Do The World Rankings Need to be Re-Tooled?

[Hawkeye77]

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

 

He's probably the leader in the category of "most non-team wins with fields > 25". Not sure he'd lead the "fields > 90" category though.

 

Of course he does, who do you think has more?

 

Jack, although I'm not certain. WGC fields are < 90, and as you may have heard Tiger has a lot of those.

 

Never heard that. ?

 

Jack won a bunch of invitationals in the 60s, WSOGs, all his Masters were under 90 - so would be interesting to have your size of field numbers for Jack. He did win a greater variety than Tiger for sure.

[Shilgy]

 

I figured they'd be pretty close. Tiger also has a couple Mercedes, a couple tour championships and I think he won the third Fedex event once.

Like I said-pretty much a dead heat. Without spending too much time on it (a guy does have to work!) I found the Jack wins I noted. I am guessing a few of the other wins were shorter fields as well but did not take the time to dig deep into the dark edges of the internet. :)

[North Butte]

I wonder how many points Phil gets for some of his money games out in Arizona during the offseason?

[taporsnap17]

Never going to have a perfect system. Just take it for what it is.

[hogans71]

I wonder how many points Phil gets for some of his money games out in Arizona during the offseason?

 

Hell of lot more pressure. Least they're putting up their own dough...

[EKELLY]

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.

Didn't the World series used to come with a 10 year exemption, I believe?........That was ridiculous......

[cdnglf]

This has been an enlightening discussion because I knew nothing about the workings of the OWGR, so thanks for the insight! My reason for posting this was not to Tiger bash, while I am not a fan, I don't dislike the guy either. Rather it was the point values awarded to a golfer who finished at the bottom of what was essentially a clambake, with a limited field. I get that it was a strong field, but still many in the top 20 were not there and they lose out on those points, whether they care or not, I agree with many of you they probably don't care. Also, some of those in the top 20 would never play in this event due to their relationship, or lack there of, with Tiger. Insert Sergio Garcia here. However it still seems to me that a limited event field should not carry that many points, when the other 150 golfers on the bubble could use those points for their livelihood, but do not have the chance to compete for them. To me, and this is just one terrible golfer's opinion, these silly events can have a few points available, but devalue them greatly compared to full-field events, regardless of that caliber of players in the event.

 

Pretty sure Sergio has played in Tiger's event before ... efforting now...

 

 

EDIT. Sergio played in Tiger's event in 2000 and finished 3rd.

 

 

EDIT2: It appears that Sergio never played in the old Nedbank limited field cash grab which used to run opposite of Tiger's event, so I surmise that his absence from Tiger's event since 2000 has a heck of a lot more to do with his schedule (no December golf period) than anything else.

 

Without looking it up, I strongly suspect that Tiger's event "invites" players based on the world rankings, and just goes down the list until the field is complete .... rather than Tiger personally inviting his "buddies" as some haves stated.

 

Some guys just don't play in December. It is their offseason/vacation.

 

 

EDIT3: To those who seem butthurt about Tiger moving from 899 to 650 or whatever ... who cares. It doesn't matter jack squat. The rankings after 200 are meaningless anyway. It does not matter. Tiger will either be healthy for a full season, in which case he very likely wins somewhere ... or his back will get hurt again and he will retire. I don't see many other likely outcomes.

 

 

Re EDIT2: The pattern does seem to be as you say, but with a couple of exceptions.

 

Prior to the event getting OWGR status, the sponsor exemptions could be anyone and Tiger often invited Freddie Couples (and I think Notah Begay, although my memory is fuzzier on that). When it got OWGR status in 2009, one of the conditions was that the sponsor exemptions had to be from the top 50. Presumably this was to prevent some rando Tiger buddy from having a hot week and zooming up the rankings.

 

In 2012 (edit: actually 2011), Tiger was just inside the top 50 at the field cutoff date and got one of the sponsor exemptions for the tournament. It was impossible to confirm, but it sure looked a lot like a few guys just ahead of him in the OWGR (Ryan Moore was one, IIRC) got passed over - in other words, Tiger the host gave preferential treatment to Tiger the competitor. Of course he won the tournament, which got him back into the top 50, which got him back into the early season WGCs, and he went on to have an outstanding, PoTY season in 2013. The number of points he got for that win rankled quite a few players, and the OWGR subsequently decided not to include home points in the event's calculation. Which was a lame half measure that didn't really fix the problem. Tiger Charity Challenge OWGR points are still the easiest in golf by a mile.

