Professional Rankings

[rksquire]

This was just after completing the Tiger Slam:

View attachment 52946

And that wasn't even the peak!! That (total points and gap to second) came the following month after wins in Germany and at Memorial.

Wow! Tiger was exceptional, but, interestingly, it also reinforces a point - the competition behind Tiger holds an international interest not purely related to nationality. Els, Westwood and Montgomerie played a lot (majority?) of their golf on the European Tour with their performances being recognized by the OWGR. PM was not the much maligned character he is now and had the publics interest. Whilst Scheffler is not the 2nd coming of Tiger, he's also not likely to start playing DPWT tournaments, bar 'practice' ones around the Open. Arguably the graphic shows a standout player (what we have now) whilst being more than single-tour-centric. All that being said, and there is a baby involved which might derail things, but imagine if Scottie did complete the Slam in a single season.....

 

[Singlefiguregokfer]

Apparently Scottie has only ever won in the early months of the season. So we need to see if he can win later in the year before we get too carried away.

 

[ExRabbit]

Under the old system, Tiger at times had (almost) 3 times as many points as second place. He was in a completely different class to everyone else.
Not taking anything away from him, but Scotty isn’t even close to what Tiger achieved.

Random week from 2000

View attachment 52947

Wow - so many big personalities in the mix back then.

 

[BubbaP]

I don’t know how Smoth can be called top 10 on current form when he isn’t one of the top 10 in LIV rankings this season.
Niemann, Rahm & Burmester are the top 3 at present.

But are ranking and form the same thing? That's one reason why all the ranking lists differ, different weightings recent form verses longer term.
I agree Smith's form going into the Masters was pretty poor, and I was surprised how he did there.
If you take the extreme of 1 event of form, he finished top 7 out of the apparent top 60 or so in the world. Looks like bookies currently have him in the top 10 for US PGA (know their prime focus is making money which can skew).
You mentioned liv rankings, seems he was 2nd in 2023.
Tricky stuff rankings. Personally I'd have him in top 15 I think.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Cam has obviously withdrawn from a LIV event this year which will have affected his ranking in those standings. He's also had a 41st on a course that he probably doesn't favour, given he was 25th there last year (Jeddah).


Be interesting to see how he goes this week, I'd expect him to be contending.

 

[Singlefiguregokfer]

But are ranking and form the same thing? That's one reason why all the ranking lists differ, different weightings recent form verses longer term.
I agree Smith's form going into the Masters was pretty poor, and I was surprised how he did there.
If you take the extreme of 1 event of form, he finished top 7 out of the apparent top 60 or so in the world. Looks like bookies currently have him in the top 10 for US PGA (know their prime focus is making money which can skew).
You mentioned liv rankings, seems he was 2nd in 2023.
Tricky stuff rankings. Personally I'd have him in top 15 I think.

Similarly Rory is having a spell of poor form. Only 1 win this season. But does that mean he isn’t world no2? I think others have been conflating rankings with form.

 

[Swango1980]

Scheffler is clear No. 1 in everyone's eyes. No problem.

But, there are about 48 golfers who have been unable to get ranking points for quite some time (or limited events to get them). Inevitably, over last couple of years when Scheffler didn't win an event, some of them would finish ahead of him and rob him of a few points. One or 2 of them may even to well enough to be in 2nd spot, ahead of McIlroy. So, the gap Scheffler has now would probably be a lot less if these golfers still competed against him regularly.

Just imagine how far ahead Woods would be if you removed 48 golfers of that era from getting ranking points, a handful of them being top golfers.

 

[wjemather]

Looking at the Clutch Tour being welcomed into the OWGR cartel and I can't help thinking why, and what's the point?
There is so little to separate players on 3rd/4th tier tours who are miles away from competing at the highest level, that the rankings can't possibly do a remotely accurate job of ordering them, so why bother? Ranking players that low just makes no sense and serves no need or purpose.
The announcement gives the impression that it's about controlling the tours. Maybe that is it. At least it would make sense.

 

[BubbaP]

Not to pollute the US Open thread.

From OWGR for 2024, field strengths to date:

Players 456
Masters 375 (not a surprise)
US PGA 484
US Open 440

Whilst watching US Open will consider if seems weaker, easier to win than the Players (albeit smallish margins)

 

[Swango1980]

Not to pollute the US Open thread.

From OWGR for 2024, field strengths to date:

Players 456
Masters 375 (not a surprise)
US PGA 484
US Open 440

Whilst watching US Open will consider if seems weaker, easier to win than the Players (albeit smallish margins)

Is the conclusion that the US Open being weaker solely based on those field strength numbers? And, if so, do those numbers take into account the presence of LIV golfers, whose ranking have plummeted, and are actually better than their ranking suggests?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Not to pollute the US Open thread.

From OWGR for 2024, field strengths to date:

Players 456
Masters 375 (not a surprise)
US PGA 484
US Open 440

Whilst watching US Open will consider if seems weaker, easier to win than the Players (albeit smallish margins)

What do those numbers mean?

 

[BubbaP]

What do those numbers mean?

That may be subjective, but here's what the website says...
‐-‐----------------
Field Rating

Every player in the Tournament Field contributes Performance Points.

The Field Rating for each Eligible Tournament is determined by the sum of Performance Points for all players in the Tournament Field. The number of Performance Points for each player is determined by that player's Strokes Gained (SG) World Rating (see below Strokes Gained World Rating).

 

[BubbaP]

Is the conclusion that the US Open being weaker solely based on those field strength numbers? And, if so, do those numbers take into account the presence of LIV golfers, whose ranking have plummeted, and are actually better than their ranking suggests?

I think that is what the numbers are meant to represent.
Your observation could be one reason.
The Open does include past winners, some AMs, and players from various tours - so could be factors also.
It has been suggested since the major changes in OWGR methodology, the regulars on PGAT may be "over ranked" - but is all subjective.
Certainly prior to 2023, the Players typically ranked 4th in field strength ahead of the Masters, but behind the other 3 majors.

 

[CountLippe]

I think that is what the numbers are meant to represent.
Your observation could be one reason.
The Open does include past winners, some AMs, and players from various tours - so could be factors also.
It has been suggested since the major changes in OWGR methodology, the regulars on PGAT may be "over ranked" - but is all subjective.
Certainly prior to 2023, the Players typically ranked 4th in field strength ahead of the Masters, but behind the other 3 majors.

Bascally it shows in which comp its hardest to make the cut!!!