PGA Money List

[EDSGOLF]

I was just looking at the PGA money list and decided to find out how much $ per PGA event VJ, Els, Mickelson and Woods won. Els, Mickelson and Woods all have a higher $ per tour event than VJ. So, when looking at the money stats, it can be deceiving sometimes. I guess that is why the World Ranking exists.

[broken27]

Personally, I'd say the money list is a more accurate ranking system than the World Rankings. It at least shows who is the best THIS SEASON as opposed to some weird, overly complicated indexing system that goes back two years.

Just my opinion, but I'm sure that the money leaders are also of the opinion that it matters more to be on top of that list than the World Rankings....

Dan

[EDSGOLF]

For the top players on the money list, money is not an issue for them anymore, IMHO I would think VJ would rather be 10th on the money list and 1st in the world ranking.

[Big_duck]

You guys seem to forget it is the PGA Money list and the WORLD rankings. By your way of thinking, I guy who is number one on the European Tour all year, who wins - say the US Open and the Masters wouldn't be a very good golfer because he would be way down the money list.

[EDSGOLF]

I'm not being sarcastic BigDuck, I don't understand your comment? All I was saying is that VJ or Tiger or PHIL or Ernie, etc would rather be #1 in the WORLD than be #1 on the money list cause these guys have it made moneywise.

[broken27]

I'm not being sarcastic BigDuck, I don't understand your comment? All I was saying is that VJ or Tiger or PHIL or Ernie, etc would rather be #1 in the WORLD than be #1 on the money list cause these guys have it made moneywise.

I am sure that a few of the pros would agree with you, but I'm also sure that many of them would rather make the money than hold the ranking of #1 in the world. I have to assume that these guys are still primarily driven by money, otherwise they'd be giving all of their winnings to charity.

I would also suggest that the guys who are more interested in the #1 ranking would be guys who make most of their bucks off of endorsements.

If you think about it, there's a loose correlation between money winnings and world rankings. The more tourneys you win, the more money you win, and the higher you go in the rankings.

Either way, these guys make too much money, regardless of where they are ranked in the world...

Dan

[Weazl]

Either way the money list is irrelevant. Look how many more events Vijay plays than many other golfers! These guys have millions they don't need the cash.

Vijay, Phil, Tiger, Ernie if yuor reading this call me or write back I could use a small donation to the weazl golf & mortgage fund.

[broken27]

Either way the money list is irrelevant. Look how many more events Vijay plays than many other golfers! These guys have millions they don't need the cash.

Vijay, Phil, Tiger, Ernie if yuor reading this call me or write back I could use a small donation to the weazl golf & mortgage fund.

How is the money list irrelevant? It's the most relevant of all ratings schemes in the game! If you made more money than any of the other "professional golfers", then you win. That's how it works in business.

Dan

[Big_duck]

I'm not being sarcastic BigDuck, I don't understand your comment? All I was saying is that VJ or Tiger or PHIL or Ernie, etc would rather be #1 in the WORLD than be #1 on the money list cause these guys have it made moneywise.

You kinda stepped into my line of fire there.
:gbinstagi

[Weazl]

How is the money list irrelevant? It's the most relevant of all ratings schemes in the game! If you made more money than any of the other "professional golfers", then you win. That's how it works in business.

So what your saying is because Vijay has the most money, he wins??? Even thoug he's #3 in the world, therefore not winning and does not make the most per start! The $$$ is not the best gauge in golf.

[TheBananaSlice]

I agree with Weazl. Vijay plays in many more tournaments, including some that other "A"-list players don't even enter *cough* John Deere *cough*. I know that is Tiger, Phil and Ernie's own fault, but should we consider Vijay the best player simply becuase he beats players that struggle to keep their tour card from year to year. (again see my John Deere coughing fit)

[Andru]

I agree with Weazl. Vijay plays in many more tournaments, including some that other "A"-list players don't even enter *cough* John Deere *cough*. I know that is Tiger, Phil and Ernie's own fault, but should we consider Vijay the best player simply becuase he beats players that struggle to keep their tour card from year to year. (again see my John Deere coughing fit)

Find the tournaments that Vj and tiger play together in then do the number crunching. That will settle this debate. I think VJ comes ahead for the year 2004.

[NoBack]

Andru
Thank you

IMO the rankings should be for the year in question only. Like any other sport, the stats should be wiped out after the last tournament and restarted in the new year.

[TheBananaSlice]

Find the tournaments that Vj and tiger play together in then do the number crunching. That will settle this debate. I think VJ comes ahead for the year 2004.

If you look at it as a strict tiger versus Vj senerio, i think that tiger has finsihed ahead of Vj 10 times compared to Vj finsihing ahead 6 times.