[Shilgy]

So... Per your report in 2012 Tiger was already inside the top 50 and won which got him back into the top 50?? I think you need to rephrase that. If Begay competed he was likely in the top 50 as well at the time not that it was a requirement at the time. He did win 4 times on tour. Sponsors exemptions are for a good reason. They help the sponsor. :) Of course as you noted at the time it does not matter as without the points there was no top 50 requirement. If in this year's event a Furyk or Zack Johnson got a sponsors exemption over a Ikeda would you have complained?

Speaking of owgr when did Noren crack the top 10? Now that was under the radar. :)

[bscinstnct]

Patrick Reed will be #1 soon.

 

Tellin ya.

[cdnglf]

So... Per your report in 2012 Tiger was already inside the top 50 and won which got him back into the top 50?? I think you need to rephrase that. If Begay competed he was likely in the top 50 as well at the time not that it was a requirement at the time. He did win 4 times on tour. Sponsors exemptions are for a good reason. They help the sponsor. :) Of course as you noted at the time it does not matter as without the points there was no top 50 requirement. If in this year's event a Furyk or Zack Johnson got a sponsors exemption over a Ikeda would you have complained?

Speaking of owgr when did Noren crack the top 10? Now that was under the radar. :)

 

I had the year wrong. It was actually 2011.

 

Anyway, IIRC he was just inside the top 50 at the field deadline, which is several weeks before the tournament.

He had fallen out of the top 50 by the time the tournament started.

 

There was a top 50 requirement at time, and technically he met it - but it sure looked like he jumped the queue, so to speak.

Again, looks bad when the guy running the tournament is also the guy getting the special treatment. If he gave his buddy Furyksy a pass that would also be cheesy.

 

Probably wouldn't be a problem is this wasn't the easiest week of the year to get OWGR points. Just show up, and you get points. Beat just a handful of guys, and you get a lot of points. I can't think of anything else like it in golf. All the other no-cut guaranteed point events are performance-based and don't have open exemptions (WGC, Fedex, etc). Regular events that have open sponsor exemptions have cuts.

 

Noren ripped up the Euro Tour when you weren't paying attention (like everyone else in North America) ;)

[grm24]

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

Really half of his events he is not eligible for? TW usually plays 16-18 events on average a season on the PGA Tour. So currently he is not eligible for the 3 WGC events. What are the other 5-6 specific events (using your half reference) that he is ineligible for currently on the PGA Tour? Recall the he is a lifetime exempt on the PGA Tour and is fully exempt otherwise until 2018 just on winning the Players in 2013 and is eligible for all of the majors. Nobody is exempt for the Fed Ex Cup at any time as that is earned by the players each year. Can't wait to see your list.

[Shilgy]

So... Per your report in 2012 Tiger was already inside the top 50 and won which got him back into the top 50?? I think you need to rephrase that. If Begay competed he was likely in the top 50 as well at the time not that it was a requirement at the time. He did win 4 times on tour. Sponsors exemptions are for a good reason. They help the sponsor. :) Of course as you noted at the time it does not matter as without the points there was no top 50 requirement. If in this year's event a Furyk or Zack Johnson got a sponsors exemption over a Ikeda would you have complained?

Speaking of owgr when did Noren crack the top 10? Now that was under the radar. :)

 

I had the year wrong. It was actually 2011.

 

Anyway, IIRC he was just inside the top 50 at the field deadline, which is several weeks before the tournament.

He had fallen out of the top 50 by the time the tournament started.

 

There was a top 50 requirement at time, and technically he met it - but it sure looked like he jumped the queue, so to speak.

Again, looks bad when the guy running the tournament is also the guy getting the special treatment. If he gave his buddy Furyksy a pass that would also be cheesy.

 

Probably wouldn't be a problem is this wasn't the easiest week of the year to get OWGR points. Just show up, and you get points. Beat just a handful of guys, and you get a lot of points. I can't think of anything else like it in golf. All the other no-cut guaranteed point events are performance-based and don't have open exemptions (WGC, Fedex, etc). Regular events that have open sponsor exemptions have cuts.

 

Noren ripped up the Euro Tour when you weren't paying attention (like everyone else in North America) ;)

So Noren=Ikeda? :). If either had any wgc or major credits it would seem more worthy.

