Junior Rankings

[Dallas]

What does everyone think the rankings services--JGS, TUGR, Junior Golf Hub, etc. get right and wrong? If you could change these systems, what do you think they fail to consider, factor too much or factor too little? Are there any features these services are missing that you think should be included or any that you think they should eliminate?

[LawGenius305]

Man, will this ever be fun. Everyone's complaint in one thread.

 

TUGR and Junior Golf Hub are irrelevant.

 

Junior Golf Scoreboard is awful. They have some things right, but more things wrong than right. CCA has been a failure that the owner refuses to ditch.

Edited July 8 by LawGenius305

[golferdad8]

1 hour ago, LawGenius305 said:

 

TUGR and Junior Golf Hub are irrelevant.

 

Junior Golf Scoreboard is awful. They have some things right, but more things wrong than right. CCA has been a failure that the owner refuses to ditch.

Amen to your comments!

 

The best way to find out what is relevant and important is to talk with coaches of schools that you and your child are interested in.
 

Many coaches have different metrics that are important to them from the experience, including whether the kid comes from a good family or has good grades (or can donate $).
 

Also, if your kid is good enough to compete and win, I think that will get their attention - regardless of ranking. Just keep getting better, and try to play against strong competitors for 1/3 to 1/2 of the tournaments. Even if it means playing in amateurs against college kids and semi pros, do it as there’s no downside to those rounds and your kid will have a chance to impress coaches if can get a top five finish. 

[MahalNeneng]

JGS is only fairly accurate up to -1.5-2 after that it gets less driven by “skill” if u can even say that and more driven by field strength and whatever fantastical rating is attached to the day. In the short window that these numbers mean something 14-18 it can take a year or more for bad performances to fall off and “current” skill level to be portrayed. 
 

not sure that there is a fix, wagr and pro rankings have the same issues. 

there is no accurate way to compare fields from different tournaments. It is what is used and i think the more insightful coaches know how to grab from that list. 

[jda]

Not sure what service that these actually provide.

 

If somebody wanted to improve them, then watch a kid for an hour either in person or on film like they do for football and basketball.  While still not perfect, they are better than golf rankings.

[leezer99]

41 minutes ago, jda said:

Not sure what service that these actually provide.

 

If somebody wanted to improve them, then watch a kid for an hour either in person or on film like they do for football and basketball.  While still not perfect, they are better than golf rankings.

I’ve seen lots of good swings that produce 85’s and lots of awful swings that produce 64’s. 

[Tugu]

23 hours ago, Dallas said:

What does everyone think the rankings services--JGS, TUGR, Junior Golf Hub, etc. get right and wrong? If you could change these systems, what do you think they fail to consider, factor too much or factor too little? Are there any features these services are missing that you think should be included or any that you think they should eliminate?

🍿🍿🍿

[Golfingdawg19]

I don’t know how the sites calculate their rankings. What I do know is that TUGR keeps scores on for longer than JGS. TUGR also includes AM events and qualifiers into their calculations. So I personally think TUGR is better in the since that they look at all the scores and not just a few. The problem with TUGR is that it takes them longer to get stuff in their system and updated. 

[wegobomber31]

I think TUGR is probably the best of the bunch currently, but JGS is deeply entrenched.  I hadn't really looked at Junior Golf Hub but it looks like it's just average score minus course rating, if you want to know essentially what JGS would look like if it took 100% of scores instead of 75% and didn't have a CCA.  I believe the rankings are better with a CCA than without.  TUGR effectively has a CCA too but it just shows up in the head-to-head comparisons.  

What bothers me about TUGR is they will chirp about having more coverage -- look at us, we have all these 18-hole qualifiers.  That probably is valuable information, but if you're going to do it, go all-in.  They post something list this:
 

 

this is great, but then you don't follow-up to include Miles's qualifier round the next Monday, or the other qualifiers he or others did later than spring.  You can't just cherry pick when a guy shoots 65.  It's not like the KFT and PGA pre-quals and open qualifiers aren't a finite, manageable list of tournaments.  Either do them or all or don't them at all.

All that said, I think the holy grail would be a relative ranking across pro's, am's and junior's, then you filter the list to your purposes.  Given TUGR seems very willing to keep improving their insights and they have two legs of the three already, I expected they would be the most likely to fill the missing piece of the puzzle.

