TUGR Golf Rankings - How is this not the only accepted method of ranking?

[cassel191919]

5 minutes ago, Rapidcat said:

 

Joaquin Niemann is the best golfer in the world right now and he is ranked #72….#OWGRbroken.

An Australian Open win doesn't make him him the best player in the world right now lol

[SnowbirdTom]

That horse didn’t just die, it’s been reduced to  pureed cat food.

[jdl]

Why does there have to be "only one accepted ranking system"? You're free to look at whatever one you want, TUGR, Datagolf, OWGR, Sagarin. Just like in college hoops there are multiple systems that all have their strengths and weaknesses. The NCAA selection committee will use several when they are choosing the tournament field in a couple of weeks. The majors use many criteria when choosing their fields as well.

 

So many complain about OWGR without understanding why it was created and some of the choices they made. Since it is used for determining entry in to pro events and majors, they needed to make sure it accounted for a longer history than some might like. You wouldn't want to exclude some of the better golfers just because they had a bad week or two. I've said it before, they probably should have chosen a different name, but too late for that.

[Rapidcat]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

LOL, OWGR works, as you and everyone else know he chose to play where he can’t get ranking points for the bro league. 
 

Same old complaint and just another LIV thread trotting out something discussed over and over. 

 

But OWGR doesn't work, too much US player on PGAT bias even taking LIV out of the discussion.

[cdnglf]

A couple of possible issues:

- seems to treat LIV-hole tournaments the same as LXXII-hole ones

- doesn't account for the inherent prestige of the most important tournaments. The OWGR gives the majors 100 fixed points because they are the tournaments that players want to win the most, have more pressure, etc. In particular, you're going to have a hard time selling a system that effectively gives a Masters win less weight than some regular PGA Tour events

[jimecherry]

4 minutes ago, cdnglf said:

A couple of possible issues:

- seems to treat LIV-hole tournaments the same as LXXII-hole ones

- doesn't account for the inherent prestige of the most important tournaments. The OWGR gives the majors 100 fixed points because they are the tournaments that players want to win the most, have more pressure, etc. In particular, you're going to have a hard time selling a system that effectively gives a Masters win less weight than some regular PGA Tour events

agree that they should add some importance to direct matchups that have taken place at majors

[Hawkeye77]

5 minutes ago, cdnglf said:

A couple of possible issues:

- seems to treat LIV-hole tournaments the same as LXXII-hole ones

- doesn't account for the inherent prestige of the most important tournaments. The OWGR gives the majors 100 fixed points because they are the tournaments that players want to win the most, have more pressure, etc. In particular, you're going to have a hard time selling a system that effectively gives a Masters win less weight than some regular PGA Tour events

It’s designed to support LIV and its narrative. 

[King_Slender]

1 hour ago, Pops99 said:

The LIV stans sure go to some lengths to make everyone else change for a closed-shop, buddy, invite only, hit and giggle controlled by Third Leg Greg league that chose to disrupt golf. 

 

Actions, consequences, reaping, sowing, etc. YMMV. 

 

Not a LIV stan - let's keep it focused on the golf.  

 

It really comes down to if you are only interested in golf in the majors being played and ranked by only those players who choose to participate in OWGR events or truly want all of the best players to be ranked appropriately for invites. 

[PracticeSwinger]

34 minutes ago, jimecherry said:

alot of ml is smoke and mirrors where they cant explain every result so i'm not shocked there's no white paper on exact methodology.

i also wouldnt say the sample is to small if they have every score of every hole a person plays plus course data that can add up real quick if you have enough tournaments. 

They do have all that information - factor in every hole of every tourney on the Korn Ferry, Asia, LatinAmerica / Canada, LIV, DP, alleliua - you are faced with more data points than you can account for. But then, how do you weight in Jake Knapp double bogey 15 months ago in the 3rd round of the KF XYZ tourney in comparison to Austin Eckroat par - to Knapp's eagle last month in Mexico when Valimaki bogeyed - while Valimaki played more than a few holes against Hatton on the DP back then, whose playing against Anirban Lahiri lately... yeah, powerful computers, but how do input all these variables weight in to make sure it's unflawed (or perceive to be, depending from where you are sitting)

[Cliffy2020]

Well, didn’t take long for the LIV-Hate Posse to show up and start stamping their feet 🤣

 

The Artist Formerly Known as OWGR clearly doesn’t encompass all golfers currently but is a useful tool to exclude golfers that somehow hurt your feelings.  You hate LIV & everybody that flipped - we get it.