To your point about the rankings yes, it could be considered unfair to get ranking points for some events. Guess that is one of the perks for a sustained stretch of good play.

[cdnglf]

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

Really half of his events he is not eligible for? TW usually plays 16-18 events on average a season on the PGA Tour. So currently he is not eligible for the 3 WGC events. What are the other 5-9 specific events (using your half reference) that he is ineligible for currently on the PGA Tour? Recall the he is a lifetime exempt on the PGA Tour and is fully exempt otherwise until 2018 just on winning the Players in 2013 and is eligible for all of the majors. Nobody is exempt for the Fed Ex Cup at any time as that is earned by the players each year. Can't wait to see your list.

 

I was thinking 3 or 4 WGCs + 4 Fedex Events, so I should have said "not" rather than "no longer".

 

Presumably getting to the Tour Championship is one of his goals this season. Getting into the WGCs would help a lot in achieving that goal - they're worth more Fedex Cup points and they're events that Tiger has been very successful at. Getting into the WGCs is mostly dependent on world ranking, so... yes, it is important in the big picture.

[knock it close]

So... Per your report in 2012 Tiger was already inside the top 50 and won which got him back into the top 50?? I think you need to rephrase that. If Begay competed he was likely in the top 50 as well at the time not that it was a requirement at the time. He did win 4 times on tour. Sponsors exemptions are for a good reason. They help the sponsor. :) Of course as you noted at the time it does not matter as without the points there was no top 50 requirement. If in this year's event a Furyk or Zack Johnson got a sponsors exemption over a Ikeda would you have complained?

Speaking of owgr when did Noren crack the top 10? Now that was under the radar. :)

 

I had the year wrong. It was actually 2011.

 

Anyway, IIRC he was just inside the top 50 at the field deadline, which is several weeks before the tournament.

He had fallen out of the top 50 by the time the tournament started.

 

There was a top 50 requirement at time, and technically he met it - but it sure looked like he jumped the queue, so to speak.

Again, looks bad when the guy running the tournament is also the guy getting the special treatment. If he gave his buddy Furyksy a pass that would also be cheesy.

 

Probably wouldn't be a problem is this wasn't the easiest week of the year to get OWGR points. Just show up, and you get points. Beat just a handful of guys, and you get a lot of points. I can't think of anything else like it in golf. All the other no-cut guaranteed point events are performance-based and don't have open exemptions (WGC, Fedex, etc). Regular events that have open sponsor exemptions have cuts.

 

Noren ripped up the Euro Tour when you weren't paying attention (like everyone else in North America) ;)

So Noren=Ikeda? :). If either had any wgc or major credits it would seem more worthy.

To your point about the rankings yes, it could be considered unfair to get ranking points for some events. Guess that is one of the perks for a sustained stretch of good play.

Noren has atleast won some pretty solid events but yea I was a little surprised he was all the way up at 9, I don't think you could argue that he's not atleast a top 20 player tho with his form in 2016

[Loki]

I have always like the Sagarin system. Of course, Woods wouldn't be ranked at all because he doesn't have enough events in the past 12 months.

[Loki]

I have always like the Sagarin system. Of course, Woods wouldn't be ranked at all because he doesn't have enough events in the past 12 months.

 

I have always like the Sagarin system. Of course, Woods wouldn't be ranked at all because he doesn't have enough events in the past 12 months.

[Shilgy]

I have always like the Sagarin system. Of course, Woods wouldn't be ranked at all because he doesn't have enough events in the past 12 months.

 

I have always like the Sagarin system. Of course, Woods wouldn't be ranked at all because he doesn't have enough events in the past 12 months.

You must really like it to say it three times.:) But I know what you're saying. Slightly more current and volatile. Personally I prefer the two year cycle as one year is too much "what have you done lately" for my taste.

[cdnglf]

This has been an enlightening discussion because I knew nothing about the workings of the OWGR, so thanks for the insight! My reason for posting this was not to Tiger bash, while I am not a fan, I don't dislike the guy either. Rather it was the point values awarded to a golfer who finished at the bottom of what was essentially a clambake, with a limited field. I get that it was a strong field, but still many in the top 20 were not there and they lose out on those points, whether they care or not, I agree with many of you they probably don't care. Also, some of those in the top 20 would never play in this event due to their relationship, or lack there of, with Tiger. Insert Sergio Garcia here. However it still seems to me that a limited event field should not carry that many points, when the other 150 golfers on the bubble could use those points for their livelihood, but do not have the chance to compete for them. To me, and this is just one terrible golfer's opinion, these silly events can have a few points available, but devalue them greatly compared to full-field events, regardless of that caliber of players in the event.

