JGS Diff score

[jayslaysongolf]

Has anyone noticed the diff score on JGS is has already crossed -10 for the girls and the boys is not far behind.

 

At what point does everyone just throw in the towel and walk away???

 

Mathematically it is impossible to catch these kids unless you play certain tournaments.  pretty soon you have to be shooting into the 50’s to even be equal.

 

 

[wegobomber31]

50 minutes ago, jayslaysongolf said:

Has anyone noticed the diff score on JGS is has already crossed -10 for the girls and the boys is not far behind.

 

At what point does everyone just throw in the towel and walk away???

 

Mathematically it is impossible to catch these kids unless you play certain tournaments.  pretty soon you have to be shooting into the 50’s to even be equal.

 

 

 

Well Yana Wilson's top 75% of rounds average something like 69.3 with a rating before CCA of 76.7.  I suppose you could shoot 65-66 and get close to a -10 diff, though if you were doing that you'd probably be playing in a lot of the same events as her. 

[Tugu]

4 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

 

Well Yana Wilson's top 75% of rounds average something like 69.3 with a rating before CCA of 76.7.  I suppose you could shoot 65-66 and get close to a -10 diff, though if you were doing that you'd probably be playing in a lot of the same events as her. 

Makes perfect sense.🤣

[jayslaysongolf]

7 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

 

Well Yana Wilson's top 75% of rounds average something like 69.3 with a rating before CCA of 76.7.  I suppose you could shoot 65-66 and get close to a -10 diff, though if you were doing that you'd probably be playing in a lot of the same events as her. 

 

Here is the thing that no one says.  once you are a sophomore if you do not have the ranking it pretty much over for JGS if you been playing a lot.

 

Not to name kids but there are whole lot 2025 and 2024 just coasting in the top 50. In one case the kid is scoring 80’s but because of a year lag they still have decent rankings.

 

[wegobomber31]

One thing that's worth asking...does being top kid really matter? Asterisk Talley would have a Diff of -7.53 if she only played local events and the US Junior Girls, and -8.5 if she only played in high level events.  Is it really going to hurt her recruiting chances if she's ranked 8th or 4th?  She's a phenomenal talent.

 

Frankly my kid is a similar boat and I'm caring less and less about his JGS at any given moment (it will be nice moment when he becomes ranked first in his state or first overall only because it is a reflection of how far he has come, but it won't change anything).  But I can tell you for a fact that we're not optimizing events for CCA or JGS ranking.  Right now it's about competition and getting better, getting exemptions into USGA events and opening doors to cool opportunities that can come with playing well.

 

So no you don't have to shoot in the 50s.

Edited June 17 by wegobomber31

[SteelersCA1]

4 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

One thing that's worth asking...does being top kid really matter? Asterisk Talley would have a Diff of -7.53 if she only played local events and the US Junior Girls, and -8.5 if she only played in high level events.  Is it really going to hurt her recruiting chances if she's ranked 8th or 4th?  She's a phenomenal talent.

 

Frankly my kid is a similar boat and I'm caring less and less about his JGS at any given moment (it will be nice moment when he becomes ranked first in his state or first overall only because it is a reflection of how far he has come, but it won't change anything).  But I can tell you for a fact that we're not optimizing events for CCA or JGS ranking.  Right now it's about competition and getting better, getting exemptions into USGA events and opening doors to cool opportunities that can come with playing well.

 

So no you don't have to shoot in the 50s.

Asterisk is not a good example as she plays a ton of Nor Cal JTNC events that are ranked dramatically lower than AJGA or So Cal Toyota Tour events.   Plus she has close to 30 events logged over the last year.  If she was gaming it like the others she would only play the invitationals, AJGA and the So Cal stuff she would be ranked no 1.  Additionally, she has made a tremendous jump in her game over the last year and right now is playing at a mid to upper LPGA level and riding that confidence.  Yana is a better example of cherry picking events.

 

My kid has finished 2nd to her a bunch of times and her progression has been massive over the last year.  IMHO, the So Cal, AJGA and invitational events, especially when they are stretched out to over 6300 are the way to go if you can for padding your JGS ranking.  Also, I believe that the Strength of Field metric is way to OP for the system and needs to be adjusted.  Nor Cal players are handicapped by the weather, the people that rank the golf courses and the JTNC (who set up the pins in US Open type locations).  With my kid playing both the JTNC and the Toyota Tour in So Cal, we have seen a major difference in her ranking.  Didn't play her in 1 AJGA event because I loathe the STARS based point system they have which unfairly favors people flying their kids all over the country buying stars for the invitationals.

