Junior Rankings

[wegobomber31]

1 hour ago, LawGenius305 said:

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.

I guess we are saying the same thing. Nobody is JGS is looking at a weather report or social media reports of  aerated greens and making an upward adjustment as a result of that.  If that’s what you mean by nothing to do with it, then I agree with you. 

[LawGenius305]

22 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

I guess we are saying the same thing. Nobody is JGS is looking at a weather report or social media reports of  aerated greens and making an upward adjustment as a result of that.  If that’s what you mean by nothing to do with it, then I agree with you. 

100%. Weather "Could" be a factor, but not necessarily is. Sometimes it is decisions by the on site staff. FSGA the course could be under water and they are playing the ball down. FSGA they could know that the course is damp and getting mud balls day prior, forecast is for rain the next afternoon and still play the ball down. The morning players have less of a problem than the afternoon.

 

Not to go off on another tangent, but organizations like the USGA and affiliates that take it as a badge of honor to play the ball down in knowing conditions are idiots. It then becomes a game of luck.

[Golferdad9]

On 7/11/2025 at 10:57 AM, wegobomber31 said:

 

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."

It’s funny that this was the original reasoning because anecdotally based on my experience it absolutely does not do this. I guess it would be pretty easy to pull the data and see if adjustments are higher in Texas in March or up north in April and May vs AJGAs or AJGA invitationals. I know in Illinois kids are very reluctant to play in crappy weather months because they know the adjustment won’t come close to capturing the conditions. Frequently there are no adjustments at all for these tournaments up north. Part of this might be throwing out the top 10% of players which is what it seems he’s doing based on the podcast. A typical IJGA event has 100 kids maybe 5-10 with an extensive AJGA schedule and maybe 1-2 playing AJGA invitationals. Those 10 kids could theoretically prove how hard the course is relative to AJGA ratings but their score is being thrown out. That doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the methodology though.
IMO Mac needs to accept the wisdom of crowds a little better. If all these parents are spending tons of money traveling and inconveniencing themselves to play a national schedule because they think JGS is biased they’re probably not all fools. They’re probably correct. 

Edited July 12 by Golferdad9

[Golferdad9]

 

One way of testing everyone’s suspicions would be to have a really large field with some of the best players in the country and also players in the 300-700 range. Have them play the same course and run the strength of field adjustment algorithm on cross sections of the group. Theoretically the adjustment should be similar for the 1-30 group as it is for the 300-700 group and also similar for the entire field. After all they all just played the same course. You could probably run this experiment with the Junior Am.  What’s the adjustment look like if we look at it as if only the top 50 players were in the field? What’s the adjustment look like if only the bottom 50 players were in the field? Is it similar as the adjustment formula for the entire field? JGS could give out the adjustment formula, amateur statisticians could take various cross sections and see if they can find a bias evident. Not a statistician but I believe those sample sizes would be large enough to effectively study it. If you did it over many years you’d absolutely be able to come up with valid conclusions. 
 

It’s a tiny sample size and not nearly as apples to apples a study as the Junior Am one, but there was an AJGA Invitational and a FSGA event at the same course earlier this year. At the Taylor Made Invitational in May the Streamsong Black course had adjustments of 4,3 and 4 from a base of 74.7 (played at 7249 yards) at the FSGA State Championship on the same course a little over a month later there were adjustments of 0 and 0 (from a base of 73.4 played at 7034 yards). 

I know there are plenty of explanations for the discrepancy in adjustments and I don’t have the weather for each day. Assuming it was similar I’m sure the JGS defenders would say, “It’s not a bias in the algorithm AJGA just sets the course up much harder than FSGA.” Most of the parents I know in Florida would laugh at that. Very small sample size I know but it is interesting and might point towards these parents having a valid point. 

[Golferdad9]

For all my criticisms of JGS above I will say that a perusal of the Junior Am WAGR exemptions shows how much worse it could be. There are kids from Asia that WAGR says could crack the lineup at University of Florida while JGS says they might not crack the lineup at Benjamin. These aren’t kids with 4 tournaments over here either. One kid in particular has a WAGR ranking of 157 with a JGS ranking in the 400s LOL. Something there doesn’t add up. He has 17 JGS counting tournaments too so it’s not a case of small sample size. 

[MB19]

5 hours ago, Golferdad9 said:

For all my criticisms of JGS above I will say that a perusal of the Junior Am WAGR exemptions shows how much worse it could be. There are kids from Asia that WAGR says could crack the lineup at University of Florida while JGS says they might not crack the lineup at Benjamin. These aren’t kids with 4 tournaments over here either. One kid in particular has a WAGR ranking of 157 with a JGS ranking in the 400s LOL. Something there doesn’t add up. He has 17 JGS counting tournaments too so it’s not a case of small sample size. 