 

Pretty sure Sergio has played in Tiger's event before ... efforting now...

 

 

EDIT. Sergio played in Tiger's event in 2000 and finished 3rd.

 

 

EDIT2: It appears that Sergio never played in the old Nedbank limited field cash grab which used to run opposite of Tiger's event, so I surmise that his absence from Tiger's event since 2000 has a heck of a lot more to do with his schedule (no December golf period) than anything else.

 

Without looking it up, I strongly suspect that Tiger's event "invites" players based on the world rankings, and just goes down the list until the field is complete .... rather than Tiger personally inviting his "buddies" as some haves stated.

 

Some guys just don't play in December. It is their offseason/vacation.

 

 

EDIT3: To those who seem butthurt about Tiger moving from 899 to 650 or whatever ... who cares. It doesn't matter jack squat. The rankings after 200 are meaningless anyway. It does not matter. Tiger will either be healthy for a full season, in which case he very likely wins somewhere ... or his back will get hurt again and he will retire. I don't see many other likely outcomes.

 

 

Re EDIT2: The pattern does seem to be as you say, but with a couple of exceptions.

 

Prior to the event getting OWGR status, the sponsor exemptions could be anyone and Tiger often invited Freddie Couples (and I think Notah Begay, although my memory is fuzzier on that). When it got OWGR status in 2009, one of the conditions was that the sponsor exemptions had to be from the top 50. Presumably this was to prevent some rando Tiger buddy from having a hot week and zooming up the rankings.

 

In 2012, Tiger was just inside the top 50 at the field cutoff date and got one of the sponsor exemptions for the tournament. It was impossible to confirm, but it sure looked a lot like a few guys just ahead of him in the OWGR (Ryan Moore was one, IIRC) got passed over - in other words, Tiger the host gave preferential treatment to Tiger the competitor. Of course he won the tournament, which got him back into the top 50, which got him back into the early season WGCs, and he went on to have an outstanding, PoTY season in 2013. The number of points he got for that win rankled quite a few players, and the OWGR subsequently decided not to include home points in the event's calculation. Which was a lame half measure that didn't really fix the problem. Tiger Charity Challenge OWGR points are still the easiest in golf by a mile.

 

You're probably referring to 2011 because he was ranked second in the world in 2012.

In 2011 he was ranked 52nd before finishing 3rd in one of the events in Australia. That got him to 50th. From there he won the Hero.

It's all on the website.

 

You are correct. I noticed my mistake and mentioned it in another post, but didn't go back and edit the original.

[Vindog]

By some peoples reasoning then, The Masters shouldn't receive points either. It's an invitational with a small field loaded with amateurs and seniors.

 

Now we're talking.

 

The Masters is a weak field compared to the other Majors, The Players and in most years The WGC Cadillac.

 

But no, you don't need me to tell you that this comparison doesn't work.

[Browns71213]

This has been an enlightening discussion because I knew nothing about the workings of the OWGR, so thanks for the insight! My reason for posting this was not to Tiger bash, while I am not a fan, I don't dislike the guy either. Rather it was the point values awarded to a golfer who finished at the bottom of what was essentially a clambake, with a limited field. I get that it was a strong field, but still many in the top 20 were not there and they lose out on those points, whether they care or not, I agree with many of you they probably don't care. Also, some of those in the top 20 would never play in this event due to their relationship, or lack there of, with Tiger. Insert Sergio Garcia here. However it still seems to me that a limited event field should not carry that many points, when the other 150 golfers on the bubble could use those points for their livelihood, but do not have the chance to compete for them. To me, and this is just one terrible golfer's opinion, these silly events can have a few points available, but devalue them greatly compared to full-field events, regardless of that caliber of players in the event.

 

Pretty sure Sergio has played in Tiger's event before ... efforting now...

 

 

EDIT. Sergio played in Tiger's event in 2000 and finished 3rd.

 

 

EDIT2: It appears that Sergio never played in the old Nedbank limited field cash grab which used to run opposite of Tiger's event, so I surmise that his absence from Tiger's event since 2000 has a heck of a lot more to do with his schedule (no December golf period) than anything else.

 

 

Their riff really hit its high point at the 2013 Players and to my knowledge Sergio hasn't played in any of the Tiger's events since that time, but I could be wrong. My wife says I'm wrong a lot.