[jayslaysongolf]

8 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

One thing that's worth asking...does being top kid really matter? Asterisk Talley would have a Diff of -7.53 if she only played local events and the US Junior Girls, and -8.5 if she only played in high level events.  Is it really going to hurt her recruiting chances if she's ranked 8th or 4th?  She's a phenomenal talent.

 

Frankly my kid is a similar boat and I'm caring less and less about his JGS at any given moment (it will be nice moment when he becomes ranked first in his state or first overall only because it is a reflection of how far he has come, but it won't change anything).  But I can tell you for a fact that we're not optimizing events for CCA or JGS ranking.  Right now it's about competition and getting better, getting exemptions into USGA events and opening doors to cool opportunities that can come with playing well.

 

So no you don't have to shoot in the 50s.

 

Here is the thing it doesn’t matter if your ranked high enough sophomore year.

 

However once you’re a junior and if you improve 4-5 stokes your toast with way it works. The reality is you kid isn’t going to get recruited by a decent school.

 

This happens a lot I am seeing tons of kids who beat top 100 kids and probaly will never play college golf at the same level.

 

The sad part is The best D3 schools are actually better then a lot d1 schools with talent. In a lot cases they were younger or developed in their junior/senior year. Those are the kids that deserve a better shot.

[wegobomber31]

3 hours ago, SteelersCA1 said:

Asterisk is not a good example as she plays a ton of Nor Cal JTNC events that are ranked dramatically lower than AJGA or So Cal Toyota Tour events.   Plus she has close to 30 events logged over the last year.  If she was gaming it like the others she would only play the invitationals, AJGA and the So Cal stuff she would be ranked no 1.  Additionally, she has made a tremendous jump in her game over the last year and right now is playing at a mid to upper LPGA level and riding that confidence.  Yana is a better example of cherry picking events.

 

My kid has finished 2nd to her a bunch of times and her progression has been massive over the last year.  IMHO, the So Cal, AJGA and invitational events, especially when they are stretched out to over 6300 are the way to go if you can for padding your JGS ranking.  Also, I believe that the Strength of Field metric is way to OP for the system and needs to be adjusted.  Nor Cal players are handicapped by the weather, the people that rank the golf courses and the JTNC (who set up the pins in US Open type locations).  With my kid playing both the JTNC and the Toyota Tour in So Cal, we have seen a major difference in her ranking.  Didn't play her in 1 AJGA event because I loathe the STARS based point system they have which unfairly favors people flying their kids all over the country buying stars for the invitationals.

 

Asterisk is a perfect example because she plays both.  And I stated exactly what her Diff and ranking would be if she only played invitationals.  She'd be -8.53 and 4th.

 

Is Yana Wilson really cherry picking events? Sure she's only playing in the best girls events, but she has to schedule Pro, Am and team events on top of that.  I count 16 WAGR-rated events in the last year.

[wegobomber31]

8 minutes ago, jayslaysongolf said:

 

Here is the thing it doesn’t matter if your ranked high enough sophomore year.

 

However once you’re a junior and if you improve 4-5 stokes your toast with way it works. The reality is you kid isn’t going to get recruited by a decent school.

 

This happens a lot I am seeing tons of kids who beat top 100 kids and probaly will never play college golf at the same level.

 

The sad part is The best D3 schools are actually better then a lot d1 schools with talent. In a lot cases they were younger or developed in their junior/senior year. Those are the kids that deserve a better shot.

 

You may be right, but in your original post about whether it's worth it trying to "catch these kids", isn't the context here being a top 3-5 junior in the country? A -10 might have an inflated Diff because of their schedule, but it'd be impossible to fake your way to a -10.  By definition you'd have to be no worse than a -6 if you never received a single CCA benefit, and using Asterisk as a benchmark, you're more than likely still a -9 if you played in only local events.

