Do The World Rankings Need to be Re-Tooled?

[Browns71213]

I saw yesterday that Tiger jumped 248 spots in the world rankings for finishing 15th out of 17th in his own tournament. First all of the Hero World Challenge should hardly be called a "Tournament", rather, it was a few rich guys sailing their yachts to an island for a few days of camaraderie and a little golf. Second, for this "Silly Season" event to have that much impact on the world rankings when the majority of the tour was not invited or allowed to qualify for the event doesn't seem right. If it was a full field, in-season event and Tiger finished second from last would it have the same impact on his rankings? This is a serous question, I don't know the answer. If not, then should the way the rankings are calculated be re-tooled?

 

What say you?

[augustgolf]

World rankings will never be a true indicator of who is on top, as they will always bias in favor of top players. With the ability today to obtain meaningful "results" from raw data re: just about anything, you'd think a better "system" of ranking top players would be a result.

 

But it's all about marketing. How far down the rankings did Jason Day drop as a result of the Hero Challenge?

 

Point made

[Santiago Golf]

The low divisor should be 15 and the maximum should be 25, and if you are hurt you should fall down the ranking at set rate.

 

1-4 weeks- 5 spots

5-10 weeks- 10 spots

11-20 weeks- 25 spots

21-35 weeks- 50 spots

36-50 weeks- 75 spots

51-52 weeks- 100 spots

53+ weeks- 10 spots for every two weeks missed

[Sbrooks]

I saw yesterday that Tiger jumped 248 spots in the world rankings for finishing 15th out of 17th in his own tournament. First all of the Hero World Challenge should hardly be called a "Tournament", rather, it was a few rich guys sailing their yachts to an island for a few days of camaraderie and a little golf. Second, for this "Silly Season" event to have that much impact on the world rankings when the majority of the tour was not invited or allowed to qualify for the event doesn't seem right. If it was a full field, in-season event and Tiger finished second from last would it have the same impact on his rankings? This is a serous question, I don't know the answer. If not, then should the way the rankings are calculated be re-tooled?

 

What say you?

there was a lot of ranking points because of the caliber of players entered

[rjp322]

World rankings will never be a true indicator of who is on top, as they will always bias in favor of top players. With the ability today to obtain meaningful "results" from raw data re: just about anything, you'd think a better "system" of ranking top players would be a result.

 

But it's all about marketing. How far down the rankings did Jason Day drop as a result of the Hero Challenge?

 

Point made

 

This doesnt even make sense. Of course the better players will be on top, hence it being a ranking system.

 

The system itself is fine. It is a 2 year stretch. Maybe just relook at what events get ranking points and how many.

[Hawkeye77]

No.

[golfandfishing]

I don't think it is broke for the top players. Maybe for a very short time if someone plays great, builds a huge lead on #1 and then falls off form it takes a while for the math to catch up but it is pretty accurate top 5/10 wise. Where I see a fault is the other tours that garner points and can put a player in the top 70 or so and then they are set for a long time. Prime example that comes to mind is Ryo Ishakawa moving into the top 50 a few years ago because of his finishes in the Asian tours. Once there he was exempt into a ton of no cut, high dollar/ranking events. Simply participating got him his tour card and was enough to keep him propped up even though he never won squat. Just playing the no cut wgc events, the majors and a handpicked schedule allowed him to stay high enough to keep playing even though he wasn't winning. I would say it needs more adjustment 35-100 than anywhere else.

[Vindog]

No I don't think that ranking system needs to be re-tooled. And I especially don't think they need to be re-tooled because a player jumped 24something other players that didn't earn as many points.

 

(x points/17) > (x points/75) which is why the comparison doesn't work.

 

World rankings will never be a true indicator of who is on top, as they will always bias in favor of top players. With the ability today to obtain meaningful "results" from raw data re: just about anything, you'd think a better "system" of ranking top players would be a result.

 

But it's all about marketing. How far down the rankings did Jason Day drop as a result of the Hero Challenge?

 

Point made

 

This doesnt even make sense. Of course the better players will be on top, hence it being a ranking system.

 

The system itself is fine. It is a 2 year stretch. Maybe just relook at what events get ranking points and how many.

 

I would agree with this by and large although I can't really put a finger on which events and why. This one and the Nedbank are the obvious but from there... I dunno.

 

Quite frankly, the last 2 FedEx Cup events should get less points too, being limited fields.