[Loki]

I have always like the Sagarin system. Of course, Woods wouldn't be ranked at all because he doesn't have enough events in the past 12 months.

 

I have always like the Sagarin system. Of course, Woods wouldn't be ranked at all because he doesn't have enough events in the past 12 months.

You must really like it to say it three times. :) But I know what you're saying. Slightly more current and volatile. Personally I prefer the two year cycle as one year is too much "what have you done lately" for my taste.

 

I had a phone issue.

[Zz24hours]

By some peoples reasoning then, The Masters shouldn't receive points either. It's an invitational with a small field loaded with amateurs and seniors.

 

Now we're talking.

 

The Masters is a weak field compared to the other Majors, The Players and in most years The WGC Cadillac.

 

But no, you don't need me to tell you that this comparison doesn't work.

 

Points from green Jacket....

 

I could mention a Green Jacket that really shouldn't have been in the RC, but was because of that win

 

Being SO out of form should disqualify a player, no matter if he peaked in a few tournaments

[Golf Monkey]

By some peoples reasoning then, The Masters shouldn't receive points either. It's an invitational with a small field loaded with amateurs and seniors.

 

Now we're talking.

 

The Masters is a weak field compared to the other Majors, The Players and in most years The WGC Cadillac.

 

But no, you don't need me to tell you that this comparison doesn't work.

 

Points from green Jacket....

 

I could mention a Green Jacket that really shouldn't have been in the RC, but was because of that win

 

Being SO out of form should disqualify a player, no matter if he peaked in a few tournaments

 

I doubt Danny Willett gives two hoots about your opinion he has a green jacket and you never will. Be careful he'll set his brother on you. The RC qualifying process is a two year deal. Willett has been a top three player in Europe for two years.

[Zz24hours]

By some peoples reasoning then, The Masters shouldn't receive points either. It's an invitational with a small field loaded with amateurs and seniors.

 

Now we're talking.

 

The Masters is a weak field compared to the other Majors, The Players and in most years The WGC Cadillac.

 

But no, you don't need me to tell you that this comparison doesn't work.

 

Points from green Jacket....

 

I could mention a Green Jacket that really shouldn't have been in the RC, but was because of that win

 

Being SO out of form should disqualify a player, no matter if he peaked in a few tournaments

 

I doubt Danny Willett gives two hoots about your opinion he has a green jacket and you never will. Be careful he'll set his brother on you. The RC qualifying process is a two year deal. Willett has been a top three player in Europe for two years.

 

I'm sure he does, but a player that haven't been able to break 70 in some 4 months prior to the RC qualification really shouldn't be a given participant

 

... RC qualification is not a two year deal

[Vindog]

The beauty of the RC qualification system is that you can either wait around and hope you get picked, or you can screw all that and make sure you qualify via points by winning majors and stuff.

[Brock Savage]

Didn't the World series used to come with a 10 year exemption, I believe?........That was ridiculous......

 

Even worse, it paid $100,000 in OFFICIAL money to the winner of the 20-man event, in a year when the winner of the British Open got only $13,500 of unofficial money, and even the Masters only paid $40K. Jack's win in the 1976 World Series put him in the top 25 of the year's final money list, all by itself. It would be like this year's Hero paying the winner three million in official money.

 

Jack won a bunch of invitationals in the 60s, WSOGs, all his Masters were under 90 - so would be interesting to have your size of field numbers for Jack. He did win a greater variety than Tiger for sure.

 

How do you figure? The only serious events Jack won outside the US were the British and Aussie Opens. Tiger has won events all over Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

 

 

To the OP: yes, there are problems with the ranking system. Some, like the two-year window, are a matter of opinion (I think 18 months would be better), but some are demonstrably unfair, and IMO the biggest of these is the size of field problem. It is easier to win a tournament with a field of 70 than one with a field of 140, even if the smaller event has the top 70 players in the world, and the larger event only has 30 or 40 of the top 200 players in the world. For proof of this, just compare Tiger's winning percentages when he was in his prime. Through 2009, he won over half his WGC stroke play starts, and only about 30% of his regular PGA event starts.

 

It would be very easy to fix. They can define a full field as, say, 120 (they could do a statistical analysis to find the best number). Then you multiply the WGR points by the number of players in an event, divided by 120. Events with 150 players in the field would have their points increased by 25%, and events with only 20 players in the field would have their points reduced by a factor of six.

