Professional Rankings

[BubbaP]

While personally not disagreeing with you, I believe there would be a much bigger outcry if winners of the Majors were not awarded more points than the other high quality full field events. Which further highlights why this is so difficult to get right.

Yep, think generally they likely still would though, The Masters might be anxious perhaps.

Expect this fixing for The Players will probably come under scrutiny in 2023 as (on current assumptions) it will be different to the majors in terms of who is allowed to play.

 

[BrianM]

I’m sure I seen a spreadsheet on how they worked out the points (On here)?
It looked more complicated than quantum physics ???

 

[doublebogey7]

The old system, I seem to remember, used the number of players in the top 100 or 200 and worked out the points based on strength of field...
So The Players would have a lot of points as it's always a very strong field...the Malta Open..not so much..
I cant remember why they changed it.....
But, as has been said, no system will be embraced by everyone but the current one needs fixing.

The current system uses strength of field only with the exception of the Majors and The Players. The old system did similar but had many more exceptions from that calculation, including some DPWT events. Nearly everyone is saying the new system needs fixing, but I have yet to hear anyone suggest how.

 

[doublebogey7]

Yep, think generally they likely still would though, The Masters might be anxious perhaps.

Expect this fixing for The Players will probably come under scrutiny in 2023 as (on current assumptions) it will be different to the majors in terms of who is allowed to play.

See your point re the Players, but it also recieved 80 points in the old system. So can only see a change happening if the OWGR grants points for LiV events, and there will need to be significant changes to LiV before that happens in my view.

 

[Barking_Mad]

In fairness, Cam is still sitting in 3rd, even though he hasn't hardly played - for me, that's not right. Nor is Rory sitting at the top of the rankings, while he's not playing while Rahm is tearing it up everywhere he plays.

But when Rahm had a relatively bad run, Rory was playing out of his skin and accumulated lots of points to give him an advantage, meaning now he's not playing Rahm is making up ground, but not jumping to the top of the rankings.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Also fwiw. Finishing positions for majors in 2022.

 

[Imurg]

What a lot of people forget is that, no matter how they work out the points per event, the ranking is still based on an of average points gained over the previous 2 years .
If you've played more events you need to have accumulated more points than someone whomhas played fewer, assuming they've played 40 or more as that is the minimum divisor.
Getting lots of points in lots of events won't, necessarily, get you to #1.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I think if you're going to say "It's not fair" we need to see your figures as to why the maths is wrong. There's an argument to say other tours should be given a helping hand with inflationary points to help balance out the calculations, but it's still pososbile for players to get high up the rankings, see Ryan Fox who is ranked 28th despite 12 missed cuts and a withdrawl in those last 47 counting scores.

 

[cleveland52]

But when Rahm had a relatively bad run, Rory was playing out of his skin and accumulated lots of points to give him an advantage, meaning now he's not playing Rahm is making up ground, but not jumping to the top of the rankings.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Also fwiw. Finishing positions for majors in 2022.

View attachment 46111

Rahm is a victim of the moment. He, along with his fans seem to conveniently forget about these moments in time. The new system is about the math and emotions are taken out of the equation.

 

[cleveland52]

What a lot of people forget is that, no matter how they work out the points per event, the ranking is still based on an of average points gained over the previous 2 years .
If you've played more events you need to have accumulated more points than someone whomhas played fewer, assuming they've played 40 or more as that is the minimum divisor.
Getting lots of points in lots of events won't, necessarily, get you to #1.

Absolutely, hence the rolling two-year period.

 

[Mel Smooth]

OWGR and Datagolf rankings now updated from the weekend.

Which is more accurate?

 

[TheDiablo]

OWGR and Datagolf rankings now updated from the weekend.

Which is more accurate?

I'd say neither is particularly accurate.

