World Player Of The Year?

[Frankie Lob Wedge]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1384839566' post='8170970']
[quote name='Frankie Lob Wedge' timestamp='1384838757' post='8170926']
[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1384827925' post='8170008']
OWGR Points earned per tournament in 2013:

#1 Tiger Woods: [b]25.59[/b] (460.65/18)
#2 Adam Scott: [b]18.92[/b] (340.54/18)
#3 Steve Stricker: [b]17.44[/b] (226.75/13)
#4 Henrik Stenson: [b]15.45 [/b](448/29) He played a lot more events than I realized
#5 Phil Mickelson: [b]14.86[/b] (356.52/24)
#6 Justin Rose: [b]14.02 [/b](322.49/23)
[/quote]

How many majors did Tiger win? Oh - he didn't.
[/quote]
Yet he's still at the top of the list. Hmmm.....I guess that makes him best.
[/quote]

No winning majors, the Fed Ex Cup and the Race to Dubai shows that you can win big tourneys and close the deal.

[PGArox]

[quote name='enis750' timestamp='1384885312' post='8172896']
[quote name='Fore(ged)' timestamp='1384722299' post='8163010']
Stenson isn't close to Woods and Scott. He's far above them. [b]When you win both the US and Euro PGA titles, you are the world player of the year.[/b]
[/quote]

^^ this[/quote]

By "US and Euro PGA titles," we must assume you mean the FedEx Cup and Race To Dubai.

So all of a sudden the FedEx Cup means something? If a dude wins the FedEx Cup, even without actually winning a tournament, it now has this much meaning?

And the Race To Dubai? Are you aware that someone can win that title while playing in only three proper European Tour events? And they don't even have to play in Europe at all.

As a matter of fact, the last three Race To Dubai winners have called the PGA TOUR their primary tour. Most of their RTD on-course earnings have come in the good ol' USofA.

So please, spare us the "significance" of your so-called "US and Euro PGA titles."

[MizzyMan]

World Player of the Year

Means who played the best in the world. Doesn't mean who played best all over the world. Who played the best against the best players in the world?

Tiger

[cdnglf]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384891070' post='8173422']
[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384889351' post='8173270']
[quote name='wunderbaum' timestamp='1384888380' post='8173172']
You can't compare Adam Scotts wins in Australia to Stensons or Woods. Much less competition.[url="http://www.pga.org.au/scores/99739"]http://www.pga.org.au/scores/99739[/url]

His Masters win though is heavy.
[/quote]

Agreed, the Australian fields were very weak.
But remember that Scott also won the first Fedex event, which had a better field than any of Tiger's (except the Players) or Stenson's wins.
[/quote]

You sure about that one? I haven't checked, but I think WGC events have a higher rating (or at least equal) for OWGR points than the first FedEx cup event (and Tiger won 2 of those).

I'm not going to look it up, I think someone already pointed out the numbers and how they compare.
[/quote]

The Barclays was worth 74 pts, while Tiger's WGCs were worth 74 and 76.
But I think most people who understand the OWGR formula agree that doesn't properly value size of field.
(For example, the Barclays and the 2nd Fedex Event are both worth 74pts, despite the fact that the former has a 125-man field and the latter has 100. The winner of the ridiculous 18-man Tiger challenge takes home more points than some full-field PGA Tour wins are worth.)

The WGCs have 75-man fields, the Barclays had 125 (including, I suspect, nearly everyone who was at Firestone). Which is harder to win? The Barclays.

[nochct1]

[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384893411' post='8173628']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384891070' post='8173422']
[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384889351' post='8173270']
[quote name='wunderbaum' timestamp='1384888380' post='8173172']
You can't compare Adam Scotts wins in Australia to Stensons or Woods. Much less competition.[url="http://www.pga.org.au/scores/99739"]http://www.pga.org.au/scores/99739[/url]

His Masters win though is heavy.
[/quote]

Agreed, the Australian fields were very weak.
But remember that Scott also won the first Fedex event, which had a better field than any of Tiger's (except the Players) or Stenson's wins.
[/quote]

You sure about that one? I haven't checked, but I think WGC events have a higher rating (or at least equal) for OWGR points than the first FedEx cup event (and Tiger won 2 of those).