I don't know if I agree with the idea of starting the world rankings fresh at the beginning of the year. Players who have more talent over a long strech would rank lower than players like Jonathan Kaye. Perhaps this year that system may have worked (since Ernie, Phil and Vj all won early in the year) but in years past you would have someone like John Huston as the top ranked player heading into the masters. Not to offend John Huston, but he doesn't deserve that title.

[broken27]

So what your saying is because Vijay has the most money, he wins??? Even thoug he's #3 in the world, therefore not winning and does not make the most per start! The $$$ is not the best gauge in golf.

Well, purely in the sense of being a professional "something", Vijay wins if he made the most money this season, absolutely. The PGA Money list is a clear indicator of who is the most successful golfer on the PGA tour. Pure, plain and simple.

Per start stats have nothing to do with anything. A smart man starts more events and finishes top-10 a lot. That's how to prosper at being a professional "anything". Isn't it?

Dan

[Andru]

If you look at it as a strict tiger versus Vj senerio, i think that tiger has finsihed ahead of Vj 10 times compared to Vj finsihing ahead 6 times.

I don't know if I agree with the idea of starting the world rankings fresh at the beginning of the year. Players who have more talent over a long strech would rank lower than players like Jonathan Kaye. Perhaps this year that system may have worked (since Ernie, Phil and Vj all won early in the year) but in years past you would have someone like John Huston as the top ranked player heading into the masters. Not to offend John Huston, but he doesn't deserve that title.

I don't believe I said the world rankings should be based on a one year cycle.

[Andru]

Well, purely in the sense of being a professional "something", Vijay wins if he made the most money this season, absolutely. The PGA Money list is a clear indicator of who is the most successful golfer on the PGA tour. Pure, plain and simple.

Per start stats have nothing to do with anything. A smart man starts more events and finishes top-10 a lot. That's how to prosper at being a professional "anything". Isn't it?

Dan

Not really dan. That would be like Nebraska playing two more games in a year against division 2 schools. Then claiming to be number one because they have two more wins.

If you want to compare players you'll have to consider all of the variables.

Tournaments have different size purses. If all purses were equal then you may be able to make the argument. They are not. Though tournaments are worth the same in terms of exemption status. The money earned for one win can be very different. Most of the time a larger purse equals a stronger field. Sometimes it does not.

If all the vairables were static.( players, purses, number of events ) Then the money list would be a perfect gauge.

[broken27]

Not really dan. That would be like Nebraska playing two more games in a year against division 2 schools. Then claiming to be number one because they have two more wins.

If you want to compare players you'll have to consider all of the variables.

Tournaments have different size purses. If all purses were equal then you may be able to make the argument. They are not. Though tournaments are worth the same in terms of exemption status. The money earned for one win can be very different. Most of the time a larger purse equals a stronger field. Sometimes it does not.

If all the vairables were static.( players, purses, number of events ) Then the money list would be a perfect gauge.

At the end of the day, the guy with the most money wins. The world rankings add to it by fueling endorsement deal etc, but really to get a sense of who won the PGA season, you must look to the money list.

Beyond who made the most money, being in th PGA at all will affirm to talent level. To me, it's that simple.

You are all free to have your own opinions, so please don't feel compelled to confront me directly....lol......

Dan

[Kilroy]

Purses vary widely. Not all players have access to the events with the biggest purses. It gives the milionaires the oportunity to increase their portfolios while the lesser players watch from home. Anyone who gets int those events, and plays way more than the 15 round minimum, will win the monety tite (Vijay) while others play as wel over less events. The money list is so top heavy it is probably the worst thing to use to rank who is the best player.

The 12 best US and 12 beast Euros will be battling it out for no money. I guess that that will be just a huge waste of time since there can be no winner of the almighty bucks??!!??

The world ranking system seems to have the top 5 or 10 pretty well pegged. There just happens to be a player who had a major lock on #1, is in a slump, and it's taling a while to de-throne him. It seems to be as it should be to me.

[Big_duck]

At the end of the day, the guy with the most money wins. The world rankings add to it by fueling endorsement deal etc, but really to get a sense of who won the PGA season, you must look to the money list.

Beyond who made the most money, being in th PGA at all will affirm to talent level. To me, it's that simple.

You are all free to have your own opinions, so please don't feel compelled to confront me directly....lol......

Dan

Like U.S. college football, you are always going to have debate when a League (tour) doesn't have a clear cut champion system. One could argue that the winner of the PGA tour is the winner of the PGA Chamionship except that this tournament doesn't take place at the end of the "season".

Do you think they have a thread like this on Ottawatennis.com?