junior players are not as good as their rankings or stars suggest.

 

Many of these top 50 ranked players regularly shoot 75 to 79 and yet are protected on their "scoring differentials" - yet they still get boosted on their rankings due to the JGS adjustments (79.8 at last week's Simplify). This means that any score of 72 will get a -8 differential. If a player has a good day and shoots 68, that boosts the differential to -12. This inflation happens with certain regions also including socal where many Toyota Cup tournament ratings get boosted to 77-78 and able to get -10 differentials just by being 2-3 strokes below par. Not sure if this is considered just being "smart" or if it's the "rich getting richer." 

 

 

[Tugu]

43 minutes ago, golferdad8 said:

Lots of exemptions given at all levels so imho, Charlie shouldn't be excluded just because of his last name. 

 

Agree with your observation. When my son went to AJGAs & Invitationals, we were surprised at the many exemptions. Just look at the recent AJGA Simplify...the bottom guys couldn't break 80. However, it's not just the exemptions, it's clear that many of the top "ranked" junior players are not as good as their rankings or stars suggest.

 

Many of these top 50 ranked players regularly shoot 75 to 79 and yet are protected on their "scoring differentials" - yet they still get boosted on their rankings due to the JGS adjustments (79.8 at last week's Simplify). This means that any score of 72 will get a -8 differential. If a player has a good day and shoots 68, that boosts the differential to -12. This inflation happens with certain regions also including socal where many Toyota Cup tournament ratings get boosted to 77-78 and able to get -10 differentials just by being 2-3 strokes below par. Not sure if this is considered just being "smart" or if it's the "rich getting richer." 

 

 

Well said. This needs to be said endlessly.

[wegobomber31]

I figured we will see him at JT’s event in August. 
 

What was touched on here is the single biggest deterrent against Charlie “making it”. How much drive and determination do you really have to pursue mastery in this game if your Dad is a billionaire? It does look like he has some natural gifts and Tiger is likely a fountain of knowledge and being Tiger’s kid has obvious advantages from a resource perspective, but it would seem that mastery is dug out of the dirt over thousands of hours just living on a putting green or driving range. My take is the best odds for a junior golfer “making it” are the sons and daughter’s of club pro’s who essentially live at the golf course and can’t get enough of it (JT being the perfect example). 

[Rory4Pres]

Speaking of which, Charlie played in his first PGA Tour qualifier this morning and shot an 86.  

 

He's still only 15.  I definitely see him playing professionally in 7 years if the motivation is there.

[wegobomber31]

57 minutes ago, golferdad8 said:

Lots of exemptions given at all levels so imho, Charlie shouldn't be excluded just because of his last name. 

 

Agree with your observation. When my son went to AJGAs & Invitationals, we were surprised at the many exemptions. Just look at the recent AJGA Simplify...the bottom guys couldn't break 80. However, it's not just the exemptions, it's clear that many of the top "ranked" junior players are not as good as their rankings or stars suggest.

 

Many of these top 50 ranked players regularly shoot 75 to 79 and yet are protected on their "scoring differentials" - yet they still get boosted on their rankings due to the JGS adjustments (79.8 at last week's Simplify). This means that any score of 72 will get a -8 differential. If a player has a good day and shoots 68, that boosts the differential to -12. This inflation happens with certain regions also including socal where many Toyota Cup tournament ratings get boosted to 77-78 and able to get -10 differentials just by being 2-3 strokes below par. Not sure if this is considered just being "smart" or if it's the "rich getting richer." 

 

 

i don’t really have an issue with the adjustments. I really like Data Golf for ranking golfers and that is going to adjust for field size and what the field shot that day. The first round was extremely tough at Simplify and maybe a 79.8 adjusted rating was justified. I know they have some bottom feeder exemptions and also a local qualifier, but it’s probably the most loaded field on the boys calendar. 
 

the second and third round conditions were milder and I was suprised to see they still got adjustments. 
 

The issue is the JGS methodology has a fatal flaw. It uses “Diff” to represent average performances in the adjustment calculation. But the Diff represents the best 75% of performances. So in the process of calculating the adjustment, a -7 Diff shooting 75 looks like it was based on conditions but maybe the guy just had a bad round. They should first throw out the worst 25% of scores relative to Diff, then calculate whether an adjustment is still warranted.
 

the net result is you have a slow drift towards lower and lower Diff’s, across the board. Lower Diff’s lead to a higher likelihood of an upward Diff adjustment.  So it creates a vicious cycle. 
 

