Jump to content
2024 RBC Heritage WITB photos ×

CCA Surfers


Recommended Posts

I did a comparison of JGS to TUGR to see if there were any patterns on which type of players were preferred by one system or another.  Or more specifically, which players benefitted from the JGS CCA adjustments that don't exist explicitly in TUGR. I started with the top 70 players in JGS.

 

But first I wanted to control for two fundamental methodology differences, which seem more like design choices rather than clear pros or cons:

1. JGS uses 12-month of tournaments; TUGR uses a sliding scale over the last 18 months

2. JGS uses the best 75% differentials; TUGR (presumably) uses all rounds

 

So I adjusted JGS to control for these two fundamental differences to make it more directly comparable to TUGR.  First, I took the last 18 months of tournaments and did a sliding weight just like how is done in TUGR.  And then I used all of the Diff's rather than just the top 75%.

 

So in theory, it should be the same universe of tournament scores treated the same way. So any differences are due to how the systems handle that information.  Namely, JGS calculating CCA's and TUGR doing its head-to-head and secondary head-to-head thing.

 

The ranking systems are about 90% correlated.  Dots above the line are more pro-JGS players.  Dots below the line are pro-TUGR players.

 

[Note: for some reason The Junior Invitational isn't in JGS yet so I added it manually assuming a +4/+3/+3 upward CCA adjustment for now]

 

What jumps out?

 

 

_18-Mo_ JGS vs. TUGR, Top 70.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wegobomber31 said:

I did a comparison of JGS to TUGR to see if there were any patterns on which type of players were preferred by one system or another.  Or more specifically, which players benefitted from the JGS CCA adjustments that don't exist explicitly in TUGR. I started with the top 70 players in JGS.

 

But first I wanted to control for two fundamental methodology differences, which seem more like design choices rather than clear pros or cons:

1. JGS uses 12-month of tournaments; TUGR uses a sliding scale over the last 18 months

2. JGS uses the best 75% differentials; TUGR (presumably) uses all rounds

 

So I adjusted JGS to control for these two fundamental differences to make it more directly comparable to TUGR.  First, I took the last 18 months of tournaments and did a sliding weight just like how is done in TUGR.  And then I used all of the Diff's rather than just the top 75%.

 

So in theory, it should be the same universe of tournament scores treated the same way. So any differences are due to how the systems handle that information.  Namely, JGS calculating CCA's and TUGR doing its head-to-head and secondary head-to-head thing.

 

The ranking systems are about 90% correlated.  Dots above the line are more pro-JGS players.  Dots below the line are pro-TUGR players.

 

[Note: for some reason The Junior Invitational isn't in JGS yet so I added it manually assuming a +4/+3/+3 upward CCA adjustment for now]

 

What jumps out?

 

 

_18-Mo_ JGS vs. TUGR, Top 70.png

I haven't looked at TUGR. Can you pls explain for the dummies what the vertical TUGR scale denotes?

 

But if I'm reading it right, I already see 2 kids ranked ahead of yours, one that my kid has played against and other I have watched, that simply DOES NOT BALL. The very embodiment of CCA surfing. 

 

Also on a casual look,

 

- Miles Russell is off against one specific name on JGS. TUGR seems to have relationship closer to being right.

 

- Van Gaalen is rightly more valued by TUGR than JGS.

 

- HOW JGS keeps assigning a significant differential to a commit who repeatedly shoots over par is beyond me (well over +10 at Innisbrook).

 

- There's a kid that sits next to Van Gaalen that has barely played since being recruited and has maybe less than 1/10th of Clark's record playing largely the same events. 

 

The list you put out from 2019, though far from perfect, will stand up much greater than this one. Most kid's differentials there wouldn't even allow them to be on this list. What changed? The golfing skills of current juniors over those in 2019?

 

@leezer99 Correct me if I'm wrong, but TUGR is open source vs JGS being a proprietary algorithm. People can make of that what they will.

 

 

Edited by Tugu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tugu said:

I haven't looked at TUGR. Can you pls explain for the dummies what the vertical TUGR scale denotes?