 

 

Edited July 9 by wegobomber31

[golferdad8]

15 minutes ago, Golfingdawg19 said:

I don’t know how the sites calculate their rankings. What I do know is that TUGR keeps scores on for longer than JGS. TUGR also includes AM events and qualifiers into their calculations. So I personally think TUGR is better in the since that they look at all the scores and not just a few. The problem with TUGR is that it takes them longer to get stuff in their system and updated. 

most people don’t use TUGR & are not convinced it’s better than - thus most golfers don’t subscribe or use it. 
 

ps. For those old enough to remember, VHS’s popularly beat Betamax despite being an inferior system. 

[Golfingdawg19]

In talking to many of these coaches over the summer, more of them like TUGR more than you think. 

[ATXGolferGuy]

53 minutes ago, golferdad8 said:

ps. For those old enough to remember, VHS’s popularly beat Betamax despite being an inferior system. 

The Difference Between VHS and Betamax Tapes and How VHS Became the Ho – Capture  

 

It would seem that a system that doesn't have 1/4 of it's "ranking" calculation based on some arbitrary CCA would be best but who knows. 

Even the PGA Tour can't figure out the best way to determine a season long champion.

On 7/8/2025 at 4:13 PM, golferdad8 said:

Also, if your kid is good enough to compete and win, I think that will get their attention - regardless of ranking. Just keep getting better, and try to play against strong competitors for 1/3 to 1/2 of the tournaments. Even if it means playing in amateurs against college kids and semi pros, do it as there’s no downside to those rounds and your kid will have a chance to impress coaches if can get a top five finish.

I think this is excellent advice.  If you're finishing high up the leaderboard in bigger tournaments consistently, you'll get noticed. 

[jda]

4 hours ago, leezer99 said:

I’ve seen lots of good swings that produce 85’s and lots of awful swings that produce 64’s. 

 

This makes my point.  Either of those might be better than the other in certain situations.  You can watch and evaluate a round in 10-15 minutes on tape.  Watch 4-6 rounds and see which you have and then rank them.  Unfortunately, you have to watch the rest of the field to see how the kid actually did.  I know that this will never happen mostly with a lack of tape, but it would be better if it would.

[MahalNeneng]

Not bad either we recorded juat a few tournaments over the years…

[Dallas]

While recording individual swings and following every junior golfer in the country might be the best way to evaluate talent, that is not really realistic for a ranking service so going back to the original question, what would make the ranking services better? Some specific questions that I have are:

 

1. Is the one year used by JGS or 18 months used by TUGR too long, too short, or just right? I think one year is a better representation of where someone is at, but more specifically, I think there should be a way to view the last six months to see where things are trending since there are big fluctuations in performance over the course of 12 to 18 months.

 

2. Is TUGR taking the correct approach including one day events? I don't think all one day events are created equal and find a big difference between certain qualifiers and lower tier local events so I personally think a mix of those events might be a better approach.

 

3. Is the issue with CCA that it is completely arbitrary or is the thought that course rankings should never be adjusted. In large parts of the country, there is a big difference in playing conditions in February versus August. I think there should be some adjustment, but that it needs to be tethered to the average change in performance among the members of a field. The arbitrary way it is done on JGS doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

4. Should strength of field play in the calculation or should there be a comparison along the lines of TUGR's ranking system? I think this should be taken into account to some degree, but am not convinced the way it is done by JGS / TUGR is the best option. For example, one poor performance in TUGR's system in a large field event can absolutely kill a players ranking for a long time even though that one event may have been an outlier in performance over the past 18 months.

 

How do others think these metrics can be improved and what additional factors should be considered? I think the question is, if a new system is designed, what features should be baked into the system to make it reliable for players and coaches?

 

 

[leezer99]

14 minutes ago, Dallas said:

While recording individual swings and following every junior golfer in the country might be the best way to evaluate talent, that is not really realistic for a ranking service so going back to the original question, what would make the ranking services better? Some specific questions that I have are:

 

1. Is the one year used by JGS or 18 months used by TUGR too long, too short, or just right? I think one year is a better representation of where someone is at, but more specifically, I think there should be a way to view the last six months to see where things are trending since there are big fluctuations in performance over the course of 12 to 18 months.

 

2. Is TUGR taking the correct approach including one day events? I don't think all one day events are created equal and find a big difference between certain qualifiers and lower tier local events so I personally think a mix of those events might be a better approach.