For full disclosure, my son played in the Diff and his JGS improved by about -0.4 after playing in the event but I can say honestly that is not why we entered the event. He worked for four months between events to compete with the best juniors in the country and the hard work was rewarded with a strong finish. I honestly don’t care what his JGS is at this point as the goal is to be the best of a loaded 2026 class not in 2024 or 2025 but from 2027-2030 and then 2030 and beyond. 

[StoutKing]

Can he get an exemption into the US Junior?  It would be must watch if he plays.  For those of you who say it's unfair, yes you're right but he's Tiger's son.  It comes with advantages.

[mrshinsa]

Let Charlie play.  He brings in eyes and money which in the end is good for junior golf.  

 

As a comparison, KJ Choi tournament has 32 earned spots, and 12 sponsors exempt.
 

[Tugu]

18 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

i don’t really have an issue with the adjustments. I really like Data Golf for ranking golfers and that is going to adjust for field size and what the field shot that day. The first round was extremely tough at Simplify and maybe a 79.8 adjusted rating was justified. I know they have some bottom feeder exemptions and also a local qualifier, but it’s probably the most loaded field on the boys calendar. 
 

the second and third round conditions were milder and I was suprised to see they still got adjustments. 
 

The issue is the JGS methodology has a fatal flaw. It uses “Diff” to represent average performances in the adjustment calculation. But the Diff represents the best 75% of performances. So in the process of calculating the adjustment, a -7 Diff shooting 75 looks like it was based on conditions but maybe the guy just had a bad round. They should first throw out the worst 25% of scores relative to Diff, then calculate whether an adjustment is still warranted.
 

the net result is you have a slow drift towards lower and lower Diff’s, across the board. Lower Diff’s lead to a higher likelihood of an upward Diff adjustment.  So it creates a vicious cycle. 
 

For full disclosure, my son played in the Diff and his JGS improved by about -0.4 after playing in the event but I can say honestly that is not why we entered the event. He worked for four months between events to compete with the best juniors in the country and the hard work was rewarded with a strong finish. I honestly don’t care what his JGS is at this point as the goal is to be the best of a loaded 2026 class not in 2024 or 2025 but from 2027-2030 and then 2030 and beyond. 

A quick look at your son's past schedule will dispel any idea he's in the game for the ranking.

 

As for the adjustments, eg. the IMG World Juniors Florida my boy played in was adjusted barely above par. This in spite of winds that made marking the ball difficult, rains that came and went with greens just completely unpredictable...etc. 3 kids finished under par and the adjustment was barely above par.

 

One small Norcal event my boy won when he was 14 shooting a 65 in the first round was adjusted to -1. Even though 2 kids were under par. To give you an idea of the course, my boys then played there with Peter Kuest and he put up a 64 whilst absolutely smashing driver off the same tees.

 

But whatever, in the end if a coach is in love with rankings, then its not someone my boy wants to play for.

Edited February 22 by Tugu

[LawGenius305]

26 minutes ago, Rory4Pres said:

Speaking of which, Charlie played in his first PGA Tour qualifier this morning and shot an 86.  

 

He's still only 15.  I definitely see him playing professionally in 7 years if the motivation is there.

I keep seeing only 15. The #1 ranked junior in the world is 14. There are dads posting on here whose kids are 13,14,15 that are already better. The likelihood of any of these kids playing on the PGA is slim to none. Charlies is even less. 

 

17 minutes ago, StoutKing said:

Can he get an exemption into the US Junior?  It would be must watch if he plays.  For those of you who say it's unfair, yes you're right but he's Tiger's son.  It comes with advantages.

No.

[wegobomber31]

4 minutes ago, gerryluvsgolf1 said:

 

The fatal flaw with JGS is they use actual scores in the calculations.  There is no way you justify who a better golfer is based on scores across multiple states in various weather conditions and rules.  

 

 

A much better method would be to convert everything to points based system based on placement and other factors.

 

 

 

Datagolf is able to do it and I don’t ever find myself looking at it and thinking it’s way off. It does seem like a reasonable rank order of player skill levels. 
 