 

But if I'm reading it right, I already see 2 kids ranked ahead of yours, one that my kid has played against and other I have watched, that simply DOES NOT BALL. The very embodiment of CCA surfing. 

 

Also on a casual look,

 

- Miles Russell is off against one specific name on JGS. TUGR seems to have relationship closer to being right.

 

- Van Gaalen is rightly more valued by TUGR than JGS.

 

- HOW JGS keeps assigning a significant differential to a commit who repeatedly shoots over par is beyond me (well over +10 at Innisbrook).

 

- There's a kid that sits next to Van Gaalen that has barely played since being recruited and has maybe less than 1/10th of Clark's record playing largely the same events. 

 

The list you put out from 2019, though far from perfect, will stand up much greater than this one. Most kid's differentials there wouldn't even allow them to be on this list. What changed? The golfing skills of current juniors over those in 2019?

 

@leezer99 Correct me if I'm wrong, but TUGR is open source vs JGS being a proprietary algorithm. People can make of that what they will.

 

 

 

 

The beauty of TUGR is in its simplicity. TUGR is basically just taking every player's scores and ranking them against every other player. Then an unbiased computer crunches the numbers in the matrix and spits out the results. There is an emphasis on the most recent week's results with a linear degradation over the prior 18 months. Plus TUGR doesn't measure a win/loss/tie result as part of its rankings but does generate a win % after the fact. 

 

The TUGR system doesn’t have a field strength input because TUGR is not a points-based system.  The only input fed to the optimizer is the matrix of head-to-head scores.

 

How does TUGR adjust for course difficulty?

 

No adjustment is needed for course difficulty because players are compared in head-to-head match-ups on a round-by-round basis.  If a tour is playing a difficult course on a certain day and Player A shoots 70 and Player B shoots 73, the matrix counts that as a 3 stroke beat for player A.  If the course is easy the next week and Player A shoots 65 and Player B shoots 68, the matrix counts that as a 3 stroke beat.   While the variability of scoring does fluctuate from week to week depending on course conditions, TUGR requires players to have completed a certain number of rounds over the past 18 months to be included in the rankings. This holds remarkably well even across different tours.  Thus, no adjustment is needed for course difficulty because the matrix automatically accounts for that.

There's definitely something more important that I should be doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

I did a comparison of JGS to TUGR to see if there were any patterns on which type of players were preferred by one system or another.  Or more specifically, which players benefitted from the JGS CCA adjustments that don't exist explicitly in TUGR. I started with the top 70 players in JGS.

 

But first I wanted to control for two fundamental methodology differences, which seem more like design choices rather than clear pros or cons:

1. JGS uses 12-month of tournaments; TUGR uses a sliding scale over the last 18 months

2. JGS uses the best 75% differentials; TUGR (presumably) uses all rounds

 

So I adjusted JGS to control for these two fundamental differences to make it more directly comparable to TUGR.  First, I took the last 18 months of tournaments and did a sliding weight just like how is done in TUGR.  And then I used all of the Diff's rather than just the top 75%.

 

So in theory, it should be the same universe of tournament scores treated the same way. So any differences are due to how the systems handle that information.  Namely, JGS calculating CCA's and TUGR doing its head-to-head and secondary head-to-head thing.

 

The ranking systems are about 90% correlated.  Dots above the line are more pro-JGS players.  Dots below the line are pro-TUGR players.

 

[Note: for some reason The Junior Invitational isn't in JGS yet so I added it manually assuming a +4/+3/+3 upward CCA adjustment for now]

 

What jumps out?

 

 

_18-Mo_ JGS vs. TUGR, Top 70.png

 

This is really good stuff and I am going to commend you on finding the time and effort for putting this together.   That said..

 

90% correlation between both methodologies  implies that maybe we should not care that much about CCA surfing.  Sure some kids (a handful) are impacted but who cares?

 

It is a great topic to debate but does it really impact any child's ability to get recruited .. I don't think so. 