I'm not going to look it up, I think someone already pointed out the numbers and how they compare.
[/quote]

The Barclays was worth 74 pts, while Tiger's WGCs were worth 74 and 76.
But I think most people who understand the OWGR formula agree that doesn't properly value size of field.

The WGCs have 75-man fields, the Barclays had 125 (including, I suspect, nearly everyone who was at Firestone). Which is harder to win? The Barclays.
[/quote]

Ok, seems to make sense. Let's throw the OWGR out the window because they don't fit your argument.

The OWGRs are widely accepted across the world, but you have determined that, despite the rankings, the Barclays is actually a harder event to win because the formula doesn't take into account value of size of field.

Now do you truly believe that, or are you just finding something to support your argument? And what are your thoughts on The Masters? Surely, you must think that it's not worthy of its ranking. Or does your field size argument not count for majors?

[cdnglf]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384894722' post='8173724']
[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384893411' post='8173628']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384891070' post='8173422']
[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384889351' post='8173270']
[quote name='wunderbaum' timestamp='1384888380' post='8173172']
You can't compare Adam Scotts wins in Australia to Stensons or Woods. Much less competition.[url="http://www.pga.org.au/scores/99739"]http://www.pga.org.au/scores/99739[/url]

His Masters win though is heavy.
[/quote]

Agreed, the Australian fields were very weak.
But remember that Scott also won the first Fedex event, which had a better field than any of Tiger's (except the Players) or Stenson's wins.
[/quote]

You sure about that one? I haven't checked, but I think WGC events have a higher rating (or at least equal) for OWGR points than the first FedEx cup event (and Tiger won 2 of those).

I'm not going to look it up, I think someone already pointed out the numbers and how they compare.
[/quote]

The Barclays was worth 74 pts, while Tiger's WGCs were worth 74 and 76.
But I think most people who understand the OWGR formula agree that doesn't properly value size of field.

The WGCs have 75-man fields, the Barclays had 125 (including, I suspect, nearly everyone who was at Firestone). Which is harder to win? The Barclays.
[/quote]

Ok, seems to make sense. Let's throw the OWGR out the window because they don't fit your argument.

The OWGRs are widely accepted across the world, but you have determined that, despite the rankings, the Barclays is actually a harder event to win because the formula doesn't take into account value of size of field.

Now do you truly believe that, or are you just finding something to support your argument? And what are your thoughts on The Masters? Surely, you must think that it's not worthy of its ranking. Or does your field size argument not count for majors?
[/quote]

The OWGR is the best we've got, but that doesn't mean its perfect.

The Barclay's has 125 players in the field and the winner gets 74 points.
The Deutsch Bank has 100 players (a strict subset of the Barclays) and the winner gets 74 points.
The BWM has (iirc) 70 players (a strict subset of the DB) and the winner gets 72 points.
Does that make sense to you? Do you think that winning these 3 tournaments is essentially the same level of difficulty?

Do you think its only slightly more difficult to win the full-field Players (80pts) than it is to win the 70-odd man WGC at Firestone (76)?

Perhaps the Masters doesn't deserve the 100 points that its automatically allocated, but in its defense it is probably the most coveted title in the world. Guys show up there for a chance to win the green jacket, rather than seemingly going thru the motions to get a guaranteed payday/OWGR points at a no-cut WGC.

[nochct1]

[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384895517' post='8173796']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384894722' post='8173724']
[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384893411' post='8173628']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384891070' post='8173422']
[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384889351' post='8173270']
[quote name='wunderbaum' timestamp='1384888380' post='8173172']
You can't compare Adam Scotts wins in Australia to Stensons or Woods. Much less competition.[url="http://www.pga.org.au/scores/99739"]http://www.pga.org.au/scores/99739[/url]

His Masters win though is heavy.
[/quote]

Agreed, the Australian fields were very weak.
But remember that Scott also won the first Fedex event, which had a better field than any of Tiger's (except the Players) or Stenson's wins.
[/quote]

You sure about that one? I haven't checked, but I think WGC events have a higher rating (or at least equal) for OWGR points than the first FedEx cup event (and Tiger won 2 of those).