 

 

In due time and after the right price crosses the wrong persons desk it will all get sorted out - Rankings, invites, leagues, Ryder Cups. Until then, a big THANK YOU! to The Masters for bringing everybody back together. 
 

✌ 

Edited March 4 by Cliffy2020

[King_Slender]

58 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

 

Don't you know they have powerful computers with lots of precision? 

 

But, seriously, you're spot on... these kind of comparisons are prone to all sorts of issues when extrapolating from undersampled data and unless the TUGR people publish a paper explaining their method in actual detail with discussions of how they handle giving too much weight to one off events, I won't believe that they are doing this a particularly accurate way.

 

They lay it out in good detail on their website.  Events are not weighted - you are simply measured on a round by round basis against the players you play against in that field.  

 

 

[PracticeSwinger]

1 minute ago, King_Slender said:

 

They lay it out in good detail on their website.  Events are not weighted - you are simply measured on a round by round basis against the players you play against in that field.  

 

 

Which ties back to my initial point / post, just my opinion.

[Hawkeye77]

2 minutes ago, King_Slender said:

 

They lay it out in good detail on their website.  Events are not weighted - you are simply measured on a round by round basis against the players you play against in that field.  

 

 

There’s not enough detail for anyone to make a reasoned judgment about the methodology, let alone someone qualified to do so.

[King_Slender]

6 minutes ago, Varry_Hardon said:

They do have all that information - factor in every hole of every tourney on the Korn Ferry, Asia, LatinAmerica / Canada, LIV, DP, alleliua - you are faced with more data points than you can account for. But then, how do you weight in Jake Knapp double bogey 15 months ago in the 3rd round of the KF XYZ tourney in comparison to Austin Eckroat par - to Knapp's eagle last month in Mexico when Valimaki bogeyed - while Valimaki played more than a few holes against Hatton on the DP back then, whose playing against Anirban Lahiri lately... yeah, powerful computers, but how do input all these variables weight in to make sure it's unflawed (or perceive to be, depending from where you are sitting)

 

Computing matrices is complicated - it's not something you can pen and paper on your own.  It's not logically hard to follow on an individual basis, but you'll never do the math in your head. 

[King_Slender]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye77 said:

There’s not enough detail for anyone to make a reasoned judgment about the methodology, let alone someone qualified to do so.

 

And yet their data falls closely in line with Data Golf - we can reasonably assume that these two methodologies (I don't care which, actually) are relevant to ranking all golfers in the world.

 

It's really a simple question to answer:

 

Do you think Bryson Dechambeau is closer to the 25th ranked golfer in the world (TUGR 24, Data Golf 26) or the 175th ranked golfer (OWGR)?

 

 

[PracticeSwinger]

Just now, King_Slender said:

 

Computing matrices is complicated - it's not something you can pen and paper on your own.  It's not logically hard to follow on an individual basis, but you'll never do the math in your head. 

Of course (I do that for a living actually / finance firm investing with hedge funds) and that's why I pointed out the crossovers from the get go and the time weighted effect to begin with as a few of the variables, methodology that would need to be ironed out... cause if you don't, then the one time event happening 17 months ago has way too much weight in the correlation matrix

[jimecherry]

1 minute ago, Varry_Hardon said:

Of course (I do that for a living actually / finance firm investing with hedge funds) and that's why I pointed out the crossovers from the get go and the time weighted effect to begin with as a few of the variables, methodology that would need to be ironed out... cause if you don't, then the one time event happening 17 months ago has way too much weight in the correlation matrix

dont you use excel in your work that's not really doing it in your head ;}

[PracticeSwinger]

1 minute ago, jimecherry said:

dont you use excel in your work that's not really doing it in your head ;}

Haha those Excel days were the best

[jdl]

20 minutes ago, King_Slender said:

 

Not a LIV stan - let's keep it focused on the golf.  

 

It really comes down to if you are only interested in golf in the majors being played and ranked by only those players who choose to participate in OWGR events or truly want all of the best players to be ranked appropriately for invites. 

False dichotomy

 

[Hawkeye77]

14 minutes ago, King_Slender said:

 

And yet their data falls closely in line with Data Golf - we can reasonably assume that these two methodologies (I don't care which, actually) are relevant to ranking all golfers in the world.