 

3. Is the issue with CCA that it is completely arbitrary or is the thought that course rankings should never be adjusted. In large parts of the country, there is a big difference in playing conditions in February versus August. I think there should be some adjustment, but that it needs to be tethered to the average change in performance among the members of a field. The arbitrary way it is done on JGS doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

4. Should strength of field play in the calculation or should there be a comparison along the lines of TUGR's ranking system? I think this should be taken into account to some degree, but am not convinced the way it is done by JGS / TUGR is the best option. For example, one poor performance in TUGR's system in a large field event can absolutely kill a players ranking for a long time even though that one event may have been an outlier in performance over the past 18 months.

 

How do others think these metrics can be improved and what additional factors should be considered? I think the question is, if a new system is designed, what features should be baked into the system to make it reliable for players and coaches?

 

 

This is a great set of questions and a conversation that definitely needs to happen if the goal is to make junior golf rankings more reflective of current performance and true potential. Here are a few thoughts on each point:

1. Ranking Timeframe (JGS: 1 year vs. TUGR: 18 months):
I agree that one year is a better snapshot of current ability, especially in a developmental sport like junior golf where players can make big strides or regress in a matter of months. That said, having a rolling six-month performance trend as an additional view would be incredibly helpful, almost like a “form tracker.” This could help coaches identify who's peaking and who might be in a slump. A 6-, 12-, and 18-month filter would give a fuller picture and allow users to tailor the data to their needs.

2. Inclusion of One-Day Events:
This is tricky. I don’t think one-day events should be excluded, but they definitely shouldn’t be weighted the same as multi-day or national-level events. A possible improvement would be to tier the one-day events based on field strength and event type (such as local, qualifier, or elite regional), and apply different weightings accordingly. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step toward making the data more meaningful.

3. Course Condition Adjustments (CCA):
You make a great point that course difficulty does fluctuate seasonally and regionally. The issue with JGS is the lack of transparency and the appearance that adjustments are arbitrary. A better approach would be to base any course rating changes on empirical performance data, possibly by analyzing how players with similar scoring averages perform across time on those courses. Consistency and openness would help build more trust in the system.

4. Strength of Field (SOF):
Strength of field should absolutely be part of any credible ranking system. However, the way TUGR handles it can sometimes be too punishing. One poor result in a big field can stick with a player for far too long, even if it's clearly an outlier. One solution could be a decay model that reduces the weight of outlier performances over time. Another idea is to place more value on consistency rather than one-off results. A strokes gained-style analysis could help by placing scores in context.

Additional features to consider:

• Recent trends: Players who are clearly improving, such as with multiple top finishes in recent events, should have that reflected in rankings.

• Head-to-head data: This is especially useful in elite events and match play formats.

• Strokes Gained-style performance tracking: Long-term, this kind of deeper analysis is where the game is heading. Rankings that reflect not just results but how a score was shot would be far more accurate.

• Transparency and communication: Players, parents, and coaches need to clearly understand how rankings are calculated. If a system lacks clarity, it risks losing credibility.

In the end, a reliable ranking system should take into account current form, long-term consistency, field strength, and competitive context. No system will be perfect, but there is definitely room to improve on what we have now. I’d be interested to hear what others think are the most important areas that still need work.

[LawGenius305]

18 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

I think TUGR is probably the best of the bunch currently, but JGS is deeply entrenched.  I hadn't really looked at Junior Golf Hub but it looks like it's just average score minus course rating, if you want to know essentially what JGS would look like if it took 100% of scores instead of 75% and didn't have a CCA.  I believe the rankings are better with a CCA than without.  TUGR effectively has a CCA too but it just shows up in the head-to-head comparisons.  

What bothers me about TUGR is they will chirp about having more coverage -- look at us, we have all these 18-hole qualifiers.  That probably is valuable information, but if you're going to do it, go all-in.  They post something list this:
 

 

this is great, but then you don't follow-up to include Miles's qualifier round the next Monday, or the other qualifiers he or others did later than spring.  You can't just cherry pick when a guy shoots 65.  It's not like the KFT and PGA pre-quals and open qualifiers aren't a finite, manageable list of tournaments.  Either do them or all or don't them at all.

All that said, I think the holy grail would be a relative ranking across pro's, am's and junior's, then you filter the list to your purposes.  Given TUGR seems very willing to keep improving their insights and they have two legs of the three already, I expected they would be the most likely to fill the missing piece of the puzzle.

 

 

The price tag for TUGR is ridiculous. That is one of the reasons they are irrelevant.