The girls lineup at Benjamin should be pretty tough this year--IJS.

[Dallas]

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.

[Golferdad9]

39 minutes ago, Dallas said:

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.

I’m sure it’s just a technical issue. JGS has been doing it for a much longer time than TUGR they’re probably just a lot better at it.  I’m sure it’s a s*** ton of manual labor it’s not exactly a super lucrative business where you can just hire folks. 

[LawGenius305]

14 hours ago, Dallas said:

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.

Pretty sure that JGS requires tournament organizers to fill out an excel spread sheet and send it to them.

[LawGenius305]

Here is what Gemini has to say about JGS and CCA

 

Here's a summary of the common criticisms and issues raised about the CCA:

• Lack of Transparency/Black Box Algorithm: Many people find the CCA to be a "black box" – they don't fully understand how it's calculated or what specific factors are given weight. This leads to confusion and distrust when adjustments are made.

• Not a True "Weather" Adjustment: Despite the name "Course Condition Adjustment," many believe it doesn't accurately reflect actual weather conditions. Instead, some speculate it's more of a "quality of field" adjustment, where scores are adjusted based on how the overall field performs relative to their expected rankings. This can penalize improving players or those in weaker fields.

• Bias Against Improving Players: There's a perception that the CCA can disadvantage players who are rapidly improving, as their lower scores might be seen as an anomaly in a weaker field, leading to a negative adjustment. Conversely, higher-ranked players having a bad day might see their scores "adjusted up" to prevent a significant drop in ranking.

• Impact on Tournament Selection: Some parents feel compelled to choose tournaments based on the potential CCA impact rather than the best competition or development opportunities for their child.

• Reliance on USGA Course Ratings: Critics point out that the JGS relies heavily on USGA course ratings, which can have human error and inconsistencies across different regions and states. The CCA then "doubles down" on these potentially flawed ratings.

• Inconsistency in Application: There are anecdotal reports of inconsistent CCA application, with similar weather or course conditions receiving different adjustments in different tournaments or even different days of the same tournament.

• Discrepancies between Boys' and Girls' Rankings: Some users have observed what they perceive as unfair or inconsistent adjustments between boys' and girls' tournaments.

In essence, the core of the frustration seems to be that the CCA doesn't feel like a fair or accurate reflection of a player's performance given the actual conditions, and it can create a sense of inequity in the ranking system.

While the Junior Golf Scoreboard aims to provide a comprehensive ranking system that accounts for various factors, the CCA specifically often sparks debate due to its perceived lack of transparency and fairness.

[golferdad8]

12 minutes ago, LawGenius305 said:

Here is what Gemini has to say about JGS and CCA

 

Here's a summary of the common criticisms and issues raised about the CCA:

• Lack of Transparency/Black Box Algorithm: Many people find the CCA to be a "black box" – they don't fully understand how it's calculated or what specific factors are given weight. This leads to confusion and distrust when adjustments are made.

• Not a True "Weather" Adjustment: Despite the name "Course Condition Adjustment," many believe it doesn't accurately reflect actual weather conditions. Instead, some speculate it's more of a "quality of field" adjustment, where scores are adjusted based on how the overall field performs relative to their expected rankings. This can penalize improving players or those in weaker fields.

• Bias Against Improving Players: There's a perception that the CCA can disadvantage players who are rapidly improving, as their lower scores might be seen as an anomaly in a weaker field, leading to a negative adjustment. Conversely, higher-ranked players having a bad day might see their scores "adjusted up" to prevent a significant drop in ranking.

• Impact on Tournament Selection: Some parents feel compelled to choose tournaments based on the potential CCA impact rather than the best competition or development opportunities for their child.

• Reliance on USGA Course Ratings: Critics point out that the JGS relies heavily on USGA course ratings, which can have human error and inconsistencies across different regions and states. The CCA then "doubles down" on these potentially flawed ratings.

• Inconsistency in Application: There are anecdotal reports of inconsistent CCA application, with similar weather or course conditions receiving different adjustments in different tournaments or even different days of the same tournament.

• Discrepancies between Boys' and Girls' Rankings: Some users have observed what they perceive as unfair or inconsistent adjustments between boys' and girls' tournaments.

In essence, the core of the frustration seems to be that the CCA doesn't feel like a fair or accurate reflection of a player's performance given the actual conditions, and it can create a sense of inequity in the ranking system.

While the Junior Golf Scoreboard aims to provide a comprehensive ranking system that accounts for various factors, the CCA specifically often sparks debate due to its perceived lack of transparency and fairness.

Gemini is pretty accurate!