 

Your study also shows that we don't need another rating system and the world will stay with the old/established system. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following chart is also interesting to me.  Yes there is a relationship between Avg CCA per golfer and naturally the amount the JGS favors that player relative to TUGR.  However, there are also players with high CCA's that TUGR believes are even better than what JGS suggests.

 

That and look out for Luke Brandler!

 

@kcap I agree with your points

CCA Adjustment vs. TUGR +_-, Top 70.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, leezer99 said:

 

 

The beauty of TUGR is in its simplicity. TUGR is basically just taking every player's scores and ranking them against every other player. Then an unbiased computer crunches the numbers in the matrix and spits out the results. There is an emphasis on the most recent week's results with a linear degradation over the prior 18 months. Plus TUGR doesn't measure a win/loss/tie result as part of its rankings but does generate a win % after the fact. 

 

The TUGR system doesn’t have a field strength input because TUGR is not a points-based system.  The only input fed to the optimizer is the matrix of head-to-head scores.

 

How does TUGR adjust for course difficulty?

 

No adjustment is needed for course difficulty because players are compared in head-to-head match-ups on a round-by-round basis.  If a tour is playing a difficult course on a certain day and Player A shoots 70 and Player B shoots 73, the matrix counts that as a 3 stroke beat for player A.  If the course is easy the next week and Player A shoots 65 and Player B shoots 68, the matrix counts that as a 3 stroke beat.   While the variability of scoring does fluctuate from week to week depending on course conditions, TUGR requires players to have completed a certain number of rounds over the past 18 months to be included in the rankings. This holds remarkably well even across different tours.  Thus, no adjustment is needed for course difficulty because the matrix automatically accounts for that.

JGS is the very reason that Clippd doesn't work. Points based systems don't work. TUGR sounds like they have it right.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kcap said:

90% correlation between both methodologies  implies that maybe we should not care that much about CCA surfing.  Sure some kids (a handful) are impacted but who cares?

 

It is a great topic to debate but does it really impact any child's ability to get recruited .. I don't think so. 

Assuming peer reviews suggest the methodology is indeed sound at 90% correlation, don't forget ots 70 kids at ONE data point. In statistical terms it is less than insignificant.

 

However given we had an epic chain of posts over what affected 20 odd players in WAGR, this is at least as worthy of discussion.

 

There's no way to prove one way or the other, but I would disagree that these rankings do not affect anyone's ability to be recruited. But that's the fun of golfwrx right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wegobomber31 said:

The following chart is also interesting to me.  Yes there is a relationship between Avg CCA per golfer and naturally the amount the JGS favors that player relative to TUGR.  However, there are also players with high CCA's that TUGR believes are even better than what JGS suggests.

 

That and look out for Luke Brandler!

 

@kcap I agree with your points

CCA Adjustment vs. TUGR +_-, Top 70.png

When the data doesn't fit, simply say someone else's system is just as bad? That's dodgy science.

 

But since you mentioned it, is this who you were referring to? Anyone can Google it. It was created for all to consume.

 

Screenshot_20240402_212558.jpg.ab4fc9e38ae0f6dc0e0cd8d955e87b1d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tugu said:

When the data doesn't fit, simply say someone else's system is just as bad? That's dodgy science.

 

But since you mentioned it, is this who you were referring to? Anyone can Google it. It was created for all to consume.

 

Screenshot_20240402_212558.jpg.ab4fc9e38ae0f6dc0e0cd8d955e87b1d.jpg

Who’s saying anything negative about TUGR or any golfer? I certainly wasn’t. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wegobomber31 said:

 

That and look out for Luke Brandler!

 

@kcap I agree with your points

CCA Adjustment vs. TUGR +_-, Top 70.png

Many highly ranked JGS players have only 4-6 tournaments in past 12 months, incl Luke. The coaches will find out in later if the limited summer peak scores/ #s translate to juggling academics & travel during cold fall/freezing spring schedule. 
 