 

It's really a simple question to answer:

 

Do you think Bryson Dechambeau is closer to the 25th ranked golfer in the world (TUGR 24, Data Golf 26) or the 175th ranked golfer (OWGR)?

 

 

That’s not the point.  
 

I don’t even pay attention to the OWGR - I know who is good and who isn’t.

 

The underlying purpose of the OWGR isn’t to let the average fan know who is better at golf - use whatever metric suits your purposes. 
 

But this is just more LIV guys need to play events outside of the league they willingly signed up for and were paid lifetime sustaining money - they knew the consequence - this gets old. 

 

 

[PracticeSwinger]

15 minutes ago, King_Slender said:

 

And yet their data falls closely in line with Data Golf - we can reasonably assume that these two methodologies (I don't care which, actually) are relevant to ranking all golfers in the world.

 

It's really a simple question to answer:

 

Do you think Bryson Dechambeau is closer to the 25th ranked golfer in the world (TUGR 24, Data Golf 26) or the 175th ranked golfer (OWGR)?

 

 

As I mentioned, I won't go into the usual 'my dad is stronger than yours' arguments that usually come up in these kind of threads...

 

if we were to look at the last 12 months and saw this, without the previous years to know who we're talking about and only looking at the performances and the competitors in those events - are we talking about a top25 player in the world? probably not... are we looking at the 175th player in the world? probably not... no solution is flawless in my opinion

[woahnelly]

How is Patrick Cantlay no 2? lol

[jimecherry]

1 minute ago, woahnelly said:

How is Patrick Cantlay no 2? lol

players 2-5 are virtually tied just wait 2 weeks and rory will be ahead of cantlay again

[PracticeSwinger]

2 minutes ago, woahnelly said:

How is Patrick Cantlay no 2? lol

Your scores are divided by the time needed to complete your rounds

[GungHoGolf]

TUGR sounds similar to the Elo system used to rank players in the competitive chess world since 1960, which is robust and highly regarded.

 

I’m also active in the competitive pool scene, where another Elo-like system called Fargo Rate has been used to rank players worldwide since 2013. 

 

If done properly, such a system should be a mathematically robust method to rank golfers across different leagues or geographical “islands”, as long as there is occasional but sufficient cross-over of players.

 

[HulaGolfMom]

Does anyone know how you factor in somebody on LIV laying up on a putt to help the team would factor into the rankings?

[PracticeSwinger]

13 minutes ago, GungHoGolf said:

TUGR sounds similar to the Elo system used to rank players in the competitive chess world since 1960, which is robust and highly regarded.

 

I’m also active in the competitive pool scene, where another Elo-like system called Fargo Rate has been used to rank players worldwide since 2013. 

 

If done properly, such a system should be a mathematically robust method to rank golfers across different leagues or geographical “islands”, as long as there is occasional but sufficient cross-over of players.

 

Indeed - and that’s why some of the drawbacks of Elo were; game activity (applied to golf; you get to play better than Scheffler once and you get to carry his correlation matrix with every other player for 18 months) and time decay / inflation-deflation… that’s why the methodology of crossovers has to be refined in my opinion - but I love the pure statistical aspect of it

Edited March 4 by Varry_Hardon

[jimecherry]

7 minutes ago, HulaGolfMom said:

Does anyone know how you factor in somebody on LIV laying up on a putt to help the team would factor into the rankings?

no ones done that so how could they factor that in

[grochol17]

1 hour ago, King_Slender said:

 

They lay it out in good detail on their website.  Events are not weighted - you are simply measured on a round by round basis against the players you play against in that field.  

 

 

 

I didn't say that the tournaments were weighted... I was saying that when you're dealing with small number statistics you can end of giving too much weight to rare events.  It's why techniques like sigma clipping exist.  But, since their website basically says they have a magic box that gives them answers, we don't know how they actually control for extrapolation gone wild.

[King_Slender]

It's kind of funny when you use archive.org to look at the OWGR website.  Prior to 2022, they say:

 

"The Governing Board and its technical committee have continuously monitored and refined the system over the years taking into account the ever changing structure of world golf and suggestions made from the players and Tours alike."

 

They have since removed that effective August 2022 and now just says:

 

"The mission of the OWGR is to administer and publish, on a weekly basis, a transparent, credible, and accurate Ranking based on the relative performances of players participating in male Eligible Golf Tours worldwide."

 

Why did they abandon their original mission and now just say "comply or drop in the rankings?" 

 

2022

 

2018

Edited March 4 by King_Slender