They have it for Am’s too and last year’s Simplify round by round baseline was

71.33 / 69.40 / 71.08

 

This is based on the “Amateur” benchmark being an average NCAA player in the D1 championship (ie good player on a good team)

 

The actual scoring average for the field was 73.57 / 71.74 / 73.25, so essentially the field strength was 2.25 strokes worse than this NCAA benchmark. 
 

it seems like it could all hang together fine with enough data

 

[Tugu]

2 minutes ago, LawGenius305 said:

I keep seeing only 15. The #1 ranked junior in the world is 14. There are dads posting on here whose kids are 13,14,15 that are already better. The likelihood of any of these kids playing on the PGA is slim to none. Charlies is even less. 

 

No.

I dont think the average weekend golfer realises how hard the game is at the top end of junior golf. Then it only gets harder.

 

I have zero interest in watching Charlie Woods shoot over par. Same as I have no interest in watching Lebron's son throw up bricks for USC.

[Rory4Pres]

35 minutes ago, LawGenius305 said:

I keep seeing only 15. The #1 ranked junior in the world is 14. There are dads posting on here whose kids are 13,14,15 that are already better. The likelihood of any of these kids playing on the PGA is slim to none. Charlies is even less. 

 

No.

Looking forward to coming back to this comment in 7 years and laughing.  

[wegobomber31]

14 minutes ago, gerryluvsgolf1 said:

 

Here is the thing using scores is not inherently bad.  If you have players playing similar courses against each other with the same rules it would be a fair assessment of abilty.  I don't know much about data golf so I can't comment on how they do things.  

 

With JGS they just take scores and average them over a course rating. It doesn't care if you cheat, play bad weather or the greatest player on earth. The better your score the better your ranking.   It so off they tried to fix the way do calculations and it just made things worse.

 

They could use scores in the ranking but it needs to abstracted out of the calculations that affect the final rankings.  Coming up with some sort of point system based on something like size of field, strength of tournament, placement as well as score over course rating would result in a much better calculation.

 

 

 

 

I do find it interesting that we have this game that is so inherently simple in that you have a score that represents your skill level on that day. You could have an ugly swing and shoot 71 and there’s no way that a guy with a beautiful swing and shoots 75 can say he’s better than you. Yet nearly every attempt to take these scores and compile them into something that makes sense is fraught with error and potential gamesmanship. 
 

I just view these tournament rounds as information on whether might be better or worse than we thought they were before, or maybe exactly who we thought they were. I think Golfweek’s methodology would work well in the regard, if it had a broader coverage on tournaments covered. 

[TwistedSister]

4 hours ago, Tugu said:

When I goto Sunday Mass, his statue does not reside anywhere near the altar.

 

Not likely to either!!  EVER!

[TroyB123]

1 hour ago, LawGenius305 said:

I keep seeing only 15. The #1 ranked junior in the world is 14. There are dads posting on here whose kids are 13,14,15 that are already better. The likelihood of any of these kids playing on the PGA is slim to none. Charlies is even less. 

 

No.

I'd bet on Miles Russell making it to the PGA tour.   He is the one right now who truly is a phenom.

[leezer99]

1 hour ago, Tugu said:

I dont think the average weekend golfer realises how hard the game is at the top end of junior golf. Then it only gets harder.

 

I have zero interest in watching Charlie Woods shoot over par. Same as I have no interest in watching Lebron's son throw up bricks for USC.

Were you at Bronny’s last home game? One guy behind us said, “You trying to build a house with all those bricks?!”  😂 

[LawGenius305]

11 minutes ago, TroyB123 said:

I'd bet on Miles Russell making it to the PGA tour.   He is the one right now who truly is a phenom.

Or Blades Brown

[LawGenius305]

1 hour ago, Rory4Pres said:

Looking forward to coming back to this comment in 7 years and laughing.  

The criticism surrounding Charlie woods is actually really unfortunate. I think a lot of the criticism is really targeted at the golf media and the golf idiots pumping up every possible story involving him for clicks. I don’t think the majority of people are cheering for or relishing in his failures but rather frustrated that an unimpressive entry in a Monday “PRE”-Q would garner so much unnecessary buzz. It’s tigers son, we get it. He has some higher expectations than others but hype him up when he deserves it. Kuchar’s son qualified for the US Open sectionals last year at the age of 15. That is deserving of high praise yet he got very little relative to Charlie, and he’s like really really good and has proven it on many occasions. Everyone knows golf is hard, and tournament golf is on another level entirely, but hyping up the fact he paid an entry fee of $250 to play in a 100 man field for 5 spots shouldn’t have even been a blip on the golf news. Yet here we are. Just let him play, you don’t have to be the first one on the bandwagon every time he pegs it. It’s a sad deal, I think a lose-lose in the short-run but we will see. Long way to go to and he will honestly probably be trying to compete on the PGA Tour his entire life. See Jack's kids, Sam Saunders, Peter Uihlein. Anyway Justin Suh was cruising early and finished at +3 today so that’s not ideal.