I'm not going to look it up, I think someone already pointed out the numbers and how they compare.
[/quote]

The Barclays was worth 74 pts, while Tiger's WGCs were worth 74 and 76.
But I think most people who understand the OWGR formula agree that doesn't properly value size of field.

The WGCs have 75-man fields, the Barclays had 125 (including, I suspect, nearly everyone who was at Firestone). Which is harder to win? The Barclays.
[/quote]

Ok, seems to make sense. Let's throw the OWGR out the window because they don't fit your argument.

The OWGRs are widely accepted across the world, but you have determined that, despite the rankings, the Barclays is actually a harder event to win because the formula doesn't take into account value of size of field.

Now do you truly believe that, or are you just finding something to support your argument? And what are your thoughts on The Masters? Surely, you must think that it's not worthy of its ranking. Or does your field size argument not count for majors?
[/quote]

The OWGR is the best we've got, but that doesn't mean its perfect.

The Barclay's has 125 players in the field and the winner gets 74 points.
The Deutsch Bank has 100 players (a strict subset of the Barclays) and the winner gets 74 points.
The BWM has (iirc) 70 players (a strict subset of the DB) and the winner gets 72 points.
Does that make sense to you? Do you think that winning these 3 tournaments is essentially the same level of difficulty?

Do you think its only slightly more difficult to win the full-field Players (80pts) than it is to win the 70-odd man WGC at Doral (76)?

Perhaps the Masters doesn't deserve the 100 points that its automatically allocated, but in its defense it is probably the most coveted title in the world. Guys show up there for a chance to win the green jacket, rather than seemingly going thru the motions to get a guaranteed payday/OWGR points at a no-cut WGC.
[/quote]

So now the WGC are just guaranteed paydays where guys are going through the motions?!? I wonder what you think of other events.

Do you think when the heads of these tours get together they all agree that the WCG really isn't that strong because the players don't really try?

Now maybe I'm not mistaken, but isn't the fed ex cup only for PGA Tour members? So they exclude players who choose not to join the Tour. Maybe those 75 person fields at the WGCs are actually pretty strong fields.

As for The Masters, you don't really think everyone in the field expects to win, do you? If you are going to use the strength of field argument, then at least apply it to all events. Its interesting how, in your eyes, the Fed Ex cup events are harder to win than the WGC events because of the size of the field, but then you take something subjective, like desire to win, when discussing The Masters.

Personally, I think the rankings for the events are pretty good. Sure there's a point here and there that could be changed, but it seems pretty fair.

[taylorjmc]

Stenson was great this past year, I would say he is the Player of the Year for 2013, but let's see if he can sustain that title year after year like Tiger. Tiger has been at the top for over a decade, great player.

[bscinstnct]

I say give it to Rory SabatinI. He would show up for the award dinner, I bet. Otherwise..

I don't think the World Player Award is very well known outside golfwrx and the even the award directors on this thread seem to be at odds on who should get it. Plus, I think it will be impossible to get TW to come to the dinner (even if it's at Luger's) and even Stenson might blow it off. Although, if Franke Lob Wedge is MC, then it could be the event of the season.

[cdnglf]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384896367' post='8173860']
So now the WGC are just guaranteed paydays where guys are going through the motions?!? I wonder what you think of other events.

Do you think when the heads of these tours get together they all agree that the WCG really isn't that strong because the players don't really try?

Now maybe I'm not mistaken, but isn't the fed ex cup only for PGA Tour members? So they exclude players who choose not to join the Tour. Maybe those 75 person fields at the WGCs are actually pretty strong fields.

As for The Masters, you don't really think everyone in the field expects to win, do you? If you are going to use the strength of field argument, then at least apply it to all events. Its interesting how, in your eyes, the Fed Ex cup events are harder to win than the WGC events because of the size of the field, but then you take something subjective, like desire to win, when discussing The Masters.

