We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Overrated?

Trout Bum

Trout Bum

Regional Rival
Albatross 2024 Club
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
172
Handicap
15
With the fields so thick in pro golf this year do you thing any of the players are overrated according to the world golf ranking? I look at the top 50 and certainly think a few are out of place, how about you?

I think Woods, DJ, Simpson, and Duffner need some adjustments. There are others but there are some seriously overrated players in there.

Take personality out of it and base it on skill and wins.
 
Haven't looked at rankings in quite awhile but I'm okay with whatever the current rankings say. It's not a perfect system but it's not as bad as everyone wants to make it out to be.
 
Without a doubt I agree with you that it needs adjusting. I just do not feel what someone did almost 2 years ago is relevant to how they are ranked right now.
 
I honestly don't pay much attention at all to the WGR. To me the fields are deeper than ever and really anyone who enters nowadays really does have a chance at winning the tourney which is why I don't pay much attention to the rankings. Sure the guys at the top of the WGR tend to be more consistent or win more than the 1 tourney wonders, but that doesn't mean anyone in the field can't win. Just my .02
 
Can someone explain how these rankings work? It seems like a lot move except for #1 if it's tiger


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Girardcorp said:
Can someone explain how these rankings work? It seems like a lot move except for #1 if it's tiger


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

http://golftips.golfsmith.com/explanation-world-golf-ranking-system-2339.html

Players are awarded points based on the position they finish in the tournament. In the four major championships, the winner is awarded 100 points, second place earns 60, third place earns 40, and the scale slides down to 1 1/2 points for anyone completing the final round. The winner of the Players Championship earns 80 points. Winners of regular events on the European and PGA tours earn a minimum of 24 points. Winners on the Australasia and Japanese tours earn 16 points.

The rankings are based on performance over a two-year period. The ranking shows a player’s average points per tournament, his total points earned divided by the number of tournaments he has competed in. The system places greater emphasis on performance over the last 13 weeks of the 104 weeks of the ranking period by deducting a fraction of points earned each week longer than 13 weeks ago. A player who won a major championship 18 months ago begins to lose the value of that accomplishment in the current rankings.
 
I haven't looked at the rankings lately, but last I knew, Sergio was inside the Top 10 and that one threw me for a bit of a loop. It's a bit odd. I think once you get outside of the Top 5, it's like throwing spaghetti at the wall. Seeing what sticks and how long.
 
Bullitt5339 said:
Players are awarded points based on the position they finish in the tournament. In the four major championships--the U.S. Open, the British Open, the Masters Tournament and the PGA Championship--the winner is awarded 100 points, second place earns 60, third place earns 40, and the scale slides down to 1 1/2 points for anyone completing the final round. The winner of the Players Championship earns 80 points. Winners of regular events on the European and PGA tours earn a minimum of 24 points. Winners on the Australasia and Japanese tours earn 16 points.

The rankings are based on performance over a two-year period. The ranking shows a player’s average points per tournament, his total points earned divided by the number of tournaments he has competed in. The system places greater emphasis on performance over the last 13 weeks of the 104 weeks of the ranking period by deducting a fraction of points earned each week longer than 13 weeks ago. A player who won a major championship 18 months ago begins to lose the value of that accomplishment in the current rankings.
Click to expand...

Extremely helpful. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This year seems more wide open than past years. Some of the top ranked guys aren't playing up to their usual level, and you have a lot of first time, and few time, winners this year. I think the summer season will be very telling, starting with this week. The "wraparound" season has definitely giving this year a different kind of feel. The rankings are based on a two year period, so there will probably be adjustments going on as the year winds on. Some of the top guys definitely need some good showings.


THP #theking #imwithchad
 
I have heard the that numbers help the Europeans. I am not sure how, but I remember them talking about Dubuisson being much higher up than he should be even before the match play event final.
 
Looks like the ranking is average points not total points too. So I guess that makes sense if the golfer is consistently doing well instead of just getting lots of points


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I also think the rankings need adjusted. No way is something that happened two years ago relevant to your game today.

It's not a perfect system but I am not sure there ever will be. It is what it is but I still think some guys in the top 50 don't belong there.
 
Girardcorp said:
Looks like the ranking is average points not total points too. So I guess that makes sense if the golfer is consistently doing well instead of just getting lots of points


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's how Luke Donald rose to the #1 spot. He didn't win a lot compared to other #1's, but was in the Top 10 on nearly every tournament he was in, so his average points were high. Tiger is actually #1 in points lost over the last 2 years, so his lead is shrinking over the rest of the field.