[cdnglf]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

[Vindog]

I don't think it is broke for the top players. Maybe for a very short time if someone plays great, builds a huge lead on #1 and then falls off form it takes a while for the math to catch up but it is pretty accurate top 5/10 wise. Where I see a fault is the other tours that garner points and can put a player in the top 70 or so and then they are set for a long time. Prime example that comes to mind is Ryo Ishakawa moving into the top 50 a few years ago because of his finishes in the Asian tours. Once there he was exempt into a ton of no cut, high dollar/ranking events. Simply participating got him his tour card and was enough to keep him propped up even though he never won squat. Just playing the no cut wgc events, the majors and a handpicked schedule allowed him to stay high enough to keep playing even though he wasn't winning. I would say it needs more adjustment 35-100 than anywhere else.

 

While I agree that WGC favors the top players more than the OWGR system, players still get weeded out aplenty from those qualifiers. One thing that grates me about the WGC is that a player can hit a tee shot on the first hole, withdraw, and get paid with cash and points.

 

Or as the (former?) poster Playaway used to say "Look at them yo-yos..." #Playaway

[anth]

Nedbank is like a 60 man field now, so it should qualify for ranking points.

 

Hero Challenge not so much.

[nochct1]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

[cdnglf]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

 

18 players is not a field. Its a dinner party.

[nochct1]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

 

18 players is not a field. Its a dinner party.

 

You don't understand the World Ranking system do you? You are just upset that Tiger got some points.

 

But you should take some time to learn about it and then maybe you can come back and have a discussion.

[nochct1]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

 

18 players is not a field. Its a dinner party.

 

What about the old World Series of Golf. That counted as an official win on tour from 1975-1983. The field was 20 players.....

 

The old Inverness Four Ball also counted as an official Tour win back in the 50s...it was 6-8 two man team. So a total of 12-16 players. They eventually made it bigger and expanded to 30.

 

So what do you think? Should the Hero count as an official tour win? History tells us that it should probably count as an official win, and because of the field it should count for points too.

[grm24]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

 

18 players is not a field. Its a dinner party.

 

You don't understand the World Ranking system do you? You are just upset that Tiger got some points.

 

But you should take some time to learn about it and then maybe you can come back and have a discussion.

Exactly. People are complaining about what they do not understand. The OWGR.com site explains all of this well.

Tigers event only began receiving ranking points in 2009. For years prior to that when his event received no ranking points for a 16 player field the Nedbank Million Dollar event in South Africa was awarding ranking points when they had a 12 player field. The old World Match Play event on the European Tour in parts of the 1980s/1990s awarded ranking points when they had 8 players.

 

As for Tigers huge leap up the rankings please take a look at how many ranking points were on his record at number 898 in the world over the last two seasons before his event. Not many. If the world 897, 899 or 1251 played at the Hero and finished where Tiger did they would have jumped way up the ranking as well. I mean Tiger only earned 4.38 ranking points. And that gets divided across 40 events (minimum divisor) for his OWGR average. His points per event went from .1275 to .2371

 

Tigers world ranking means absolutely nothing at this time as he is exempt into every tour event except the WGCs/TOC. His ranking is irrelevant. Reason being he is lifetime PGA Tour exempt, exempt in all 4 majors for essentially life except the US Open (through 2018). I'm sure people will be shocked to find out this information.

[cdnglf]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

 

18 players is not a field. Its a dinner party.

 

You don't understand the World Ranking system do you? You are just upset that Tiger got some points.

 

But you should take some time to learn about it and then maybe you can come back and have a discussion.

 

Matsuyama beat 17 players. 16 from about the top 35 or so in the world (but not #1 or #2), and one charity case.

This is not a "strong field". Its not even a field. In case you're not aware, winning a professional golf tournament usually means beating 140-150 players; occasionally it means beating about 70 other players, although in those cases that includes nearly all the top 50 in the world. And guys who have no business being there don't get backdoor invites and free undeserved ranking points.

[cdnglf]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

 

18 players is not a field. Its a dinner party.

 

What about the old World Series of Golf. That counted as an official win on tour from 1975-1983. The field was 20 players.....

 

The old Inverness Four Ball also counted as an official Tour win back in the 50s...it was 6-8 two man team. So a total of 12-16 players. They eventually made it bigger and expanded to 30.

 

So what do you think? Should the Hero count as an official tour win? History tells us that it should probably count as an official win, and because of the field it should count for points too.

 

No, the Hero shouldn't count as an official tour win. It was dumb to have official tiny field events in the past, and its dumb now.

Its especially dumb when one of the competitors runs the event and gets special treatment.