[jayslaysongolf]

2 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

 

You may be right, but in your original post about whether it's worth it trying to "catch these kids", isn't the context here being a top 3-5 junior in the country? A -10 might have an inflated Diff because of their schedule, but it'd be impossible to fake your way to a -10.  By definition you'd have to be no worse than a -6 if you never received a single CCA benefit, and using Asterisk as a benchmark, you're more than likely still a -9 if you played in only local events.

 

IF you being tracked by JGS you are not going to catch them until the higher scores fall off your profile.

 

The average player between 100-200 for the most part has no way to catch the highest rated players and this by design.

I have seen weird things with the top of the list that indicated they Probably manually adjust things to keep things stable.  Used to happen when pano was a ranked junior. The adjustments would effect a lot kids.
 

we Probably see it soon with asterisk soon and she be 11 or 12 next year.  

[golferdad8]

Lots of good & valid points here.
 

The only thing I have to add from my observation is the differential #s will peak & evolve once coaches realize that the top 75% of the 10th-11th players from ranked 10-200 are not that different & rankings are poor predictors of their future performance. The coaches will need a better way to predict who will continue getting better. 
 

For now, however: 

 

1) it’s human nature to be lazy -  most coaches are lazy 

2) lots of group think among top coaches who brag/talk about so & so being a great golfer or hits 330 yards, haha. 

3) too many insecure coaches bragging about getting top ranked 10th/11th players (or a top recruiting class) vs trying to find the best player who will be an outstanding college player & make a great teammate. 
4) most importantly, NIL & transfer portal will make golf programs like football - the schools with the biggest budget will win going forward. 
 

Based on what I’m seeing, many historically top (brand name men’s) golf programs will not have a chance at winning another national championship. 

[jayslaysongolf]

9 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

Lots of good & valid points here.
 

The only thing I have to add from my observation is the differential #s will peak & evolve once coaches realize that the top 75% of the 10th-11th players from ranked 10-200 are not that different & rankings are poor predictors of their future performance. The coaches will need a better way to predict who will continue getting better. 
 

For now, however: 

 

1) it’s human nature to be lazy -  most coaches are lazy 

2) lots of group think among top coaches who brag/talk about so & so being a great golfer or hits 330 yards, haha. 

3) too many insecure coaches bragging about getting top ranked 10th/11th players (or a top recruiting class) vs trying to find the best player who will be an outstanding college player & make a great teammate. 
4) most importantly, NIL & transfer portal will make golf programs like football - the schools with the biggest budget will win going forward. 
 

Based on what I’m seeing, many historically top (brand name men’s) golf programs will not have a chance at winning another national championship. 

My advice to junior golf parents is understand  this is not going change. Coaches do not care and there is already huge turnover in coaches at schools.

 

They use rankings  and social media follows because it easy to blame the kids  instead of themselves. 

 

I am shocked at how many kids are actually too old to play junior golf as a senior.   So many kids being compared with kids actually 1-2 years older in same class.  This is actually a big reason rankings don’t work.

 

 

Edited June 18 by jayslaysongolf

[wegobomber31]

10 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

Lots of good & valid points here.
 

The only thing I have to add from my observation is the differential #s will peak & evolve once coaches realize that the top 75% of the 10th-11th players from ranked 10-200 are not that different & rankings are poor predictors of their future performance. The coaches will need a better way to predict who will continue getting better. 
 

For now, however: 

 

1) it’s human nature to be lazy -  most coaches are lazy 

2) lots of group think among top coaches who brag/talk about so & so being a great golfer or hits 330 yards, haha. 

3) too many insecure coaches bragging about getting top ranked 10th/11th players (or a top recruiting class) vs trying to find the best player who will be an outstanding college player & make a great teammate. 
4) most importantly, NIL & transfer portal will make golf programs like football - the schools with the biggest budget will win going forward. 
 

Based on what I’m seeing, many historically top (brand name men’s) golf programs will not have a chance at winning another national championship. 

yeah I’m not sure of the rationale of taking the top 75% and whether it’s worth throwing out the bottom 25% of scores. All of the other rankings are going to consider the good and the bad. Perhaps in the lower rankings a coach might value somebody with a higher avg score but ability to go low, as they could be a counting score half the time with that approach. But at the top I’m assuming coaches are expecting their top kids to have a counting score nearly every time. 
 