As for JGS & TUGR rankings, with 9,000 AJGA boys we’re debating whether top 70 is accurate?  Most don’t have enough data points to truly judge their track record? Further, most college coaches have zero chance recruiting top 70 - so perhaps let’s figure out a way to identify the best college potential golfers. JGS does help by having the resume option to ID the guys w good grades. 
 

PS. Clark VG is legit but he plays so much he’s lost to plenty of guys who only have 5 events & ranked lower, and his ranking was quite low (for top recruit) until he committed & started playing national tournaments/invitational. 
 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wegobomber31 said:

Who’s saying anything negative about TUGR or any golfer? I certainly wasn’t. 

Call me many things, but parsing words and illiteracy are not among my issues. But with 122 mph swing speed and 180 ball speed...what's not to rate? That's faster than Tony Finau recently is quoted in a golf magazine article.

 

Screenshot_20240402_214056.jpg.d160108fb9b468ed200450259b5c1c19.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tugu said:

Call me many things, but parsing words and illiteracy are not among my issues. But with 122 mph swing speed and 180 ball speed...what's not to rate? That's faster than Tony Finau recently is quoted in a golf magazine article.

 

Screenshot_20240402_214056.jpg.d160108fb9b468ed200450259b5c1c19.jpg

Again, this wasn’t meant to be in any way negative. I am very impressed with Brandler’s score having just seen them for the first time and will definitely be watching for him down the road. I am not sure how that can be construed as negative. 
 

As far as the second chart goes, it is meant to show that CCA explains some of the difference between JGS and TUGR but there are obviously other reasons why a player is favored in one versus another. I don’t quite have a handle on why that is, though I’ll keep digging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

Again, this wasn’t meant to be in any way negative. I am very impressed with Brandler’s score having just seen them for the first time and will definitely be watching for him down the road. I am not sure how that can be construed as negative. 
 

As far as the second chart goes, it is meant to show that CCA explains some of the difference between JGS and TUGR but there are obviously other reasons why a player is favored in one versus another. I don’t quite have a handle on why that is, though I’ll keep digging. 

You added the word negative when referring to specific player. Not me. No one suggested it other than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tugu said:

When the data doesn't fit, simply say someone else's system is just as bad? That's dodgy science.

 

But since you mentioned it, is this who you were referring to? Anyone can Google it. It was created for all to consume.

 

Screenshot_20240402_212558.jpg.ab4fc9e38ae0f6dc0e0cd8d955e87b1d.jpg

Then I guess I’m not sure what point you were trying to 

make here? Sorry my parsing skills are not quite as sharp as yours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wegobomber31 said:

Then I guess I’m not sure what point you were trying to 

make here? Sorry my parsing skills are not quite as sharp as yours. 

Oh they surprisingly decent for a man from a state that's known for straight talking.

 

Point is when you find data that doesn't fit your thoughts, you response is the other guy's are worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tugu said:

Assuming peer reviews suggest the methodology is indeed sound at 90% correlation, don't forget ots 70 kids at ONE data point. In statistical terms it is less than insignificant.

 

However given we had an epic chain of posts over what affected 20 odd players in WAGR, this is at least as worthy of discussion.

 

There's no way to prove one way or the other, but I would disagree that these rankings do not affect anyone's ability to be recruited. But that's the fun of golfwrx right?

 

Debating it is fine, having a discussion is fun.  Actually seeing the stats (right or wrong) is insightful. 

I just hate the whiners and complainers about the CCA system, as if that is the sole reason their child has not got recruited high enough ..

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tugu said:

Oh they surprisingly decent for a man from a state that's known for straight talking.

 

Point is when you find data that doesn't fit your thoughts, you response is the other guy's are worse.