[nochct1]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

 

18 players is not a field. Its a dinner party.

 

You don't understand the World Ranking system do you? You are just upset that Tiger got some points.

 

But you should take some time to learn about it and then maybe you can come back and have a discussion.

 

Matsuyama beat 17 players. 16 from about the top 35 or so in the world (but not #1 or #2), and one charity case.

This is not a "strong field". Its not even a field. In case you're not aware, winning a professional golf tournament usually means beating 140-150 players; occasionally it means beating about 70 other players, although in those cases that includes nearly all the top 50 in the world. And guys who have no business being there don't get backdoor invites and free undeserved ranking points.

 

According to the world ranking system, this year there 16 events that a higher world rating than the Hero. Do you think its eaier to win this event as opposed to the Japan Open which he also won? That event has an incredibly weak field. Same with his Mitsui event.

 

By your logic, more points should be given for winning an event on the Latin American Tour than winning the Hero.

 

How would you suggest changing the system? How would you alter the world and home tour ratings to make it fair? What's the approriate time period for points? Would it make sense to bring down the minimum points for events on the Aian, Japan, Sunshine tours?

 

How ou

[grm24]

Matsuyama beat 17 players. 16 from about the top 35 or so in the world (but not #1 or #2), and one charity case.

Zach Johnson was the second “charity case” that got an exemption to the Hero event. The ranking points he earned are likely more of a benefit to him than what Tiger received as it helped solidify his top 50 OWGR which is the real benefit of receiving ranking points.

[Shilgy]

^^ Agree on the small field events not counting. Hogan got credit for a 12 man field win as well as a few two man team events. Those drive me nuts and now they are adding a new one. How is a two man team event possibly an "official" win?

[cdnglf]

The weightings given to the top ranked players are too high, which overrates limited field events, like the WGCs. This isn't too big a problem, except when the formula is applied to tiny events like the Charity Points for Tiger Challenge.

 

That event is a joke. It's official status is absurd and the special exemption Tiger got is embarrassing.

 

The issue isn't the Hero. Its a very strong field. The system is screwed up when its applied to Asian Tour events. They have a very high home tour point value which boosts the total points...even though the fields are weaker than a typical web.com event.

 

18 players is not a field. Its a dinner party.

 

You don't understand the World Ranking system do you? You are just upset that Tiger got some points.

 

But you should take some time to learn about it and then maybe you can come back and have a discussion.

Exactly. People are complaining about what they do not understand. The OWGR.com site explains all of this well.

Tigers event only began receiving ranking points in 2009. For years prior to that when his event received no ranking points for a 16 player field the Nedbank Million Dollar event in South Africa was awarding ranking points when they had a 12 player field. The old World Match Play event on the European Tour in parts of the 1980s/1990s awarded ranking points when they had 8 players.

 

As for Tigers huge leap up the rankings please take a look at how many ranking points were on his record at number 898 in the world over the last two seasons before his event. Not many. If the world 897, 899 or 1251 played at the Hero and finished where Tiger did they would have jumped way up the ranking as well. I mean Tiger only earned 4.38 ranking points. And that gets divided across 40 events (minimum divisor) for his OWGR average. His points per event went from .1275 to .2371

 

Tigers world ranking means absolutely nothing at this time as he is exempt into every tour event except the WGCs/TOC. His ranking is irrelevant. Reason being he is lifetime PGA Tour exempt, exempt in all 4 majors for essentially life except the US Open (through 2018). I'm sure people will be shocked to find out this information.

 

That is not correct. Only the top 50 are (normally) eligible for the Charity for Tiger Challenge. That was a condition of the OWGR status he lobbied so hard for.

[grm24]

That is not correct. Only the top 50 are (normally) eligible for the Charity for Tiger Challenge. That was a condition of the OWGR status he lobbied so hard for.

And it was only changed after he had his personal/health issues so that the host of the event could play in it. OMG. What a sin. Again his world ranking means NOTHING in the big picture. You and others complaining about this so hard are just looking for another less than creative way to bash Tiger about anything and everything. I'm not a fan of Tiger but the lengths people go here and elsewhere to criticize him are a joke. Well done.

[cdnglf]

You don't understand the World Ranking system do you? You are just upset that Tiger got some points.

 

But you should take some time to learn about it and then maybe you can come back and have a discussion.

 

Matsuyama beat 17 players. 16 from about the top 35 or so in the world (but not #1 or #2), and one charity case.

