OWGR could and should be improved

[Golferpaul]

Since this is the ranking system we are stuck with, I think we should be trying to improve it.   And all ranking systems are subjective, so there is no right or wrong way to do this.

 

However, I think using the past 12 months better reflects a player's current ability.  Here is how the results would change;

 

Your yearly reminder that the Official World Golf Ranking would look a LOT different if it only went back 52 weeks | Golf News and Tour Information | GolfDigest.com

[bscinstnct]

9 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Since this is the ranking system we are stuck with, I think we should be trying to improve it.   And all ranking systems are subjective, so there is no right or wrong way to do this.

 

However, I think using the past 12 months better reflects a player's current ability.  Here is how the results would change;

 

Your yearly reminder that the Official World Golf Ranking would look a LOT different if it only went back 52 weeks | Golf News and Tour Information | GolfDigest.com

 

Lets just settle at

 

18 months ; )

 

Deal!

 

 

 

[grm24]

13 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Since this is the ranking system we are stuck with.

We aren't stuck with anything regarding the OWGR. It is massively changing starting in August 2022. Guessing like many other golf related items many people here missed this announcement earlier this year. Not surprising.

 

https://www.skysports.com/golf/news/12176/12378847/official-world-golf-ranking-owgr-announces-big-changes-to-its-ranking-system-from-2022

[mat562]

Many of them will have been busy nodding sagely and telling each other, once again, that a player can't be considered a legitimate World No.1 unless he's won a Major.

Edited December 18, 2021 by mat562

[iBanesto]

46 minutes ago, grm24 said:

We aren't stuck with anything regarding the OWGR. It is massively changing starting in August 2022. Guessing like many other golf related items many people here missed this announcement earlier this year. Not surprising.

 

https://www.skysports.com/golf/news/12176/12378847/official-world-golf-ranking-owgr-announces-big-changes-to-its-ranking-system-from-2022

 

Great news.

 

Moving in the right direction.

[80sFredriksson]

I think one year is better, I do however feel that if you are with an injury you should not drop down as quickly

Edited December 18, 2021 by 80sFredriksson

[bladehunter]

On 12/18/2021 at 4:42 AM, mat562 said:

Many of them will have been busy nodding sagely and telling each other, once again, that a player can't be considered a legitimate World No.1 unless he's won a Major.

It does kind of sour it a bit.    I mean I get it. Consistent play.  But.  If he’s never won a major.  Then , consistency doesn’t follow on the biggest stage ?  How can that be #1.  I mean in name. Sure. But. A legitimate king for the day ?  Eh…. I guess I don’t care enough on one hand. But I see the gripe on the other.  

[mat562]

Hypothetical situation:

 

A player wins ten tournaments in a year. Pretty much one tournament a month throughout the year. Let's say be bags five on the PGA Tour, including the Players, Bay Hill and Memorial; three on the European - sorry, DP World - Tour, the BMW PGA Championship, The Dunhill LInks and the season-ender in Dubai; one more  in Japan; and let's have him throw in the Australian Open for fun. He's comfortably atop the world rankings as a result. But in the majors, it's not so clear cut. 

 

He's denied the Masters by a Larry Mize-like miracle shot which results in him losing in a play-off. He gets a tummy bug on the eve of the PGA Championship and never really feels good all week, but makes the cut - as he did in every event in this hypothetical year - and ends up finishing 30th after a spirited last round 63 in tough conditions that ends up being the best score of the day by three clear strokes and has people raving about his incredible shotmaking and ability to hit shots in tough conditions like no one else can. He then posts a solid top 5 in the US Open, playing what he describes as his 'B game' and showing an uncharacteristically flat run of form with what is a normally red hot putter. He then has an average showing in the Open, finishing 25th. The championship was a windy, wet affair, had a winning score of +3, and ends up with a Steady Eddie-type player lifting the claret jug largely due to consistently solid golf and having a lucky draw on the first two days that avoided the worst of the weather. Our guy, much like Tiger Woods in 2002, got caught in the absolute worst of a storm on one of the days, and shot, along with a big chunk of the field, a score in the 80s - which pretty much hamstrung him from there on.

