World rankings??

["Richard"]

Who really cares? why do we care who is first and who is second? why don't we just play for fun? I say forget keeping score and whoever had more fun and smiled more should win!

Kidding, can someone tell me how world ranking is figured out? JB holmes didn't play one week and went up in points. He missed a cut once and also went up! How does this make sense?

[Big Johnny69]

Very complicated formula. But basically they take the events entered over the last two years and factor in strength of field, finishing position, major or not etc......

Punch in all the numbers and out pops a number and then the players are put in order.

["Richard"]

so I guess the more recent the event the more weight it is given? Also, I remember there was a point in tigers carrer were they said even if he ddin't play another event no one would take over number 1 for another 2 years. How can a guy go up if he misses the cut?

[Big Johnny69]

Other players around him in the rankings play worse. Also the number of events you play in help. Even though Vijay won 9 events a couple of years ago it still took him a long time to catch and pass Tiger. Just the way the formula works.

[fundonny]

So is the formula flawed? Do they need a new one? We need a numbers guy, maybe an actuary, to figure out a new formula. Do we know one?

["Richard"]

actuary at your service!

Maybe we can get those idiots who did the womens rankings and came up with wie at #3 and have of the players on the asian tour in the top 100 that I've never even heard of

[fundonny]

That's true, that women's ranking is the biggest farse in the history or sports rankings. I remember reading how furious the LPGA players were, and I don't blame them. I bet Nike and Omega paid for those rankings.

["Richard"]

I can handle the LPGA players being furious, they are kinda cute when they are mad but when donny gets furious it leads to a thread with 200+ posts which I have to read and then feel like I have to comment and it takes up my whole day and no studying gets done... so as long as donny isn't furious I'm fine with the rankings!

[Big Johnny69]

OK, lets can the conspiracy theories and try to keep Donny calm. You were curious as to how the rankings work, lets keep the conversation on that.

[fundonny]

Where's my blood pressure medication????? Thank a lot thotho!!!

["Richard"]

Hahaha, thats fantastic advice! Can you delete that post for me before he sees it! LOL


This is what I found

The Official World Golf Ranking, which is endorsed by the four
Major Championships and the five professional tours which make
up the International Federation of PGA Tours, is issued every
Monday, following completion of the previous week's tournaments
from around the world. This statistic is the average number of
points earned per event in the last 104 weeks. These points are
awarded based upon finish position as well as the strength of the
field. The points are initially worth double their original value and
decline gradually over this two-year period. There are 8 13-week
periods and points decline by .25x their value each period.

Anyway,

[fundonny]

Huh?

[Big Johnny69]

So based on that description you can see why it took so long to overtake Tiger. He plays in fewer events than most, but the events he enters are the big ones. Not sure if its the best way to determine rankings, but if the BCS can work so can this.

["Richard"]

Thats why vijay overtook tiger, he played more that year and the more recent year carry's more weight. So basically of

one player has a great season one year and an average season the following.. and then the other player has an average year and then a great year... the second player will get the higher ranking even though both played almost the same over two years... that doesn't make sense.

Go by top 10s, money won per tourney, wins, and things like that

[Big Johnny69]

That's not quite the point. Vijay has always played more events per season than Tiger. He just won a ton of events, but it took him that long to overtake Tiger because the year before Tiger won 3-5 events and they were big ones. Yes the current year weighs more but when you are winning majors and WGC events it gives you a large lead.

["Richard"]

I guess events played doesn't really matter then since its divided by the number events you played... in which case tiger woud have the advantage since its easier to play well in 41 tourneys over two years vs. 57 tourneys over 2 years.

[john doe]

The World Golf Rankings work like this:

points are calculated over a two year cycle. 52 weeks in a year, so 104 weeks over 2 years. Each 13 week segment is broken down and awarded points. Each event played a player may earn points.

So, suppose you get 50 points for winning the Masters, which I believe you do. While in that segment, that Masters win is worth 100 points. It scales down as follows:
50 * 2 = 100
50 * 1.75 = 87.5
50 * 1.5 = 75
.
.
.
50 * .25 = 12.5

all the way down to the point where it is worth nothing.

Then, total points are added up and the number of events played are used as a divisor. So, suppose you have 200 points and you have played 40 qualifying events, your World ranking Score is 5.

The ranking is definitely weighted to more recent success. For example, Weir was definitely one of the top players in the world in the spring of 03. By the spring of 05 he wasn't close to the player he was. The rankings reflected this because all of his success in the spring of 03 was weighted less.

IMO, if there is a flaw in the rankings, it is the divisor. Look at Singh and Tiger as examples. If Tiger played as much golf as VJ, his points would probably go down, not up. Why? Well, they both play the top 18-20 events. But VJ plays another 10 or so lesser light events where less points are available because of strength of field. Although VJ has a chance to earn additional points and he does, his divisor is much higher, making the points he earned in the top 18-20 events worth less to him than they are to Tiger. For example, suppose he earns 200 points in the top 20 events, he is earning 10 points an event. Although the field is weaker, the points are adjusted in the lesser light events making winning or top 10 finishes much less important point wise. Adding the additional 10 events makes the points earned in the top 20 events worth only 6.67 ranking points. It is complicated but everyone plays under the same system.

Tim Herron earned 54 points for winning the Colonial last week. Mickelson earned 100 points for his Masters win.

["Richard"]

yeh but he also has a greater chance of finnishing higher in those events that tiger doesn't play because its a much weaker field. Sure his divisor goes down but those other tourney should be easy points for a guy like him.

[Hank Hill]

You have to bear in mind that it is a "rolling ranking" of the last 2 years. Therefore if in 2 years time Mickelson misses the cut at the masters, the points he gained for his win would no longer count and therefore he would lose points. In the same way if you finished 46th in the US open 2 years ago and then finish 3rd this year, your ranking points will go up considerably. It is all about doing better than you did 2 years ago.

[john doe]

yeh but he also has a greater chance of finnishing higher in those events that tiger doesn't play because its a much weaker field. Sure his divisor goes down but those other tourney should be easy points for a guy like him.

Yes his odds of doing well in the weaker field events exist, no doubt about that.

But playing extra events makes each and every point earned in the higher profile events worth less. It is complicated to figure it all out. But, by and large, you'd think the system would work in such a way that people woudl try to play their way into events. But it works just hte opposite. When they are picking the top 64 in the rankings for the WGC events, alot of guys STOP playing because they don't want to increase their divisor, thereby lessening the value of points earned. The players don't like the system because of this but everyone plays under the same rules.

You can read all about it here
http://www.officialworldgolfranking....me/default.sps

IMO, the Sarazen rankings on Golfweek.com are a better ratings systems. Check those out too.