Dallas

I find it interesting that TUGR is touting their predictive success for the U.S. Junior Am, but failed to update their rankings to include all players involved in stroke play at the Junior Am.

Boys Group: Boys All Round 1 Round 2 Yards Brook Hollow 75.5(79.5) 75.5(79.5) 7050 Trinity Forest 75.3(78.3) 75.3(76.3) 7259 Back on the topic of CCA, the above from the U.S. Junior Am clearly demonstrates the issue with JGS course adjustment. Round 1 at Brookhollow was the most difficult day for any of the players. It was windy, the course played incredibly difficult and the scores at Brookhollow were much higher that day than for Round 2 where the course played easier. Round 1 at Trinity Forest produced the lowest scores for the week and played either similarly or easier than Round 2. Nonetheless, Brookhollow was rated the same for both days while Trinity Forest was rated easier for round 2. I would love to hear the logic from JGS on these ratings because they don't make sense for anyone that was at the event.

It is probably not a correct statement to say the U.S. Junior Am has a weak field although I would agree that certain exemptions make it weaker than it otherwise might be.

Does anyone have insight why some of the rankings have such a hard time keeping up with tournaments? For example, TUGR is weeks behind with some tournaments and although they have sent a couple e-mails stating there are a lot of tournaments in the summer, be patient, it feels like if you are in the business of selling access to rankings, then you should be able to add tournaments into the database fairly quickly. On the technical side, is this an issue scraping data from the various tournament websites or do they wait for the tournaments to report scores to them? JGS seems to be fairly efficient with getting its data timely updated.