I’ll miss Golfweek (RIP) rankings. One thing that was interesting were the head-to-head win loss records listed against the top 25, top 50, top 100, etc. I don’t have the exact reference point but I recall a top 10ish golfer having a 83% head to head record against the golfers ranked 51-100. 

 

 

[golfdad1]

10 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

yeah I’m not sure of the rationale of taking the top 75% and whether it’s worth throwing out the bottom 25% of scores. All of the other rankings are going to consider the good and the bad. Perhaps in the lower rankings a coach might value somebody with a higher avg score but ability to go low, as they could be a counting score half the time with that approach. But at the top I’m assuming coaches are expecting their top kids to have a counting score nearly every time. 
 

I’ll miss Golfweek (RIP) rankings. One thing that was interesting were the head-to-head win loss records listed against the top 25, top 50, top 100, etc. I don’t have the exact reference point but I recall a top 10ish golfer having a 83% head to head record against the golfers ranked 51-100. 

 

 

Is Golfweek stopping junior rankings? 😞

[leezer99]

7 hours ago, golfdad1 said:

Is Golfweek stopping junior rankings? 😞

[JuniorGolfNut]

JGS is easily gamed and does not paint an accurate picture considering they don't rank all tournaments players compete in. Hearing TUGR is coming out with features and data well beyond the capabilities of JGS and college coaches are gravitating towards the new platform. Also hearing JGS is going to merge with Agora Golf so that could be interesting. 

[Pinewood Golfer]

9 hours ago, JuniorGolfNut said:

JGS is easily gamed and does not paint an accurate picture considering they don't rank all tournaments players compete in. Hearing TUGR is coming out with features and data well beyond the capabilities of JGS and college coaches are gravitating towards the new platform. Also hearing JGS is going to merge with Agora Golf so that could be interesting. 

TUGR 1.0 is better than anything JGS has ever thought about producing. By the time TUGR is complete it will be the only accepted ranking system in Junior and amateur golf. On the amateur side, that’s a little ways away. Ok the junior side it will happen quickly

[golferdad8]

2 hours ago, Pinewood Golfer said:

TUGR 1.0 is better than anything JGS has ever thought about producing. By the time TUGR is complete it will be the only accepted ranking system in Junior and amateur golf. On the amateur side, that’s a little ways away. Ok the junior side it will happen quickly

Better than JGS is a pretty low bar as Mac was milking it as a cash cow & wasn’t interested in making it better. 
As for 1.0, as a tech guy, I would say it’s still in beta mode & not ready to be charging users - garbage in/garbage out. Perhaps it’s currently good for top 10 players in each grade, but until it can capture the amateur & (top) one day tournaments, I’m bot sure the data is any better for recruiting - both for the coaches or the recruits. 

[leezer99]

4 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

Better than JGS is a pretty low bar as Mac was milking it as a cash cow & wasn’t interested in making it better. 
As for 1.0, as a tech guy, I would say it’s still in beta mode & not ready to be charging users - garbage in/garbage out. Perhaps it’s currently good for top 10 players in each grade, but until it can capture the amateur & (top) one day tournaments, I’m bot sure the data is any better for recruiting - both for the coaches or the recruits. 

What top 1 day events is it not capturing? It's already getting USGA qualifiers, AJGA qualifiers, one day events on the San Diego JGT, the SJGT, etc. 

[jayslaysongolf]

8 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

Better than JGS is a pretty low bar as Mac was milking it as a cash cow & wasn’t interested in making it better. 
As for 1.0, as a tech guy, I would say it’s still in beta mode & not ready to be charging users - garbage in/garbage out. Perhaps it’s currently good for top 10 players in each grade, but until it can capture the amateur & (top) one day tournaments, I’m bot sure the data is any better for recruiting - both for the coaches or the recruits. 

 

Your are correct JGS is a cash cow for mac and a few instructors and junior tours.

 

TUGR and Juniorgolfhub are better but still have a lot work to do they are not reliable at all right now.

 

The real issue is so many college coaches will pick a  kid because they have a better JGS ranking over another kid.

 

Sort of makes me wonder though do you really want to play with a coach that dumb.

 

Something needs to happen with the rankings because tournaments are not getting the talent they used to. 