 

Golf Hub misses a ton of tournaments. There is no dedicated staff for them. That is why they are irrelevant.

 

Everyone uses CCA or an adjusting calculator. The problem with JGS is how it is implemented. The algorithm is beyond bad. It was even said, maybe by you, once -2 is reached the rest is just strength of field for lower numbers.

[LawGenius305]

51 minutes ago, Dallas said:

While recording individual swings and following every junior golfer in the country might be the best way to evaluate talent, that is not really realistic for a ranking service so going back to the original question, what would make the ranking services better? Some specific questions that I have are:

 

1. Is the one year used by JGS or 18 months used by TUGR too long, too short, or just right? I think one year is a better representation of where someone is at, but more specifically, I think there should be a way to view the last six months to see where things are trending since there are big fluctuations in performance over the course of 12 to 18 months.

 

2. Is TUGR taking the correct approach including one day events? I don't think all one day events are created equal and find a big difference between certain qualifiers and lower tier local events so I personally think a mix of those events might be a better approach.

 

3. Is the issue with CCA that it is completely arbitrary or is the thought that course rankings should never be adjusted. In large parts of the country, there is a big difference in playing conditions in February versus August. I think there should be some adjustment, but that it needs to be tethered to the average change in performance among the members of a field. The arbitrary way it is done on JGS doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

4. Should strength of field play in the calculation or should there be a comparison along the lines of TUGR's ranking system? I think this should be taken into account to some degree, but am not convinced the way it is done by JGS / TUGR is the best option. For example, one poor performance in TUGR's system in a large field event can absolutely kill a players ranking for a long time even though that one event may have been an outlier in performance over the past 18 months.

 

How do others think these metrics can be improved and what additional factors should be considered? I think the question is, if a new system is designed, what features should be baked into the system to make it reliable for players and coaches?

 

 

He was talking about college coaches using video to evaluate talent, not the ranking system.

 

3. CCA has nothing to do with course conditions. Others will argue otherwise, but it doesn't. CCA is a strength of field adjustment at the end of the day. If it were an adjustment for course conditions, a girl's and guy's field would have the same adjustments. Sadly, they do not have the same adjustments and much of the time the girl's will not get as big a CCA as the guy's playing the same course.

Edited July 10 by LawGenius305

[jda]

4 hours ago, Dallas said:

While recording individual swings and following every junior golfer in the country might be the best way to evaluate talent, that is not really realistic for a ranking service so going back to the original question, what would make the ranking services better?

 

I don't think that it is realistic in the current climate, but it is about the only way to make it a ton better, IMO.

 

What is out there now is just data... numbers without much context.  If somebody submitted edited rounds for each of the top players and somebody watched and evaluated them, it would be information... but it takes humans to do this.  The information would not be perfect, but better.  If it was perfect, it would be knowledge, but knowledge is mostly impossible for sports (and many other things).  Look at what PFF does for football... it is not perfect, but they watch every play for every player and grade them.

 

As long as you only have data, then you might get different data, but it will always be flawed.  Move towards information if you want to make it better.

 

It would also be OK for a ranking service who is FOR PROFIT to send 18 people to a big tournament to document each that comes through a hole... then aggregate them the next week.  The BB and FB services send people to games to look at kids.  Or, have tournaments film and put all-18 out on the web for people to see (see what I did there, like All-22 for football).

 

The criterion for evaluation will always be an issue for some, but at least it will be out there.  For example, long par 4 like 460, do you value hitting a green and 2 putt from 70 feet, or a missed green closer to the hole, close chip and a 2 foot putt?  Chip in birdie worth less than constantly hitting the ball close and making 8 footers?  These things are indicators on how kids will do moving forward and not all birdies and pars are the same, which I think that everybody knows but is not able to be seen in a score.  Not all will agree, but at least there is documented scale.

 

Information changes the game.  Different data does not.

[LOB-Dwight]

460 is driver wedge. 

[LawGenius305]

13 minutes ago, LOB-Dwight said:

460 is driver wedge. 

Agree. 460 is not a long par 4.

[jda]

It could be really long, require a non-driver tee shot or many other things.  Y'all assume too much, which is why data sucks and the current system will always lack.  Anybody care to guess how many Par 4 over 460 at Huntsville, Pekin, E Potomac or ArrowCreek for AJGA this weekend?  One.

 

Also, which wedge?  40 degree modern wedge (8 iron) or 52 degree?

 

No data is going to help you.  Need information.  Gonna have to watch and see.