As far as European Tour players having it easier, I don't find that to be true based on the points awarded for events. The strength of the field for events has a major impact on the number of points awarded, so when you win a tournament with a field full of guys high on the OWGR ranking, you get more points.
 
I agree trout that some of these guys don't belong in their place. I scratch my head when I look at the top 20
 
I've never understood the rankings. I couldn't for the life of me understand how Luke Donald was #1 for so long without really winning a whole lot. Rory being #1 made sense because he did plenty of winning. The WGR to me are kind of like NCAA men's basketball rankings. They're a good barometer of how everyone stacks up against one another, but really don't paint the whole picture. I almost feel like the #1 golf ranking has lost it's meaning since there is really no true "dominant" player in the game right now.
 
It's almost as whacky as the college Football rankings....it's a broken system
 
adamw238 said:
I've never understood the rankings. I couldn't for the life of me understand how Luke Donald was #1 for so long without really winning a whole lot. Rory being #1 made sense because he did plenty of winning. The WGR to me are kind of like NCAA men's basketball rankings. They're a good barometer of how everyone stacks up against one another, but really don't paint the whole picture. I almost feel like the #1 golf ranking has lost it's meaning since there is really no true "dominant" player in the game right now.
Click to expand...

I think it only seems that way because it's based on a 2 year period, so it doesn't account for the guy who's "hot" right now.

If you look at the OWGR, the person who has had the most points lost is actually Tiger and the person who has lost the least points lost is Will MacKenzie.

Even if you haven't played many rounds, the average is still based on a minimum of 40 tournaments, so a young player who is actually winning and placing well in tournaments is hurt by the system until they've got 40 actual rounds on the books. Most players in the Top 100 have over 40 tournaments counting towards their average, there's only a few exceptions, Stricker being the most notable, the fact that he's 15th in the world with only 31 tournaments which count, but his average is based on the minimum of 40 is even more impressive. If it were a straight average, he would be quite a bit higher. Tiger actually only has 39 tournaments counted, but his average is still based on 40.
 
And please don't take my explanation of how the system works as me defending it. I think it's a flawed system, but had the same question a few years ago when the #1 ranking was bouncing around between Kaymer, Donald and Westwood so I did a bunch of reading to figure out how it worked.
 
Bullitt5339 said:
And please don't take my explanation of how the system works as me defending it. I think it's a flawed system, but had the same question a few years ago when the #1 ranking was bouncing around between Kaymer, Donald and Westwood so I did a bunch of reading to figure out how it worked.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it that way at all. Solid explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To me this is like the BCS. Should there be a system in place yes. Is this one working absolutely not. ITs almost comical how they figure it out.
 
This is why I like the FedEx Cup points system. Is it the best system? No and I'm still not sure what is. But as far as the PGA Tour goes, it's a good way to show who has done what so far. I like the way the Playoffs work as well.
 
Miller Time said:
This is why I like the FedEx Cup points system. Is it the best system? No and I'm still not sure what is. But as far as the PGA Tour goes, it's a good way to show who has done what so far. I like the way the Playoffs work as well.
Click to expand...

I also like the playoff system but find it laughable how they talk about who's in the lead in January.. Seriously lots of time left


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I know it's difficult to develop a system that works and is fair to everyone but the current system is really inaccurate, why not simplify it? it seems like there's an easier way. I'm a fan of a lot of the guys in the top say 25 but do they all belong there? heck no.
 
Trout Bum said:
I know it's difficult to develop a system that works and is fair to everyone but the current system is really inaccurate, why not simplify it? it seems like there's an easier way. I'm a fan of a lot of the guys in the top say 25 but do they all belong there? heck no.
Click to expand...

Agreed Marc..... 1+1=2. No need for Calculus to figure this out. I mean the start Patrick Reed has had? and Zach? He has been on fire and someone who has been rehabbing and trying to get going Rose is higher....
 
I don't think the players in the top 25 are overrated because they are base on hard data. The ranking just rate guys on how consistent they are over a 2 year span. One way to make the system better would be shorten the time span covered to 12-18 months and put even more emphasis on the past 13 weeks than the system currently does.

The rankings are a lot better than say the non-computer based NCAA college football polls where writers just vote based on their opinions...when a lot of them have never even seen some of the teams play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top