We've launched the new forums! Read more here

World Ranking and the mystery of the formula

spazzdog

spazzdog

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
17
Location
North Texas
Handicap
Lots
So, though I'm a newbie to playing, I'm an info junkie. I listen, read about the debacle of Luke being #1 without a major win, Rory being in and out of #1 and, of course, Tigers position.

So I went in search of the formula used... And got a big headache. The crux of what I did get was points for the players are accrued over a 2yr "rolling" period encompassing a minimum of 40 tournaments and a maximum of 52. Those are put through the blender with points for actual events they participated in. Points are decreased over time.

Then there's the mystery math which I could find no notation of an actual formula (need those math majors now). Where's the math?

My 1st question - how is Tiger ranked #7 when in 2 yrs he's hardly played at all and hasn't done all that well over that time. And no, I'm not a "hater", just curious. Pick any player. His absence from the top of the sport just seemed like a nifty place to start.

Any other world ranking info, news, explanations, profound thoughts... Anything?

spazzdog
 
spazzdog said:
So, though I'm a newbie to playing, I'm an info junkie. I listen, read about the debacle of Luke being #1 without a major win, Rory being in and out of #1 and, of course, Tigers position.

So I went in search of the formula used... And got a big headache. The crux of what I did get was points for the players are accrued over a 2yr "rolling" period encompassing a minimum of 40 tournaments and a maximum of 52. Those are put through the blender with points for actual events they participated in. Points are decreased over time.

Then there's the mystery math which I could find no notation of an actual formula (need those math majors now). Where's the math?

My 1st question - how is Tiger ranked #7 when in 2 yrs he's hardly played at all and hasn't done all that well over that time. And no, I'm not a "hater", just curious. Pick any player. His absence from the top of the sport just seemed like a nifty place to start.

Any other world ranking info, news, explanations, profound thoughts... Anything?

spazzdog
Click to expand...

2 fairly recent victories in OWGR events; 3 top 10s in 2012; 4 top 10s in 2011, including a major; 4 top 10s in 2010 that still count, including a major. That is about right for a #7 in the current OWGR math.
 
interlooper said:
2 fairly recent victories in OWGR events; 3 top 10s in 2012; 4 top 10s in 2011, including a major; 4 top 10s in 2010 that still count, including a major. That is about right for a #7 in the current OWGR math.
Click to expand...

It's crazy how him doing that in the last 2 years is such a let down and disappointment. That is what happens when you are GREAT for so long. (among other things..)
 
A few days ago my dad told me he read an analysis that indicated the PGA players were ranked too low in the official rankings, that another method slotted PGA regulars much higher, particularly compared to players on the Asian tours.
 
spazzdog said:
So, though I'm a newbie to playing, I'm an info junkie. I listen, read about the debacle of Luke being #1 without a major win, Rory being in and out of #1 and, of course, Tigers position.

So I went in search of the formula used... And got a big headache. The crux of what I did get was points for the players are accrued over a 2yr "rolling" period encompassing a minimum of 40 tournaments and a maximum of 52. Those are put through the blender with points for actual events they participated in. Points are decreased over time.

Then there's the mystery math which I could find no notation of an actual formula (need those math majors now). Where's the math?

My 1st question - how is Tiger ranked #7 when in 2 yrs he's hardly played at all and hasn't done all that well over that time. And no, I'm not a "hater", just curious. Pick any player. His absence from the top of the sport just seemed like a nifty place to start.

Any other world ranking info, news, explanations, profound thoughts... Anything?

spazzdog
Click to expand...

The formula needs a total of 40 events. If you don't play 40 events, the formula still requires 40 event scores so you start getting 0's. When you're winning multiple times a year, a 0 doesn't really bother you too much. When you play something like 20 events in 2 years though and don't replace those win's, your OWGR is going to plummet.

Even playing poorly in an event but still making the cut is going to be an improvement from not playing at all if the week played is a week missed 2 years ago.
 
HAHA.
The Chevron is a OWGR event. Wonder how that happened?
 
JB said:
HAHA.
The Chevron is a OWGR event. Wonder how that happened?
Click to expand...

So is that tournament in South Africa right around the same time, the Nedback challenge I think it's called? I know they both have a lot of high world ranking players in their small fields but.. Still kinda weak IMO. If it's gonna get points, I guess I'd be ok with it if they were like a third or quarter of the value of a full field event ya know?
 
Does anybody know the formula... I mean like x+y(z) = b (example for visual)

So, again using Tiger and the list you provided of his 2 yr accomplishments, combined with the following statement about needing 40 tournaments with a 0 pts assigned for less than 40... Has Tiger played in 40 tournaments (and made the cut, which I assume is necessary to accrue points) in the last 24 months?

Like the U.S. tax code, it seems this mystery formula is much more complex than it needs to be... My opinion.

On a side note, thanks for participating guys!
 
mward2002 said:
So is that tournament in South Africa right around the same time, the Nedback challenge I think it's called? I know they both have a lot of high world ranking players in their small fields but.. Still kinda weak IMO. If it's gonna get points, I guess I'd be ok with it if they were like a third or quarter of the value of a full field event ya know?
Click to expand...

Both of them. Its effin absurd. The rankings system in general is weak at best.
 
JB said:
HAHA.
The Chevron is a OWGR event. Wonder how that happened?
Click to expand...