 

A couple things, just to be clear

 

1. I’m from Illinois

2. I think TUGR is better than JGS! they are both generally fine. TUGR probably isn’t the gold standard either, but it’s fun to look at and compare. I think Golfweek would be the best if it had a deeper pool of tournaments. 
3. CCA is portrayed as the bad guy here, but I think a CCA is necessary. There are probably events like Sea Pines and others that should get over a 4-stroke adjustment! But when nearly every event is getting 3-4 strokes, then that waters down those who should really be getting it. That is probably what TUGR is getting right. 
4. I really don’t think parents are that clever to be gaming this system. Or if they are, then I don’t need to be spending any time or energy worrying about it. 
5. I’ll say it again: there is one fundamental flaw in JGS in that it compares tournament scores against this top 75% benchmark and chalks up the difference as due to course conditions/weather/etc. This is what leads to drift in the JGS Diff over time and increasing likelihood of an upward adjustment. They either need to throw out the worst 25% of scores out before doing their calculation or have an alternative (lower) Diff based on all scores that is used for the calculation. Fix that and a lot of these issues would go away. 
 

And on a side note, I don’t think they need to throw out the top 10% and bottom 10% of players, or even limit the adjustment to -2 to +4 or as whole integers either. Just let all the data speak to what the adjustment should be. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, golferdad8 said:

PS. Clark VG is legit but he plays so much he’s lost to plenty of guys who only have 5 events & ranked lower, and his ranking was quite low (for top recruit) until he committed & started playing national tournaments/invitational. 

Are you talking about a kid that was 7 down with 9 to go at a "lower rated" AJGA and shot 29 to force a 3 way playoff that he then won?

 

The kid clearly needs to stop competing for the love of it, stop playing in lowly rated JTNC's and simply play a few invitational events. That way he'd be ranked and regarded higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tugu said:

Are you talking about a kid that was 7 down with 9 to go at a "lower rated" AJGA and shot 29 to force a 3 way playoff that he then won?

 

The kid clearly needs to stop competing for the love of it, stop playing in lowly rated JTNC's and simply play a few invitational events. That way he'd be ranked and regarded higher.

My point is CVG is very good player, but when he went through recruiting & playing only JTNCs/JGANCs, he was barely in the JGS Top 100 for his entire class(prob top 250 overall, which is of course too low).

 

Obviously, it didn't matter for him but think about the upcoming 2026 kids who were following CVG roadmap - he wouldn't be on your TUGR or JGS radar. Do we really want to be so focused on top players we miss that neither rankings are good for truly ranking the top 500+ players that would like to go D1? 

 

As for AJGA Mizuno/Baylands, kudos to CVG for having the strong mental & golf game on the final day, but you saw the -15 scores. Did you know it was lift/clean/place for the entire tournament - despite it being sunny/dry/no wind? No wonder the scores were super low for a 72 rated course, which boosted everyone's JGS differentials with the winter rule. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wegobomber31 said:

Isn’t JGS a strokes based system?

It is a sport. There needs to be head to head involved. JGS is more points based/handicapping. Throw in CCA, Strength of Field and it becomes a points based system. This is why Golfweek is superior as it uses head to head, but only counts 54 hole events. It is the same reason Scoreboard by Clippd for college is horrible. Primarily a points based system that is awful. WAGR again a points based system that is awful. You have these brains trying to come up with a points based analysis for sports that don't understand the sport. Mark Broadie, for example, has no business being involved with college golf. Smart as smart is, but doesn't understand college golf.

Edited by LawGenius305
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, golferdad8 said:

My point is CVG is very good player, but when he went through recruiting & playing only JTNCs/JGANCs, he was barely in the JGS Top 100 for his entire class(prob top 250 overall, which is of course too low).

 

Obviously, it didn't matter for him but think about the upcoming 2026 kids who were following CVG roadmap - he wouldn't be on your TUGR or JGS radar. Do we really want to be so focused on top players we miss that neither rankings are good for truly ranking the top 500+ players that would like to go D1? 

 

As for AJGA Mizuno/Baylands, kudos to CVG for having the strong mental & golf game on the final day, but you saw the -15 scores. Did you know it was lift/clean/place for the entire tournament - despite it being sunny/dry/no wind? No wonder the scores were super low for a 72 rated course, which boosted everyone's JGS differentials with the winter rule. 

 

I did know it was lift, clean and place. And yes, it's a short and easy track. But 29 on the last 9 to catch the leaders to win playoff is exactly what it looks like.