 

He both toasts a year which features numerous victories - now making his tally of worldwide wins twenty - but simultaneously bemoans the fact that he still remains majorless with a joke about going out for drinks with Lee Westwood and Colin Montgomerie. 'At least I made World No. 1, though, Monty!' he remarks, as a foil to his self-deprecating summary.

 

But that's the thing. At year's end, is he officially the best player in the world? Or isn't he?

 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by mat562

[iBanesto]

Just look at Luke Donald and Lee Westwood who both got to the World No. 1 position and held it for a decent length of time.

 

From 2010 to mid 2012 there wasn't anyone dominating golf and the Englishmen got there through pure consistency.

 

So they both don't deserve the credit because they were major-less?

Edited December 23, 2021 by iBanesto

[mat562]

They were both completely legitimate World Number Ones in my opinion, just as Ian Woosnam and Fred Couples were when they both hit the top spot. They both dent my argument a bit, though, owing to the fact they immediately went and won the Masters.

[iBanesto]

3 minutes ago, mat562 said:

They were both completely legitimate World Number Ones in my opinion, just as Ian Woosnam and Fred Couples were when they both hit the top spot. They both dent my argument a bit, though, owing to the fact they immediately went and won the Masters.

 

100% Donald and Westwood deserve the credit.

 

The ranking system is as is, and they got to the top. Simple.

[Ty_Webb]

I think majors are a little overrated when it comes to determining who's the best player in the world. At the end of the day, unless you're 2000 Tiger Woods, the best you can realistically do is put yourself in position to win. Then the chips fall where they may. If you finish second because you lose by 1 to a guy who gains 5 strokes putting on Sunday you're not any worse a player than someone else who wins by 1 and the other guys in the top ten do no better than 1 stroke gained putting on Sunday. 

 

If you have a player as good as Tiger who wins at a roughly 30% click, then any given week he has a roughly 30% chance of winning. Whether he wins or not is pretty similar to getting 1-11 on a roulette wheel. If you roll that ball enough times, you'll get 1-11 30%ish of the time. Then where those weeks fall is down to luck. Major win rates will typically be a little lower than other tournaments, because the field is stronger, but the point remains the same.

 

Add to that the fact that if you make winning a major a prerequisite to be world number 1, then at any point you only have 4 potential contenders if you want to limit the "lookback". Otherwise if you let one person get to number 1 because they won a tournament 4 years ago you're being highly inconsistent. So no, I don't think you have to win a major to be world number one. 

 

I do like the sound of this strokes gained adjustment. It will potentially miss more streaky players who when they're on can be tough to beat, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

I think majors are a little overrated when it comes to determining who's the best player in the world. At the end of the day, unless you're 2000 Tiger Woods, the best you can realistically do is put yourself in position to win. Then the chips fall where they may. If you finish second because you lose by 1 to a guy who gains 5 strokes putting on Sunday you're not any worse a player than someone else who wins by 1 and the other guys in the top ten do no better than 1 stroke gained putting on Sunday. 

 

If you have a player as good as Tiger who wins at a roughly 30% click, then any given week he has a roughly 30% chance of winning. Whether he wins or not is pretty similar to getting 1-11 on a roulette wheel. If you roll that ball enough times, you'll get 1-11 30%ish of the time. Then where those weeks fall is down to luck. Major win rates will typically be a little lower than other tournaments, because the field is stronger, but the point remains the same.

 

Add to that the fact that if you make winning a major a prerequisite to be world number 1, then at any point you only have 4 potential contenders if you want to limit the "lookback". Otherwise if you let one person get to number 1 because they won a tournament 4 years ago you're being highly inconsistent. So no, I don't think you have to win a major to be world number one. 