Personally, I think the rankings for the events are pretty good. Sure there's a point here and there that could be changed, but it seems pretty fair.
[/quote]

Suffice it to say that majors bring major pressure and major prestige. The WGCs are just tarted up regular events that bribe the players to show up with guaranteed paydays. While I'm sure plenty of players are trying hard to win the WGCs, they aren't majors. And it isn't that uncommon to see an injured player show up for a WGC, hit the first tee shot, and WD to get the paycheque.

The FedEx Cup is only for Tour members, and some years you might have a point that it excludes a lot of top players. For example, a few years ago Westwood, McIlroy, and Kaymer plus several other top 30 types weren't PGA Tour members. But this year, virtually everyone of note is a PGA Tour member. And of course while the US-based stroke play WGCs generally draw all of the top 50, they also invite a number of international players of varying ability.

You haven't answered my question though. Explain to me how it makes sense that the first three playoff events are worth essentially the same number of points, despite the fact that the BMW has a field of 75 and the Barclays has a field of 125 - including that same 75 as the BMW. Is beating 50 more quality PGA Tour pros really only worth a difference of 2 points?

[Vindog]

[quote name='MizzyMan' timestamp='1384893230' post='8173600']
World Player of the Year

Means who played the best in the world. Doesn't mean who played best all over the world. Who played the best against the best players in the world?

Tiger
[/quote]

It's true but it's also an iherently nebulous discussion. Clearly, as has been pointed out, there is already a system which tells us who is the best player in the world over a period of recent time.

And yes, events like the Players and the WGCs are chock-a-block full of the best intrenational golfers. But for funzy's, and since this is all hypothetical, it's nice to compare players that have won in different areas of the globe.

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1384897278' post='8173940']
I say give it to Rory SabatinI. He would show up for the award dinner, I bet. Otherwise..

I don't think the World Player Award is very well known outside golfwrx and the even the award directors on this thread seem to be at odds on who should get it. Plus, I think it will be impossible to get TW to come to the dinner (even if it's at Luger's) and even Stenson might blow it off. Although, if Franke Lob Wedge is MC, then it could be the event of the season.
[/quote]

gold

[nochct1]

[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1384898583' post='8174042']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384896367' post='8173860']
So now the WGC are just guaranteed paydays where guys are going through the motions?!? I wonder what you think of other events.

Do you think when the heads of these tours get together they all agree that the WCG really isn't that strong because the players don't really try?

Now maybe I'm not mistaken, but isn't the fed ex cup only for PGA Tour members? So they exclude players who choose not to join the Tour. Maybe those 75 person fields at the WGCs are actually pretty strong fields.

As for The Masters, you don't really think everyone in the field expects to win, do you? If you are going to use the strength of field argument, then at least apply it to all events. Its interesting how, in your eyes, the Fed Ex cup events are harder to win than the WGC events because of the size of the field, but then you take something subjective, like desire to win, when discussing The Masters.

Personally, I think the rankings for the events are pretty good. Sure there's a point here and there that could be changed, but it seems pretty fair.
[/quote]

Suffice it to say that majors bring major pressure and major prestige. The WGCs are just tarted up regular events that bribe the players to show up with guaranteed paydays. While I'm sure plenty of players are trying hard to win the WGCs, they aren't majors. And it isn't that uncommon to see an injured player show up for a WGC, hit the first tee shot, and WD to get the paycheque.

The FedEx Cup is only for Tour members, and some years you might have a point that it excludes a lot of top players. For example, a few years ago Westwood, McIlroy, and Kaymer plus several other top 30 types weren't PGA Tour members. But this year, virtually everyone of note is a PGA Tour member. And of course while the US-based stroke play WGCs generally draw all of the top 50, they also invite a number of international players of varying ability.