 

CVG and even more Asterisk is why I know this system is borderline useless. She would barely be on the radar with her 30 odd JTNC wins. But if she wins in Socal...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

 

A couple things, just to be clear

 

1. I’m from Illinois

2. I think TUGR is better than JGS! they are both generally fine. TUGR probably isn’t the gold standard either, but it’s fun to look at and compare. I think Golfweek would be the best if it had a deeper pool of tournaments. 
3. CCA is portrayed as the bad guy here, but I think a CCA is necessary. There are probably events like Sea Pines and others that should get over a 4-stroke adjustment! But when nearly every event is getting 3-4 strokes, then that waters down those who should really be getting it. That is probably what TUGR is getting right. 
4. I really don’t think parents are that clever to be gaming this system. Or if they are, then I don’t need to be spending any time or energy worrying about it. 
5. I’ll say it again: there is one fundamental flaw in JGS in that it compares tournament scores against this top 75% benchmark and chalks up the difference as due to course conditions/weather/etc. This is what leads to drift in the JGS Diff over time and increasing likelihood of an upward adjustment. They either need to throw out the worst 25% of scores out before doing their calculation or have an alternative (lower) Diff based on all scores that is used for the calculation. Fix that and a lot of these issues would go away. 
 

And on a side note, I don’t think they need to throw out the top 10% and bottom 10% of players, or even limit the adjustment to -2 to +4 or as whole integers either. Just let all the data speak to what the adjustment should be. 

The best Rankings system in golf is Golf Stat. Nothing compares to it and it about as accurate as it gets. People scoff at it because it is archaic in appearance. Though archaic, they have spent 30 years developing and refining the ranking system used.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LawGenius305 said:

It is a sport. There needs to be head to head involved. JGS is more points based/handicapping. Throw in CCA, Strength of Field and it becomes a points based system. This is why Golfweek is superior as it uses head to head, but only counts 54 hole events. It is the same reason Scoreboard by Clippd for college is horrible. Primarily a points based system that is awful. WAGR again a points based system that is awful. You have these brains trying to come up with a points based analysis for sports that don't understand the sport. Mark Broadie, for example, has no business being involved with college golf. Smart as smart is, but doesn't understand college golf.


I know JGS says Strength of Field gets a 25% weight, but based on what I’ve observed the weight is actually less than 1%. And it raises a question how do you weight things that are in different units?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:


I know JGS says Strength of Field gets a 25% weight, but based on what I’ve observed the weight is actually less than 1%. And it raises a question how do you weight things that are in different units?

SOF is actually double to triple weighted AND "super-sized" when the CCA (which is based on strength of field) kicks in. 

 

Also, wins are supposed to be 10% weight, but I've seen too many "winners" drop in ranking & differentials after winning a tournament to believe in JGS' formula. This 10% only counts it seems as a tie breaker if many players have similar stats. 

 

My overall suggestion is to have kids rank in tiers of in top 25, top 150, top 400 etc... Most of them are about the same and can beat/lose to each other (if they played head to head). 

 

The reason is that many of the top 25 to to 75 players are really about the same, and/or top 50-100 are about the same as the top 101 to 150 players. Yet, I see too many coaches reviewing the rankings - naively favoring higher ranked kids with 5 events with minimal data points, against players with 15 events and a greater body of work. 

 

And @Bizzle80 is right - we all have way too much time on our hands. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, golferdad8 said:

SOF is actually double to triple weighted AND "super-sized" when the CCA (which is based on strength of field) kicks in. 

 

Also, wins are supposed to be 10% weight, but I've seen too many "winners" drop in ranking & differentials after winning a tournament to believe in JGS' formula. This 10% only counts it seems as a tie breaker if many players have similar stats. 

 

My overall suggestion is to have kids rank in tiers of in top 25, top 150, top 400 etc... Most of them are about the same and can beat/lose to each other (if they played head to head). 