DataGolf falls short in a couple of areas. It doesn't place enough emphasis or kudos to actually winning (which is what sport is about). You can't convince me a guy who hasnt won in 5 years is a Top 20 player, or a guy playing his first PGAT season being higher than a 3 time PGAT winner last season. Nor does it do any kind of job accurately weighting events. If the exact same field that played the US Open rock up the following week at the Wyndham, it cant differentiate between them even though every player, fan, sponsor and broadcaster does. It also shows too much recency bias - it's more of a form table than a ranking.

OWGR should have backdated the points when it made big changes last year. And it needs to find a way of including Liv, who probably have 3x Top 20 and another 3 or 4 Top 50.

Also, why are people in such a rush to have positions change hands so quickly? IMO the rankings should be over a sustained period of form, 2 years with the weighting seems about right. I've no interest in who is the best over the last 2 months, especially before the season has even got going yet. In this world, Rory + LIV would have dropped out altogether!! Rahm is behind Rory and Scheffler because of how they performed on the big stages over a long period, not the last 6 weeks. I think he should be behind Smith too. Look at the FedEx rankings if you want short-termism.

 

[Imurg]

Neither..

I thought DJ was a Top 5 player.....

 

[doublebogey7]

OWGR and Datagolf rankings now updated from the weekend.

Which is more accurate?

I am pretty sure they will both be accurate, but they are each measuring different things so will not be the same.

 

[BubbaP]

Another list...

https://www.si.com/golf/news/si-world-golf-rankings-jon-rahm-is-no-1-on-our-debut-top-100-list

 

[BubbaP]

Like buses at the moment!

https://tugr.org/rankings

 

[BubbaP]

This week is the first Masters since last summer's altering of the owgr field rating calcs.

2023 Masters Field Rating = 342

For comparison


Not sure how to feel about that


Conversely the winner of the Masters will receive 100 points, which is more than each of those other tournaments with higher field ratings

Feels a little bit of a mess...

 

[Deleted member 15717]

This week is the first Masters since last summer's altering of the owgr field rating calcs.

2023 Masters Field Rating = 342

For comparison
View attachment 47243

Not sure how to feel about that


Conversely the winner of the Masters will receive 100 points, which is more than each of those other tournaments with higher field ratings

Feels a little bit of a mess...

you have about 60 less players as a start. Sure, all the players are the best in the world, but you also have players from Asia etc who won’t be high in the OWGR. You have the LIV guys who are lower in the OWGR…and they’ll bring the SoF rating down a bit

 

[IJames]

you have about 60 less players as a start. Sure, all the players are the best in the world, but you also have players from Asia etc who won’t be high in the OWGR. You have the LIV guys who are lower in the OWGR…and they’ll bring the SoF rating down a bit

Not all are 'the best'! Half a dozen of those, such as Sandy Lyle, have no hope of wiinning, simply being invited as (long ago) past winners! Add to them the 7 Amateur invites who are unlikely to contend - the highest ranked of whom, and only one below 1000, is #504 - and that reduces the effective field significantly!

 

[Mel Smooth]

This week is the first Masters since last summer's altering of the owgr field rating calcs.

2023 Masters Field Rating = 342

For comparison
View attachment 47243

Not sure how to feel about that


Conversely the winner of the Masters will receive 100 points, which is more than each of those other tournaments with higher field ratings

Feels a little bit of a mess...

I'm not sure it's a 'mess', it's definitely inaccurate - you can't have a ranking system that supposedly uses mathematics and specific parameters, that then just throws in an arbitrary number for The Masters - just because....
The Masters is easier to win, there is less competition, and so in an accurate World Golf Ranking system, that would be reflected in the total points awarded to the winner.

 

[Deleted member 15717]

Not all are 'the best'! Half a dozen of those, such as Sandy Lyle, have no hope of wiinning, simply being invited as (long ago) past winners! Add to them the 7 Amateur invites who are unlikely to contend - the highest ranked of whom, and only one below 1000, is #504 - and that reduces the effective field significantly!

If you’d have kept reading my comment, you may have seen how I called out reasons. sorry for not calling out Sandy Lyle specifically though