This is not a "strong field". Its not even a field. In case you're not aware, winning a professional golf tournament usually means beating 140-150 players; occasionally it means beating about 70 other players, although in those cases that includes nearly all the top 50 in the world. And guys who have no business being there don't get backdoor invites and free undeserved ranking points.

 

According to the world ranking system, this year there 16 events that a higher world rating than the Hero. Do you think its eaier to win this event as opposed to the Japan Open which he also won? That event has an incredibly weak field. Same with his Mitsui event.

 

By your logic, more points should be given for winning an event on the Latin American Tour than winning the Hero.

 

How would you suggest changing the system? How would you alter the world and home tour ratings to make it fair? What's the approriate time period for points? Would it make sense to bring down the minimum points for events on the Aian, Japan, Sunshine tours?

 

How ou

 

As I said in my initial post, the rating values are too heavily weighted toward the top players. A consequence of this is that they overvalue the co-called "elite" limited field events and don't properly value size of field.

 

IIRC, players ranked lower than 200 contribute nothing to the ranking points for a tournament (except possibly via home tour). So theoretically, a match between #199 and 200 is worth more in the OWGR than a tournament with every player ranked #201-1000. More practically, it means that lesser full field events (eg secondary tours and even weaker pga tour events) end up with relatively low point totals because a large portion of the field counts for nothing.

 

If I was changing the system, as a start I would re-evaluate the field strength calculation and set the minimum field size at 64.

Also, I would never sanction an event run by an active competitor.

[cdnglf]

That is not correct. Only the top 50 are (normally) eligible for the Charity for Tiger Challenge. That was a condition of the OWGR status he lobbied so hard for.

And it was only changed after he had his personal/health issues so that the host of the event could play in it. OMG. What a sin. Again his world ranking means NOTHING in the big picture. You and others complaining about this so hard are just looking for another less than creative way to bash Tiger about anything and everything. I'm not a fan of Tiger but the lengths people go here and elsewhere to criticize him are a joke. Well done.

 

It means a lot in the big picture. Nearly half his old schedule was events that he is no longer automatically eligible for.

 

If he's not in the top 50 (more or less), he doesn't get to play in the WGCs.

WGCs are easy points events; playing them helps you get into/go further in the Fedex playoffs. (And from what I understand, get into that new event in Korea.)

He only has a couple more years of exemptions into the US Open, and (I think) the Players. The USGA will probably give him a pass for a year or two, but no doubt he'd prefer to get in on his own.

 

He has earned exemptions into the majors and the tour, and is entirely deserving of those.

But it is shameful how he lobbied to get OWGR status for his event and then when he couldn't meet the criteria he got the rules changed just for him.

[nochct1]

You don't understand the World Ranking system do you? You are just upset that Tiger got some points.

 

But you should take some time to learn about it and then maybe you can come back and have a discussion.

 

Matsuyama beat 17 players. 16 from about the top 35 or so in the world (but not #1 or #2), and one charity case.

This is not a "strong field". Its not even a field. In case you're not aware, winning a professional golf tournament usually means beating 140-150 players; occasionally it means beating about 70 other players, although in those cases that includes nearly all the top 50 in the world. And guys who have no business being there don't get backdoor invites and free undeserved ranking points.

 

According to the world ranking system, this year there 16 events that a higher world rating than the Hero. Do you think its eaier to win this event as opposed to the Japan Open which he also won? That event has an incredibly weak field. Same with his Mitsui event.

 

By your logic, more points should be given for winning an event on the Latin American Tour than winning the Hero.

 

How would you suggest changing the system? How would you alter the world and home tour ratings to make it fair? What's the approriate time period for points? Would it make sense to bring down the minimum points for events on the Aian, Japan, Sunshine tours?

 

How ou

 

As I said in my initial post, the rating values are too heavily weighted toward the top players. A consequence of this is that they overvalue the co-called "elite" limited field events and don't properly value size of field.

 

IIRC, players ranked lower than 200 contribute nothing to the ranking points for a tournament (except possibly via home tour). So theoretically, a match between #199 and 200 is worth more in the OWGR than a tournament with every player ranked #201-1000. More practically, it means that lesser full field events (eg secondary tours and even weaker pga tour events) end up with relatively low point totals because a large portion of the field counts for nothing.

 

If I was changing the system, as a start I would re-evaluate the field strength calculation and set the minimum field size at 64.

Also, I would never sanction an event run by an active competitor.

 

Do you think they should have allowed The Memorial and Bay Hill to award World Golf Ranking points while Jack and Arnie were still active? Or is it just events with Tiger as host that you have an issue with?