You haven't answered my question though. Explain to me how it makes sense that the first three playoff events are worth essentially the same number of points, despite the fact that the BMW has a field of 75 and the Barclays has a field of 125 - including that same 75 as the BMW. Is beating 50 more quality PGA Tour pros really only worth a difference of 2 points?
[/quote]

They are worth the same amount of points because those who are advancing as those who are playing the best golf. If someone barely gets in and then plays like crap in the first event, then why won't move on. But the 75 who make it to the third event have played well all season and/or have played well in the first two fed ex events.

They're not picking 50 players at random and reducing the field. The field is being reduced based on performance. There's nobody playing at that point who didn't earn it through strong play (either during the season, during the first and second event or both).

As for the WGC...I assume you realize how valuable a high finish is in those events. There is no reason for people to go through the motions. And the players showing up and WD right away? You make it seem like there are multiple players do that every week.

The WGC gets the best players in the world together and provides and incentive for them to play hard and play well. It would be stupid to go through the motions at those events.

I know you want those events to be on par w the Bob Hope and other second tier events. But they are not. If they really were small time events, then I'm sure, at some points, the points would have been changed to reflect that.

[puttingmatt]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384873802' post='8171878']
[quote name='puttingmatt' timestamp='1384839957' post='8170990']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1384839471' post='8170968']
[quote name='puttingmatt' timestamp='1384837443' post='8170854']
World player of the year , should be worldwide wins.
And what has Woods done outside the US ??


Got to go with Stenson, Mickelson, and Scott.

Clearly, many call american only golf, Global !
[/quote]
Anything to get Woods off the podium, huh?
[/quote]

Not really, but clearly these players performed better in worldwide
golfing events including wins on the PGA tour this year,
[/quote]

Well no, if you include events on the PGA Tour then they didn't perform better. Tiger had 5 wins. That is more wins than the other players. Again, the "world" part of the discussion just includes all events, not just PGA Tour.

I'm struggling to figure out your logic? If you add up all wins, then Tiger has the most. Bu you give more credit if someone travels, even if its to an event with a weaker field?
[/quote]
Again these players had multiple wins including majors, which happen to have strong fields, with Woods also present.
Majors matter to me , your welcome to dismiss them .

[idrive]

Absolute no brainer

Stenson

[jmvargas]

i can't believe no one mentioned Inbee Park...she won 5 tournaments and 3 of them were majors!!

if she were a guy she would have been a shoo-in!!

[PGArox]

[quote name='jmvargas' timestamp='1385351750' post='8202580']
i can't believe no one mentioned Inbee Park...she won 5 tournaments and 3 of them were majors!!

if she were a guy she would have been a shoo-in!!
[/quote]

But she's not a guy, is she?

[jmvargas]

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1385354704' post='8202814']
[quote name='jmvargas' timestamp='1385351750' post='8202580']
i can't believe no one mentioned Inbee Park...she won 5 tournaments and 3 of them were majors!!

if she were a guy she would have been a shoo-in!!
[/quote]

But she's not a guy, is she?
[/quote]


...since there is no official World Player of the Year anyway( i think!) why couldn't she be it??

unless of course we are disqualifying females for this title..

[PGArox]

[quote name='jmvargas' timestamp='1385356663' post='8202916']
[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1385354704' post='8202814']
[quote name='jmvargas' timestamp='1385351750' post='8202580']
i can't believe no one mentioned Inbee Park...she won 5 tournaments and 3 of them were majors!!

if she were a guy she would have been a shoo-in!!
[/quote]

But she's not a guy, is she?
[/quote]


...since there is no official World Player of the Year anyway( i think!) why couldn't she be it??

unless of course we are disqualifying females for this title..
[/quote]

I think it is generally assumed that any great female golfer could not accomplish that greatness competing against men, so people tend to put females into a different category, like Female Golfer of the Year.

[teehilden]

Tiger. People are so overwhelmed with the fact that he didn't win a major. They say he had a bad year. He won 5 tour events still! Its crazy that 5 tour wins is a "bad year" for Tiger. When you look past the player and focus strictly on the statistics, Tiger deserves to be crowned WPOTY

[jmvargas]

i just researched all the possible golf awards and a World Player of the Year for golf doesn't exist as of today...

all existing golf player awards have a separate one for males and females..