 

The reason is that many of the top 25 to to 75 players are really about the same, and/or top 50-100 are about the same as the top 101 to 150 players. Yet, I see too many coaches reviewing the rankings - naively favoring higher ranked kids with 5 events with minimal data points, against players with 15 events and a greater body of work. 

 

And @Bizzle80 is right - we all have way too much time on our hands. 

Correct. CCA is just strength of field which is already in the ranking calculations. Max has never answered questions about CCA and avoids the topic.

 

@Bizzle80 now I am going back to booking my Vegas trip.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:


I know JGS says Strength of Field gets a 25% weight, but based on what I’ve observed the weight is actually less than 1%. And it raises a question how do you weight things that are in different units?

It’s a VERY low weighting. They changed it in 2019. Prior to the change you could see a kid with a diff 1+ strokes higher ranked better than a kid due to SoS. That’s no longer the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

SOF is actually double to triple weighted AND "super-sized" when the CCA (which is based on strength of field) kicks in. 

 

Also, wins are supposed to be 10% weight, but I've seen too many "winners" drop in ranking & differentials after winning a tournament to believe in JGS' formula. This 10% only counts it seems as a tie breaker if many players have similar stats. 

 

My overall suggestion is to have kids rank in tiers of in top 25, top 150, top 400 etc... Most of them are about the same and can beat/lose to each other (if they played head to head). 

 

The reason is that many of the top 25 to to 75 players are really about the same, and/or top 50-100 are about the same as the top 101 to 150 players. Yet, I see too many coaches reviewing the rankings - naively favoring higher ranked kids with 5 events with minimal data points, against players with 15 events and a greater body of work. 

 

And @Bizzle80 is right - we all have way too much time on our hands. 

I wouldn’t rank them that way but I agree with that. There’s an elite tier—define it how you want, but I’ve seen the players and know it when I see it (probably top 30ish). There’s a next tier of players who you could toss in a bingo machine and see how they come out. Some are better than others but not appreciably. This is probably an ascending grouping in groups of about 150 players. (30-180, 70-220, etc). There just isn’t much difference past elite in any grouping of 150 or so. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 RBC Heritage - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 RBC Heritage - Monday #1
      2024 RBC Heritage - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Justin Thomas - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Justin Rose - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Chandler Phillips - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Nick Dunlap - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Thomas Detry - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Austin Eckroat - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Wyndham Clark's Odyssey putter - 2024 RBC Heritage
      JT's new Cameron putter - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Justin Thomas testing new Titleist 2 wood - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Cameron putters - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Odyssey putter with triple track alignment aid - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Scotty Cameron The Blk Box putting alignment aid/training aid - 2024 RBC Heritage
       
       
       
       
       
       
      • 0 replies
    • 2024 Masters - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Huge shoutout to our member Stinger2irons for taking and posting photos from Augusta
       
       
      Tuesday
       
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 1
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 2
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 3
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 4
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 5
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 6
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 7
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 8
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 9
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 10
       
       
       
      • 14 replies
    • Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
        • Like
      • 92 replies
    • 2024 Valero Texas Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Valero Texas Open - Monday #1
      2024 Valero Texas Open - Tuesday #1
       
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Paul Barjon - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Joe Sullivan - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Wilson Furr - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Ben Willman - SoTex PGA Section Champ - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Jimmy Stanger - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rickie Fowler - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Harrison Endycott - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Vince Whaley - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Kevin Chappell - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Christian Bezuidenhout - WITB (mini) - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Scott Gutschewski - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Michael S. Kim WITB – 2024 Valero Texas Open
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Ben Taylor with new Titleist TRS 2 wood - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Swag cover - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Davis Riley's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Josh Teater's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Hzrdus T1100 is back - - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Mark Hubbard testing ported Titleist irons – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Tyson Alexander testing new Titleist TRS 2 wood - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Hideki Matsuyama's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Cobra putters - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Joel Dahmen WITB – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Axis 1 broomstick putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy's Trackman numbers w/ driver on the range – 2024 Valero Texas Open
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 13 replies

×
×
  • Create New...