 

That aside, I continue to be amazed at how many golf fans interested enough to subscribe to a golf message board, are not interested enough to take ten minutes to learn how the rankings work. They are clearly explained at the WGR website, and are not much more complicated than a batting average.

 

Suppose the Yankees were ten games ahead of the Red Sox, and the Sox beat the Yankees in both games of a doubleheader, and somebody went to a baseball message board and wanted to know why the Sox didn't move up to first place in the standings. Can you imagine the crap he would get? And yet, hardly a week goes by when someone doesn't post on a golf board about why isn't X ranked #1 after he won a couple times, or why is Y still number one after he missed a cut.

 

Seriously, it's fourth-grade math. Take ten minutes and understand what you're posting about.

[Shilgy]

Didn't the World series used to come with a 10 year exemption, I believe?........That was ridiculous......

 

Even worse, it paid $100,000 in OFFICIAL money to the winner of the 20-man event, in a year when the winner of the British Open got only $13,500 of unofficial money, and even the Masters only paid $40K. Jack's win in the 1976 World Series put him in the top 25 of the year's final money list, all by itself. It would be like this year's Hero paying the winner three million in official money.

 

Jack won a bunch of invitationals in the 60s, WSOGs, all his Masters were under 90 - so would be interesting to have your size of field numbers for Jack. He did win a greater variety than Tiger for sure.

 

How do you figure? The only serious events Jack won outside the US were the British and Aussie Opens. Tiger has won events all over Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

 

Seriously, it's fourth-grade math. Take ten minutes and understand what you're posting about.

Your comments about people learning how it works are spot on. What Hawk was saying was that Jack won a bunch of "official" short field events. Tournament of Champions-World Series of Golf etc. Some made the Hero look like a large field lol. :)

[nbg352]

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.

Soooooo.....this IS all about Woods...........

[hdr_ric]

Didn't the World series used to come with a 10 year exemption, I believe?........That was ridiculous......

 

Even worse, it paid $100,000 in OFFICIAL money to the winner of the 20-man event, in a year when the winner of the British Open got only $13,500 of unofficial money, and even the Masters only paid $40K. Jack's win in the 1976 World Series put him in the top 25 of the year's final money list, all by itself. It would be like this year's Hero paying the winner three million in official money.

 

Jack won a bunch of invitationals in the 60s, WSOGs, all his Masters were under 90 - so would be interesting to have your size of field numbers for Jack. He did win a greater variety than Tiger for sure.

 

How do you figure? The only serious events Jack won outside the US were the British and Aussie Opens. Tiger has won events all over Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

 

 

To the OP: yes, there are problems with the ranking system. Some, like the two-year window, are a matter of opinion (I think 18 months would be better), but some are demonstrably unfair, and IMO the biggest of these is the size of field problem. It is easier to win a tournament with a field of 70 than one with a field of 140, even if the smaller event has the top 70 players in the world, and the larger event only has 30 or 40 of the top 200 players in the world. For proof of this, just compare Tiger's winning percentages when he was in his prime. Through 2009, he won over half his WGC stroke play starts, and only about 30% of his regular PGA event starts.

 

It would be very easy to fix. They can define a full field as, say, 120 (they could do a statistical analysis to find the best number). Then you multiply the WGR points by the number of players in an event, divided by 120. Events with 150 players in the field would have their points increased by 25%, and events with only 20 players in the field would have their points reduced by a factor of six.

 

That aside, I continue to be amazed at how many golf fans interested enough to subscribe to a golf message board, are not interested enough to take ten minutes to learn how the rankings work. They are clearly explained at the WGR website, and are not much more complicated than a batting average.

 

Suppose the Yankees were ten games ahead of the Red Sox, and the Sox beat the Yankees in both games of a doubleheader, and somebody went to a baseball message board and wanted to know why the Sox didn't move up to first place in the standings. Can you imagine the crap he would get? And yet, hardly a week goes by when someone doesn't post on a golf board about why isn't X ranked #1 after he won a couple times, or why is Y still number one after he missed a cut.

 

Seriously, it's fourth-grade math. Take ten minutes and understand what you're posting about.

 

But then the Olympics with it's crap 60 man field wouldn't get world ranking points!!?! Actually, this is great, I'd be all-in if it rid us of the freaking olympic nonsense.

[dciccoritti]

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?

 

How far away is he from #1?