[Pinewood Golfer]

1 hour ago, wegobomber31 said:

I do find it interesting that we have this game that is so inherently simple in that you have a score that represents your skill level on that day. You could have an ugly swing and shoot 71 and there’s no way that a guy with a beautiful swing and shoots 75 can say he’s better than you. Yet nearly every attempt to take these scores and compile them into something that makes sense is fraught with error and potential gamesmanship. 
 

I just view these tournament rounds as information on whether might be better or worse than we thought they were before, or maybe exactly who we thought they were. I think Golfweek’s methodology would work well in the regard, if it had a broader coverage on tournaments covered. 

It’s remarkable how much you and I agree on things

[Pinewood Golfer]

1 hour ago, TroyB123 said:

I'd bet on Miles Russell making it to the PGA tour.   He is the one right now who truly is a phenom.

He’s my claim to fame. My son played with him at a USKG Regional when they were 8. He was the first (and only) kid I’ve seen who, after watching him play two rounds, I said, “this is a PGA Tour player”. 
 

the skill level, the parental support/disposition, the “it” factor, the length relative to size at the time (and now). All of it. 
 

he’s the only one I’ve ever said that about and he’s making me look smart. He’s a super kid too with a great family. We’re fortunate to have become buddies with them, though we rarely see them anymore since he’s gone global 😂

[golferdad8]

2 hours ago, leezer99 said:

Were you at Bronny’s last home game? One guy behind us said, “You trying to build a house with all those bricks?!”  😂 

 

I was at behind USC bench when they visited Cal recently, and Lebron flew up for the game so everyone was excited. 

 

Unfortunately Bronny didn't do well, including 2-4 from the foul line and mediocre defense...I think he finished with 5 points. 

 

Given the advantage of Lebron's genes and access to the best coaches in the world, I was frankly surprised to see how bad his shooting  mechanics were...holding the ball on his palms? No wonder he has poor control & consistency on his shots. 

 

Honestly, I think people would be more forgiving/supportive if Bronny focused more on hoops & wasn't getting paid $4M in NIL $ and showing off his $500k Rolls Royce. 

[golfortennis]

8 hours ago, Tugu said:

Charlie doesn't seem to be able to break par in junior golf tournaments for the most part (FJT and SFPGA). So no, the "earning" it part would require time and effort. Which I would guess is something most kids would have to go through.

 

But why "earn" it to "deserve" it, as Tiger stated in his HOF speech, when you can just use your position in life and gift it to your son?

 

Tiger is not the first or the last to help his son along in life. What percentage of IVY entry is legacy? So on this front I'm not fussed. But I just don't want to listen to more sugar coated hypocritical revisionist history about the life lessons his pop supposedly instilled in him.

 

Tiger to me - amazing at projecting a ball into a hole. That's about it. When I goto Sunday Mass, his statue does not reside anywhere near the altar.

 

 

Careful.  You'll be branded a heretic for that kind of attitude by some here.

[kiwigolf72]

Lifes not fair, get over it.

[leezer99]

4 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

 

I was at behind USC bench when they visited Cal recently, and Lebron flew up for the game so everyone was excited. 

 

Unfortunately Bronny didn't do well, including 2-4 from the foul line and mediocre defense...I think he finished with 5 points. 

 

Given the advantage of Lebron's genes and access to the best coaches in the world, I was frankly surprised to see how bad his shooting  mechanics were...holding the ball on his palms? No wonder he has poor control & consistency on his shots. 

 

Honestly, I think people would be more forgiving/supportive if Bronny focused more on hoops & wasn't getting paid $4M in NIL $ and showing off his $500k Rolls Royce. 

They need to replace Enfield. 

[goaliedad30]

9 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

IHow much drive and determination do you really have to pursue mastery in this game if your Dad is a billionaire? 

Counterpoint: Maverick McNealy