....BUT IF a World Player of the Year (for golf) award ever happens without gender limitations Inbee would certainly have been a strong candidate..

..oh well.....

[QEight]

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1385357906' post='8202960']
I think it is generally assumed that any great female golfer could not accomplish that greatness competing against men, so people tend to put females into a different category, like Female Golfer of the Year.
[/quote]

If one female golfer won all LPGA tournaments in one year, she could not be the World Player of the Year? Why not?

[TheGameChanger]

[quote name='teehilden' timestamp='1385358843' post='8203008']
Tiger. People are so overwhelmed with the fact that he didn't win a major. They say he had a bad year. He won 5 tour events still! Its crazy that 5 tour wins is a "bad year" for Tiger. When you look past the player and focus strictly on the statistics, Tiger deserves to be crowned WPOTY
[/quote]

Scott now has 6 wins this year including a Major

[tembolo1284]

Are the aussie events that scott won counted towards the 2014 season already....or are they still part of the 2013 season?

[Vindog]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1385384681' post='8203432']
Are the aussie events that scott won counted towards the 2014 season already....or are they still part of the 2013 season?
[/quote]

I don't know, but I am guessing that they are 2013 wins, since they are not PGA Tour wins and it's the PGA Tour that actually has the wraparound season.

[Golfnutgalen]

[quote name='TheGameChanger' timestamp='1385383835' post='8203412']
[quote name='teehilden' timestamp='1385358843' post='8203008']
Tiger. People are so overwhelmed with the fact that he didn't win a major. They say he had a bad year. He won 5 tour events still! Its crazy that 5 tour wins is a "bad year" for Tiger. When you look past the player and focus strictly on the statistics, Tiger deserves to be crowned WPOTY
[/quote]

Scott now has 6 wins this year including a Major
[/quote]

Scott has 4 wins this year actually, he did not win the world cup and his win at the grand slam didn't count toward anything meaningful in this discussion; the field only had 4 players and it never meant anything even when Tiger won it 7 times.

[deasy55]

[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1385394765' post='8204022']
[quote name='TheGameChanger' timestamp='1385383835' post='8203412']
[quote name='teehilden' timestamp='1385358843' post='8203008']
Tiger. People are so overwhelmed with the fact that he didn't win a major. They say he had a bad year. He won 5 tour events still! Its crazy that 5 tour wins is a "bad year" for Tiger. When you look past the player and focus strictly on the statistics, Tiger deserves to be crowned WPOTY
[/quote]

Scott now has 6 wins this year including a Major
[/quote]

Scott has 4 wins this year actually, he did not win the world cup and his win at the grand slam didn't count toward anything meaningful in this discussion; the field only had 4 players and it never meant anything even when Tiger won it 7 times.
[/quote]

The Grand Slam seemed to matter last year when they were included in the 'Tiger now has 100 Pro wins' thing people were trying to push.

[MizzyMan]

[quote name='QEight' timestamp='1385369784' post='8203236']
[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1385357906' post='8202960']
I think it is generally assumed that any great female golfer could not accomplish that greatness competing against men, so people tend to put females into a different category, like Female Golfer of the Year.
[/quote]

If one female golfer won all LPGA tournaments in one year, she could not be the World Player of the Year? Why not?
[/quote]

IMO No. For the same reason that a player who won every amateur event in the world or every big collegiate event couldn't be crowned World Player of the Year: the competition.

[jmvargas]

IIRC there is only one olympic sport wherein the men and women compete on an equal basis---equestrian..

so i guess in all other sports there would have to be a separate category for each..

PS: i personally think chess and billiards is another sport wherein men and women can compete on an equal basis..

[Cwalts1991]

Watching women play sports is like watching men play the same sport in 3 feet of water :P

[jmvargas]

[quote name='Cwalts1991' timestamp='1385425801' post='8207092']
Watching women play sports is like watching men play the same sport in 3 feet of water :P
[/quote]

....wow!...

..i guess you've never watched serena williams or annika in action...or babe zaharias...or stefi graf...or....