 

As for the rankings, the secondary events tend to get a boost from the home tour rating. The Australian PGA has a very very weak field, but because the top players from that tour are in the field, it gets a boost. Same thing happens in Asia Tour and Japan Tour events. They have very low world ratings, but high home tour. If someone really wants to get points, they can go play in those events. Its a weak field that will give out points.

[indiangolfer]

Tiger effectively has the most wins on PGA Tour if you don't count small field events like Hero, team events like Inverness etc.

[KrazyTrain18]

I don't think many of the top pros give that much of a f*** about the OWGR outside of Day who seemingly finds a way to mention it in every press conference since 2015. The OWGR format is much more important to the guys who can find themselves getting in or out of tournaments depending on their rank. Obviously every player would love to be ranked #1 as a feather in the cap, but do you really think its a top priority ? Lets say player X is winning consistently in big tournaments (Dustin Johnson for example) but so is player Y (McIlroy, Day, etc..) do you think DJ sweats over not being ranked above player Y ? I'm sure there will be plenty who disagree but to me the OWGR is pointless and flawed. It seems to be a what have you done for me lately sort of deal like how Matsuyama has flown up the rankings yet Day hasn't played for months and still retains the #1 spot ?

[cdnglf]

I don't think many of the top pros give that much of a f*** about the OWGR outside of Day who seemingly finds a way to mention it in every press conference since 2015. The OWGR format is much more important to the guys who can find themselves getting in or out of tournaments depending on their rank. Obviously every player would love to be ranked #1 as a feather in the cap, but do you really think its a top priority ? Lets say player X is winning consistently in big tournaments (Dustin Johnson for example) but so is player Y (McIlroy, Day, etc..) do you think DJ sweats over not being ranked above player Y ? I'm sure there will be plenty who disagree but to me the OWGR is pointless and flawed. It seems to be a what have you done for me lately sort of deal like how Matsuyama has flown up the rankings yet Day hasn't played for months and still retains the #1 spot ?

 

The OWGR has flaws, but it obviously it isn't pointless. Being in the top 50 is a huge deal. Every pro cares about that. Different guys seem to have different opinions on how significant reaching #1 is. I don't think many care about whether they're #5 or 7 or 11 at any given time.

[cdnglf]

You don't understand the World Ranking system do you? You are just upset that Tiger got some points.

 

But you should take some time to learn about it and then maybe you can come back and have a discussion.

 

Matsuyama beat 17 players. 16 from about the top 35 or so in the world (but not #1 or #2), and one charity case.

This is not a "strong field". Its not even a field. In case you're not aware, winning a professional golf tournament usually means beating 140-150 players; occasionally it means beating about 70 other players, although in those cases that includes nearly all the top 50 in the world. And guys who have no business being there don't get backdoor invites and free undeserved ranking points.

 

According to the world ranking system, this year there 16 events that a higher world rating than the Hero. Do you think its eaier to win this event as opposed to the Japan Open which he also won? That event has an incredibly weak field. Same with his Mitsui event.

 

By your logic, more points should be given for winning an event on the Latin American Tour than winning the Hero.

 

How would you suggest changing the system? How would you alter the world and home tour ratings to make it fair? What's the approriate time period for points? Would it make sense to bring down the minimum points for events on the Aian, Japan, Sunshine tours?

 

How ou

 

As I said in my initial post, the rating values are too heavily weighted toward the top players. A consequence of this is that they overvalue the co-called "elite" limited field events and don't properly value size of field.

 

IIRC, players ranked lower than 200 contribute nothing to the ranking points for a tournament (except possibly via home tour). So theoretically, a match between #199 and 200 is worth more in the OWGR than a tournament with every player ranked #201-1000. More practically, it means that lesser full field events (eg secondary tours and even weaker pga tour events) end up with relatively low point totals because a large portion of the field counts for nothing.

 

If I was changing the system, as a start I would re-evaluate the field strength calculation and set the minimum field size at 64.

Also, I would never sanction an event run by an active competitor.

 

Do you think they should have allowed The Memorial and Bay Hill to award World Golf Ranking points while Jack and Arnie were still active? Or is it just events with Tiger as host that you have an issue with?

 

Bay Hill and Memorial were already well-established official PGA Tour events when the OWGR started, so I doubt they had a choice.

The PGA Tour's decision to give those guys events in the first place is one of many historical things in golf that seemed like a good idea at the time, but wouldn't happen today.