Perhaps Mac/JGS need some exposure/transparency & allow people to upvote?! 

[DAnnunzio]

On 7/12/2025 at 2:46 PM, Golferdad9 said:

...

It’s a tiny sample size and not nearly as apples to apples a study as the Junior Am one, but there was an AJGA Invitational and a FSGA event at the same course earlier this year. At the Taylor Made Invitational in May the Streamsong Black course had adjustments of 4,3 and 4 from a base of 74.7 (played at 7249 yards) at the FSGA State Championship on the same course a little over a month later there were adjustments of 0 and 0 (from a base of 73.4 played at 7034 yards)... 

 

 

Exhibit A

[LawGenius305]

On 7/12/2025 at 2:46 PM, Golferdad9 said:

 

 

One way of testing everyone’s suspicions would be to have a really large field with some of the best players in the country and also players in the 300-700 range. Have them play the same course and run the strength of field adjustment algorithm on cross sections of the group. Theoretically the adjustment should be similar for the 1-30 group as it is for the 300-700 group and also similar for the entire field. After all they all just played the same course. You could probably run this experiment with the Junior Am.  What’s the adjustment look like if we look at it as if only the top 50 players were in the field? What’s the adjustment look like if only the bottom 50 players were in the field? Is it similar as the adjustment formula for the entire field? JGS could give out the adjustment formula, amateur statisticians could take various cross sections and see if they can find a bias evident. Not a statistician but I believe those sample sizes would be large enough to effectively study it. If you did it over many years you’d absolutely be able to come up with valid conclusions. 
 

It’s a tiny sample size and not nearly as apples to apples a study as the Junior Am one, but there was an AJGA Invitational and a FSGA event at the same course earlier this year. At the Taylor Made Invitational in May the Streamsong Black course had adjustments of 4,3 and 4 from a base of 74.7 (played at 7249 yards) at the FSGA State Championship on the same course a little over a month later there were adjustments of 0 and 0 (from a base of 73.4 played at 7034 yards). 

I know there are plenty of explanations for the discrepancy in adjustments and I don’t have the weather for each day. Assuming it was similar I’m sure the JGS defenders would say, “It’s not a bias in the algorithm AJGA just sets the course up much harder than FSGA.” Most of the parents I know in Florida would laugh at that. Very small sample size I know but it is interesting and might point towards these parents having a valid point. 

Streamsong Black is extremely easy. In fact, all the courses at Streamsong are. Wide open. The weather during the TM Invitational was pristine. The weather for the FSGA boy's junior was awful.

[LawGenius305]

21 hours ago, DAnnunzio said:

 

Exhibit A

There are plenty of exhibits.

Same Course Same days. Weather was brutal for the guys on day 1. Had no effect on the girls.

 

Same Course Same Day. Boys weather much better than the girl's.

 

Same Course Same Day. Wind was bad but worse for the guy on the same course.

 

Last One. Weather was slightly better for the girl's than the guy's.

 

[ATXGolferGuy]

On 7/11/2025 at 3:00 PM, LawGenius305 said:

organizations like the USGA and affiliates that take it as a badge of honor to play the ball down in knowing conditions are idiots. It then becomes a game of luck.

You mean like not being able to take a drop when your ball is in a puddle of water in the fairway during the last round of a pretty meaningful tournament after a long rain delay that dumped a ton of water on the entire course? 🤔💦

 

On 7/14/2025 at 8:20 AM, LawGenius305 said:

In essence, the core of the frustration seems to be that the CCA doesn't feel like a fair or accurate reflection of a player's performance given the actual conditions, and it can create a sense of inequity in the ranking system.

While the Junior Golf Scoreboard aims to provide a comprehensive ranking system that accounts for various factors, the CCA specifically often sparks debate due to its perceived lack of transparency and fairness.

I'd agree with that stance.  If you're a kid that is improving rapidly how do you not get screwed over if you get adjusted down? 

 

Also is it best to wait to play in tournaments that are JGS ranked or get in them as early as possible? Seems like it could be bad both ways if you don't play well right away.

[LawGenius305]

10 hours ago, ATXGolferGuy said:

 

 

Also is it best to wait to play in tournaments that are JGS ranked or get in them as early as possible? Seems like it could be bad both ways if you don't play well right away.

Catch 22. I always have been one to get them ranked as early as possible, but never talk to them about rankings. Just allow them to play. Don't even mention JGS unless they already know about it.

[Movingday]

So what would be the suggested course of action for a 2030 (13 year old) as we prepare for 2026. Live in the SE, not ready to travel the country. Are there tournaments any of you would suggest? Time to start the AJGA journey? 