 

I do like the sound of this strokes gained adjustment. It will potentially miss more streaky players who when they're on can be tough to beat, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Eh. But on the flip side.  Would we have had tiger 2000 or Spieth 2015 , or rory 2011 With that defeatist attitude ?  I doubt it. 
 

i don’t buy Fawcetts theory that tiger just played safe and accidentally had good things happen.  He didn’t just get into contention and let the Chips fall where they may. Neither did Jack.  Neither did hogan , neither did Michael Jordan etc. those are true #1s.   
 

folks who worship analytics seem to want to setup scenarios to discourage  the   Recognition of outliers , in favor of recognizing those that play by the “ rules “ that are set out by the stats.  
 

discounting majors is a mistake in my opinion.  The biggest stage winners should get the proper due. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by bladehunter

[bscinstnct]

4 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

I think majors are a little overrated when it comes to determining who's the best player in the world. At the end of the day, unless you're 2000 Tiger Woods, the best you can realistically do is put yourself in position to win. Then the chips fall where they may. If you finish second because you lose by 1 to a guy who gains 5 strokes putting on Sunday you're not any worse a player than someone else who wins by 1 and the other guys in the top ten do no better than 1 stroke gained putting on Sunday. 

 

If you have a player as good as Tiger who wins at a roughly 30% click, then any given week he has a roughly 30% chance of winning. Whether he wins or not is pretty similar to getting 1-11 on a roulette wheel. If you roll that ball enough times, you'll get 1-11 30%ish of the time. Then where those weeks fall is down to luck. Major win rates will typically be a little lower than other tournaments, because the field is stronger, but the point remains the same.

 

Add to that the fact that if you make winning a major a prerequisite to be world number 1, then at any point you only have 4 potential contenders if you want to limit the "lookback". Otherwise if you let one person get to number 1 because they won a tournament 4 years ago you're being highly inconsistent. So no, I don't think you have to win a major to be world number one. 

 

I do like the sound of this strokes gained adjustment. It will potentially miss more streaky players who when they're on can be tough to beat, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Maybe a little overrated. But by how much?

 

The majors get 100 points to the winner.

Players Championship gets 80

Then there’s are 8 pga tour events that get 70-76 points to the winner. 
The WGC winners get around 75

 

So, maybe you could argue the majors winners shouldn’t get more than 75-80 points or so if the calculations were implemented “cut and dry”. 

 

[Ty_Webb]

22 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Maybe a little overrated. But by how much?

 

The majors get 100 points to the winner.

Players Championship gets 80

Then there’s are 8 pga tour events that get 70-76 points to the winner. 
The WGC winners get around 75

 

So, maybe you could argue the majors winners shouldn’t get more than 75-80 points or so if the calculations were implemented “cut and dry”. 

 

I think the 100 versus 80 and those others is fine. I don't think the OWGR allocations of points for tournaments are off base. I was talking more to the people who say that the world number one should have won a major to be treated as such.

[khalespace]

I agree the OWGR should be improved. Why is Dustin John at #3, he hasn't done much after that Masters win.

[iBanesto]

11 hours ago, khalespace said:

I agree the OWGR should be improved. Why is Dustin John at #3, he hasn't done much after that Masters win.

 

Well the current rankings are based on a rolling 2 year period.

 

Johnson was the leading OWGR points leader for 2020 and his 2021 wasn't the best or so horrible.

[Mr.Cleeks]

On 12/23/2021 at 8:13 AM, Ty_Webb said:

I think majors are a little overrated when it comes to determining who's the best player in the world. At the end of the day, unless you're 2000 Tiger Woods, the best you can realistically do is put yourself in position to win. Then the chips fall where they may. If you finish second because you lose by 1 to a guy who gains 5 strokes putting on Sunday you're not any worse a player than someone else who wins by 1 and the other guys in the top ten do no better than 1 stroke gained putting on Sunday. 

 

If you have a player as good as Tiger who wins at a roughly 30% click, then any given week he has a roughly 30% chance of winning. Whether he wins or not is pretty similar to getting 1-11 on a roulette wheel. If you roll that ball enough times, you'll get 1-11 30%ish of the time. Then where those weeks fall is down to luck. Major win rates will typically be a little lower than other tournaments, because the field is stronger, but the point remains the same.

 

Add to that the fact that if you make winning a major a prerequisite to be world number 1, then at any point you only have 4 potential contenders if you want to limit the "lookback". Otherwise if you let one person get to number 1 because they won a tournament 4 years ago you're being highly inconsistent. So no, I don't think you have to win a major to be world number one. 