 

 

[jayslaysongolf]

4 hours ago, leezer99 said:

What top 1 day events is it not capturing? It's already getting USGA qualifiers, AJGA qualifiers, one day events on the San Diego JGT, the SJGT, etc. 

 

1 day events and qualifiers honestly should never be tracked.

 

Kids need to be able to play and not worry about about scores and rankings.

 

playing a qualifier is much different then a tournament. You have to take risk or you don’t qualify and sometimes that ends bad.

[LawGenius305]

13 minutes ago, jayslaysongolf said:

 

1 day events and qualifiers honestly should never be tracked.

 

Kids need to be able to play and not worry about about scores and rankings.

 

playing a qualifier is much different then a tournament. You have to take risk or you don’t qualify and sometimes that ends bad.

Playing in a qualifier shouldn't be a different mentality than playing in a 36, 54, or 72 hole tournament. The mindset is the same and have to know which holes to attack with pin placements and those that can't be. There are always par holes and birdie holes. At least -2 on par 5's, no more than +1 on par 3's aiming at middle of greens, pick up a couple of birdies and limit mistakes on par 4's.

Edited Saturday at 02:35 PM by LawGenius305

[jayslaysongolf]

2 minutes ago, LawGenius305 said:

Playing in a qualifier shouldn't be a different mentality than playing in a 36, 54, or 72 hole tournament. The mindset is the same and have to know which holes to attack with pin placements and those that can't be. There are always par holes and birdie holes. At least -2 on par 5's, no more than +1 on par 3's, pick up a couple of birdies and limit mistakes on par 4's.

Qualifiers are really about the front 9 and what the score is at the turn.  

 

if your 2 or 3 strokes off the lead you need to do something and need to stay more aggressive.

 

However if you leading by a few strokes at the turn you might not take as much risk.

There is nothing worse by the missing a qualifier by 1 stroke.

[DAnnunzio]

I agree with both sides of the qualifier argument.

 

Maybe qualifiers could somehow be weighted less in the rankings.

[TroyB123]

There also tend to be a boatload of WDs at some qualifiers.  I guess the rankings would reward those guys vs the guy who plays out the string who is out of it after nine.

[leezer99]

Qualifiers should rate the highest imo. You either get into an event or you sit your a** at home and don't get ranked at all.

[leezer99]

4 minutes ago, TroyB123 said:

There also tend to be a boatload of WDs at some qualifiers.  I guess the rankings would reward those guys vs the guy who plays out the string who is out of it after nine.

 

The reward is making it through the qualifier to compete in an event. A WD does not accomplish that. 

 

Sounds like you consider a high ranking to be the end goal here. 

Edited Saturday at 02:57 PM by leezer99

[TroyB123]

6 minutes ago, leezer99 said:

 

The reward is making it through the qualifier to compete in an event. A WD does not accomplish that. 

 

Sounds like you consider a high ranking to be the end goal here. 

Huh, what?   Of course the point of the qualifier is the end goal and only goal, and that was my point.  I'm sure a lot of kids aren't too worried about carding a decent score once they know they are out of it.   I'd guess you'd see a whole lot more WDs if kids knew their ranking would be dragged down by finishing out a bad round vs just walking off.

 

[leezer99]

20 minutes ago, TroyB123 said:

Huh, what?   Of course the point of the qualifier is the end goal and only goal, and that was my point.  I'm sure a lot of kids aren't too worried about carding a decent score once they know they are out of it.   I'd guess you'd see a whole lot more WDs if kids knew their ranking would be dragged down by finishing out a bad round vs just walking off.

 

 

Again... why do you care if a kid WD's from a qualifier?

[TroyB123]

50 minutes ago, leezer99 said:

 

Again... why do you care if a kid WD's from a qualifier?

If you get too 

many WDs, you are going to have a mess of a qualifier with kids left to play alone and having to re-pair.  
 

It just seems the wrong thing to incentivize.

 

Ranking one day events, high school events and qualifiers seems like a can of worms to me.  
 

It’s nice to be able to go play an early season one day event on punched greens and soggy dormant Bermuda fairways without having to worry about it negatively affecting any rankings.  Heck, it’s even nice to go play a qualifier knowing there are only rewards for doing well and no negative impact of having a bad day.  
 

Also a lot of these one day events and hs are played on short yardages which isn’t really going to be great data for rankings.