 

If you all wonder why good college coaches will call and talk to good HS coaches (the few that there are,) it is to find out stuff like this.  Yes, if most kids are able to hit driver and 46/48 degree wedge and one kid is shooting similar scores hitting driver and 36 degree into the same greens, then would it not be nice to know that before you recruited them?  At some point the driver, 7 iron kid gets scooted back 30-40 yards and it out of it.

 

I can promise you that 460 is plenty long to the vast majority of boys who play golf in college, at least at first.  It might not be for the elite that many of you follow, but the other 95% are probably not hitting driver and wedge into many 460 yard holes and they still make for fine college players at their level.

 

Maybe have the ranking systems work for all levels?

[wegobomber31]

12 hours ago, LawGenius305 said:

He was talking about college coaches using video to evaluate talent, not the ranking system.

 

3. CCA has nothing to do with course conditions. Others will argue otherwise, but it doesn't. CCA is a strength of field adjustment at the end of the day. If it were an adjustment for course conditions, a girl's and guy's field would have the same adjustments. Sadly, they do not have the same adjustments and much of the time the girl's will not get as big a CCA as the guy's playing the same course.

how does the CCA vary within rounds of a tournament if it’s the same strength of field every round?

[golferdad8]

59 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

how does the CCA vary within rounds of a tournament if it’s the same strength of field every round?

It’s based on variances from what the majority of the players’ scoring differential are vs with their actual scores (taking out the high/low outliers).
 

Therefore, theoretically if all the players  shoots the same scores for each of the 3 rounds, it could be raining/cold, hailing, and/or 78 degrees & sunny/no wind, the CCA will be the same adjustments for all 3 rounds. 

[wegobomber31]

2 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

It’s based on variances from what the majority of the players’ scoring differential are vs with their actual scores (taking out the high/low outliers).
 

Therefore, theoretically if all the players  shoots the same scores for each of the 3 rounds, it could be raining/cold, hailing, and/or 78 degrees & sunny/no wind, the CCA will be the same adjustments for all 3 rounds. 

 
Also, theoretically, every player could shoot two strokes higher in Rd 2 vs. Rd 1 and the CCA could be higher in that round as a direct result of the condtions.  I agree the CCA methodology is inherently flawed, but it has to have something to do with conditions from one round vs. the next.

[Golfingdawg19]

5 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

 
Also, theoretically, every player could shoot two strokes higher in Rd 2 vs. Rd 1 and the CCA could be higher in that round as a direct result of the condtions.  I agree the CCA methodology is inherently flawed, but it has to have something to do with conditions from one round vs. the next.

When I spoke with the people at JGS they told me it had nothing to do with course conditions. Like a previous poster said, they look at what the average player in the field should shoot based on their index in JGS versus what they actually did shoot. So you could have two tournaments going on in the same town under the same conditions and one will get an adjustment and one won’t. Has nothing to do with weather conditions. I don’t like it personally but that was their explanation. 

[LawGenius305]

11 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

how does the CCA vary within rounds of a tournament if it’s the same strength of field every round?

It is based on the scores and what they should shoot based on average that strength of fields average. Has nothing to do with weather. Has to to with the strength of the field based on the average score for that strength of field across all events. That is why a girl's field and a guy's field playing the tournament on the same days will differ in CCA. Again nothing to do with weather. It could be tough pin placements, it could be faster or slower greens. It could even be the USGA rating for the course is off.

[wegobomber31]

1 hour ago, LawGenius305 said:

It is based on the scores and what they should shoot based on average that strength of fields average. Has nothing to do with weather. Has to to with the strength of the field based on the average score for that strength of field across all events. That is why a girl's field and a guy's field playing the tournament on the same days will differ in CCA. Again nothing to do with weather. It could be tough pin placements, it could be faster or slower greens. It could even be the USGA rating for the course is off.

 

I am really struggling with this logic.  guys and girls play on the same wind the same day -- "nothing" to do with CCA.  guys and girls playing on the same pins the same day -- "could" impact CCA.  guys and girls play on the same greens on the same day -- "could" impact CCA.  Anybody who has been around this game knows that wind is the biggest determinant of scoring variability from one day to the next.  How that has no impact on CCA but greens or pin positions could is beyond me.