 

I do like the sound of this strokes gained adjustment. It will potentially miss more streaky players who when they're on can be tough to beat, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I disagree with you on that.  At the end of the day these guys want to win tournaments, no one really cares about consistency that much if it doesn't result in trophies. Look at Scottie Scheffler vs Hideki. Scheffler had twice as many top 10 finishes in 2021 and earned more OWGR points over the course of the year, but I bet Scottie would trade years with Hideki in a heartbeat.

[Ty_Webb]

9 minutes ago, PHILsThemannnn said:

I disagree with you on that.  At the end of the day these guys want to win tournaments, no one really cares about consistency that much if it doesn't result in trophies. Look at Scottie Scheffler vs Hideki. Scheffler had twice as many top 10 finishes in 2021 and earned more OWGR points over the course of the year, but I bet Scottie would trade years with Hideki in a heartbeat.

No arguments from me on that one. I'm sure he would. They're in it to win and they want to win majors and that's perfectly reasonable. But who is the "better" golfer between them? Who would you back to win in a one round match up between them?

[freeze16172002]

Didnt know so many people cared about OWGR

[Mr.Cleeks]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

No arguments from me on that one. I'm sure he would. They're in it to win and they want to win majors and that's perfectly reasonable. But who is the "better" golfer between them? Who would you back to win in a one round match up between them?

It depends, if it's a singles match at a Presidents Cup I'd say that's a toss up, you can't really predict those. No one gave Scottie a chance against Rahm at the RC and he destroyed Rahm. These guys are so good that on a given day anyone can win in a matchplay scenario.

 

But let's say they were tied for the lead on the back nine at a major, I'd definitely put my money on Hideki. Not only is Hideki a proven winner on tour, he's one of the best ball-strikers in the world.

[iBanesto]

20 hours ago, PHILsThemannnn said:

It depends, if it's a singles match at a Presidents Cup I'd say that's a toss up, you can't really predict those. No one gave Scottie a chance against Rahm at the RC and he destroyed Rahm. These guys are so good that on a given day anyone can win in a matchplay scenario.

 

But let's say they were tied for the lead on the back nine at a major, I'd definitely put my money on Hideki. Not only is Hideki a proven winner on tour, he's one of the best ball-strikers in the world.

 

We shouldn't downgrade Scheffler's year though. It was a very good season even though he did not achieve a win.

 

2nd place finishes at:

• WGC Matchplay
• Hero World Challenge
• Houston Open

3rd place finishes at:

• Memorial

6 other top 10 finishes in 3 majors and another WGC event.

 

I do agree that Matsuyama's season will always "look" better with the Masters win but I don't think you can say Matsuyama played better overall in 2021, if we look at all events both played.

[Mr.Cleeks]

1 hour ago, iBanesto said:

 

We shouldn't downgrade Scheffler's year though. It was a very good season even though he did not achieve a win.

 

2nd place finishes at:

• WGC Matchplay
• Hero World Challenge
• Houston Open

3rd place finishes at:

• Memorial

6 other top 10 finishes in 3 majors and another WGC event.

 

I do agree that Matsuyama's season will always "look" better with the Masters win but I don't think you can say Matsuyama played better overall in 2021, if we look at all events both played.

That is very true. Scheffler definitely had the more consistent season.

[Shilgy]

10 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

We shouldn't downgrade Scheffler's year though. It was a very good season even though he did not achieve a win.

 

2nd place finishes at:

• WGC Matchplay
• Hero World Challenge
• Houston Open

3rd place finishes at:

• Memorial

6 other top 10 finishes in 3 majors and another WGC event.

 

I do agree that Matsuyama's season will always "look" better with the Masters win but I don't think you can say Matsuyama played better overall in 2021, if we look at all events both played.

Oops, now ya did it.  Have you not heard major wins are the only thing that matters?🙄

[iBanesto]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Oops, now ya did it.  Have you not heard major wins are the only thing that matters?🙄

 

For sure!

 

Merry Christmas to Chad Campbell and Thomas Bjorn.

 

 

 

P.S. Bjorn is still one of my favourites.