[leezer99]

5 hours ago, Movingday said:

So what would be the suggested course of action for a 2030 (13 year old) as we prepare for 2026. Live in the SE, not ready to travel the country. Are there tournaments any of you would suggest? Time to start the AJGA journey? 

 

The main focus now should be on skill development, local/regional competition, and gradual exposure to national pathways like AJGA.

[DAnnunzio]

4 hours ago, leezer99 said:

 

The main focus now should be on skill development, local/regional competition, and gradual exposure to national pathways like AJGA.

 

This is spot on. I remember golferdad8 wrote one time that it's not much fun and what's the point of getting into an AJGA, then shooting 75-85 and finishing in the bottom half of the leaderboard (which then can hurt ranking)

 

Also IMHO if beginning the journey via the AJGA qualifier route, make sure the player has a great chance to actually qualify so the player can make the most of that opportunity. Gaining entry to qualifiers can become difficult after the first attempt because of the entry criteria and the large number of applications.

[leezer99]

On 7/9/2025 at 12:50 PM, 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.

 

 

I've defended TUGR on here but this is starting to happen too often. From @Robopz on X.

 

PReed missed the cut at the Open and goes up while Ryan Gerard wins the Cuda and drops 14 spots? How?

 

[golferdad8]

2 hours ago, leezer99 said:

I've defended TUGR on here but this is starting to happen too often. From @Robopz on X.

 

PReed missed the cut at the Open and goes up while Ryan Gerard wins the Cuda and drops 14 spots? How?

 

yep, soon the world will figure out that despite aggressive marketing, they are not ready for prime time - ie. emperor has no clothes. 

[leezer99]

[golfdad1]

1 hour ago, leezer99 said:

TUGR is very full of themselves.

[golferdad8]

55 minutes ago, golfdad1 said:

TUGR is very full of themselves.

 

100% agree.

As I've said, they're really good at self-promotion.
The marketing team must be former Oracle or SAP reps who promise EVERYTHING is the best...in order to get you to pay.

 

Seriously, anyone in software knows it's easy to print out some #s and claim "victory" - ask Elizabeth Holmes & the $7B that disappeared from Theranos.

 

In the past year, lots of people have complained that TUGR was missing tournaments (including amateur tournaments). Of course, TUGR wants people to PAY for their service before they reveal their data to be verified.

 

Bottom line, even if the #'s were real, it doesn't prove that the TUGR ranking works - only that it's slightly less bad than the other crappy ranking services.  

[Golfingdawg19]

11 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

 

100% agree.

As I've said, they're really good at self-promotion.
The marketing team must be former Oracle or SAP reps who promise EVERYTHING is the best...in order to get you to pay.

 

Seriously, anyone in software knows it's easy to print out some #s and claim "victory" - ask Elizabeth Holmes & the $7B that disappeared from Theranos.

 

In the past year, lots of people have complained that TUGR was missing tournaments (including amateur tournaments). Of course, TUGR wants people to PAY for their service before they reveal their data to be verified.

 

Bottom line, even if the #'s were real, it doesn't prove that the TUGR ranking works - only that it's slightly less bad than the other crappy ranking services.  

The data that TUGR gives is a lot more in depth than what you get with JGS. TUGR keeps the tournaments on your record for a longer period of time which I think is good. I also like the fact that they include the AM events, and one day qualifiers. It just gives you a better overall picture of what the kid is doing IMO. The negative is they are slow to get tournaments put in like people have pointed out. There is more good than bad IMO but they have to get better at putting in tournaments more efficiently.

[Dallas]

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.

Edited July 25 by Dallas

[wegobomber31]

45 minutes ago, Dallas said:

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.

 

Rd 2 was almost half a stroke easier at TF in Round 2 vs. Round 1.  I think what you're seeing is these hard cut-offs in full units and no more than 4 stroke upper adjustment.  Rd 1 at Brook Hollow was definitely that toughest of the week.

[LawGenius305]

14 hours ago, Dallas said:

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.

The field at TF on Day 2 was stronger or performed better. It is an easy explanation that JGS will never own up to.

[darter79]

TUGR is crap. From at times duplicating data to putting one day stuff. 18 months when the kid is 14 going back to Uskg days not apples to apples. The idea is great the way they do it is bad. The cost is absurd as well. 

[leezer99]

On 7/26/2025 at 7:11 PM, darter79 said:

TUGR is crap. From at times duplicating data to putting one day stuff. 18 months when the kid is 14 going back to Uskg days not apples to apples. The idea is great the way they do it is bad. The cost is absurd as well. 

The results are in and TUGR outperformed on expected outcomes head and shoulders above the other ranking systems.

 

Data here: 2025 us Jr Am accuracy - Google Sheets