I'd agree that the logic is flawed and it's really the methodology that makes it less likely that a girls field would get a CCA vs. boys, because of the field size and higher threshold to reach statistical significance.  And the fundamental flaw in CCA that has caused the most damage is they are comparing average scores against a Diff benchmark that is a player's 75% best rounds.  So if someone shoots 3 strokes above their DIFF, it gets attributed to the course conditions when it could be the kid just had a bad day.  That increases the chances of the CCA, thus lowering Diff, thus increases the chances of getting a CCA in the future.  Everybody points this out at the high-end, but pull this string to its limit and every event will get a 4-stroke adjustment, which is just another way of saying nobody will.

If they just threw out the worst 25% of the diff's as non-condition related or compared scores relative to a player's average Diff (and not their best 75% average), CCA would be largely fine.  I don't know why they have the statistical cut-offs and use whole numbers -- it would be just as easy to determine the most likely estimate and do it in tenths.  That is effectively what TUGR is doing but it just gets buried in the head-to-head comparisons.

 

[wegobomber31]

3 hours ago, Golfingdawg19 said:

When I spoke with the people at JGS they told me it had nothing to do with course conditions. Like a previous poster said, they look at what the average player in the field should shoot based on their index in JGS versus what they actually did shoot. So you could have two tournaments going on in the same town under the same conditions and one will get an adjustment and one won’t. Has nothing to do with weather conditions. I don’t like it personally but that was their explanation. 

 

What they are saying is they are not taking any specific consideration of the conditions or the weather -- they are just letting the scores that result from those conditions or weather dictate whether a course gets an adjustment or not.  It's not that is has nothing to do with weather.  It's just they are not doing anything above and beyond what the weather or course conditions are doing to the scores.

Mac Thayer basically said as much in a recent podcast:

"The course condition adjustment was really set up, one of the original logic was the kids who play in fall golf in October, November, early spring in Minnesota and Indiana are a disadvantage to the kids playing in Arizona, Southern California, and Florida. They just are. And so it's kind of a north of the snow line, south of the snow line, kind of first part of our thinking. But then it just became a question of, and then on top of that, even the kids in Florida. And the wind comes up at four o'clock in afternoon or three o'clock in the afternoon or during the day and it's blowing 30 miles an hour on a beautiful, you know, sunny day. the tour has set the course up really at tougher, which the AJAGA does, sets it up tougher and it's not set up according to the rating of the golf course when it was done. Pins are put in easy places, pins are put in tough places. The rough hasn't been cut for a week. know, the fairway is soggy, the fairway is rock hard and fast. I mean... And it just had to be some way to kind of even that out. And that was the motivation behind the course condition adjustment.

 

It has nothing to do with the tournament director calling me and saying, oh, it was 40 degrees and blowing at 30 miles an hour. Here's my adjustment for the day. No. Tournament directors have nothing to say about it."

[LawGenius305]

3 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

 

I am really struggling with this logic.  guys and girls play on the same wind the same day -- "nothing" to do with CCA.  guys and girls playing on the same pins the same day -- "could" impact CCA.  guys and girls play on the same greens on the same day -- "could" impact CCA.  Anybody who has been around this game knows that wind is the biggest determinant of scoring variability from one day to the next.  How that has no impact on CCA but greens or pin positions could is beyond me.

I'd agree that the logic is flawed and it's really the methodology that makes it less likely that a girls field would get a CCA vs. boys, because of the field size and higher threshold to reach statistical significance.  And the fundamental flaw in CCA that has caused the most damage is they are comparing average scores against a Diff benchmark that is a player's 75% best rounds.  So if someone shoots 3 strokes above their DIFF, it gets attributed to the course conditions when it could be the kid just had a bad day.  That increases the chances of the CCA, thus lowering Diff, thus increases the chances of getting a CCA in the future.  Everybody points this out at the high-end, but pull this string to its limit and every event will get a 4-stroke adjustment, which is just another way of saying nobody will.

If they just threw out the worst 25% of the diff's as non-condition related or compared scores relative to a player's average Diff (and not their best 75% average), CCA would be largely fine.  I don't know why they have the statistical cut-offs and use whole numbers -- it would be just as easy to determine the most likely estimate and do it in tenths.  That is effectively what TUGR is doing but it just gets buried in the head-to-head comparisons.

 

No one said it did. I said could, just like weather could. That is the point. It has nothing to do with pin placements, rain, wind, fast fairways, but it could 😄. CCA is built on the strength of field based on what that strength should shoot. The methodology they use is terrible and the implementation is even worse.

Edited July 11 by LawGenius305