Yeah there was alot of talk about that last year about it being an OWGR event even though there is only a handful of players....think there was a little pressure put on by somebody to get it added to the list?
 
spazzdog said:
Does anybody know the formula... I mean like x+y(z) = b (example for visual)

So, again using Tiger and the list you provided of his 2 yr accomplishments, combined with the following statement about needing 40 tournaments with a 0 pts assigned for less than 40... Has Tiger played in 40 tournaments (and made the cut, which I assume is necessary to accrue points) in the last 24 months?

Like the U.S. tax code, it seems this mystery formula is much more complex than it needs to be... My opinion.

On a side note, thanks for participating guys!
Click to expand...

Haha yes, you have to make the cut in order to accrue points. He hasn't played in 40 within the past two years that I know of, no. He didn't play much in 2010, and then he was out for a few months in 2011. However the 2010 points are now going away and being replaced with the 2012 points, which are a tad bit better than 2010 since he's actually playing and has a victory.

JB said:
Both of them. Its effin absurd. The rankings system in general is weak at best.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both parts. You think it'd be better if it were a one year cycle opposed to the two?
 
mward2002 said:
Haha yes, you have to make the cut in order to accrue points. He hasn't played in 40 within the past two years that I know of, no. He didn't play much in 2010, and then he was out for a few months in 2011. However the 2010 points are now going away and being replaced with the 2012 points, which are a tad bit better than 2010 since he's actually playing and has a victory.



Agreed on both parts. You think it'd be better if it were a one year cycle opposed to the two?
Click to expand...

I do. I know others are against it, but to me how a guy played 2 years ago has no basis of what is going on in the world of golf.
 
JB said:
I do. I know others are against it, but to me how a guy played 2 years ago has no basis of what is going on in the world of golf.
Click to expand...

Tiger could have retired in the middle of last year without officially announcing it, and still be hanging around the top 30 in the rankings.
 
JB said:
I do. I know others are against it, but to me how a guy played 2 years ago has no basis of what is going on in the world of golf.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Example: Luke Donald doesn't have the same form he did last year by any means. Still playing ok golf, but not anywhere near as good as last year. Unless he turns it around past the halfway point of the season, Luke's gonna drop come 2013. People are gonna harp on his case and then call the ranking system a mess.. Wait, hasn't this all been done before?
 
JB said:
I do. I know others are against it, but to me how a guy played 2 years ago has no basis of what is going on in the world of golf.
Click to expand...

I would agree to that....I think it should be a 12 month sliding scale and that Majors carry more points...exhibitions like the Chevron have no place in the OWGR, there should be a minimum of 60 players required to get OWGR points, I chose that number because the WGC events invite the top 64 and sometimes you have one or two withdraw so to be safe I said 60.
 
TripleBogieTim said:
I would agree to that....I think it should be a 12 month sliding scale and that Majors carry more points...exhibitions like the Chevron have no place in the OWGR, there should be a minimum of 60 players required to get OWGR points, I chose that number because the WGC events invite the top 64 and sometimes you have one or two withdraw so to be safe I said 60.
Click to expand...

The TOUR Championship/Race to Dubai people would hate you. Would lose some credibility if those two didn't get OWGR points. Nevermind the purses involved though haha
 
JB said:
I do. I know others are against it, but to me how a guy played 2 years ago has no basis of what is going on in the world of golf.
Click to expand...
Yes; JB and I have had this debate on numerous occassions. I like the 2 year system because I like the idea of rewarding consistency as well as someone who just happens to be hot for the time being. I would depreciate the older events a bit more than is currently done though.
 
interlooper said:
Yes; JB and I have had this debate on numerous occassions. I like the 2 year system because I like the idea of rewarding consistency as well as someone who just happens to be hot for the time being. I would depreciate the older events a bit more than is currently done though.
Click to expand...

I agree with your version. Current form is an obsession of the uninformed. Or should I say, the ones who don't need to be speculating. There's a reason that power ratings -- in any sport and regardless of team or individual -- do not move sharply in the short term. Anyone can remember the most recent results and overreact to them. That's how you get nonsense like Mark Rolfing declaring on NBC a few years ago that Andres Romero was his third ranked player in the world. I think it took me 5 minutes to get back on the couch, after rolling off in a seizure of laughter.

I'll provide this example: The first sportsbook in Nevada to book PGA head-to-head matchups every week was the Imperial Palace in 1989. Previously the sportsbooks used them only during majors, and had only the marquee names. When the Imperial Palace began to book them, the supervisor in charge decided to rely heavily on his opinion. He put out matchups with one name established player against a lesser guy who was on a hot streak. And his numbers were relentlessly pounded. Sharp guys would take a -120 line (120 to win 100) and bet the established player up to -200 or higher. Initially the supervisor had some success, and chirped a little bit, but the bettors understood they were using the correct focus -- it's not now good you are playing, but how good are you? Eventually the sportsbook lost heavily on the matchups and raised its juice -- the house take -- before changing the supervisor who made the matchups. The replacement -- darn it -- had a terrific understanding of math and foundational ability as opposed to flimsy current form. He carried around a notebook with tons of results, and formulas to apply them toward a power rating. For a couple of years I traded dollars while betting into his numbers. Luckily, that guy got into a beef with the sportsbook manager and quit, switching to the other side of the counter, where he has remained ever since, betting into the numbers and not making them.
 
Awsi, you are a walking, talking sports encyclopedia ;)

While I understand the 2 yr consistency angle, I think it really skews the view as it relates to sport overall. A "rolling" 1 year seems more realistic as it's the ranking "right now".

The Hall of Fame is more suited to the overall consistency of a player... If they're great and consistently so, off to the HoF... After they turn 50 (but that's another thread).
 
the_paulo said:
Tiger could have retired in the middle of last year without officially announcing it, and still be hanging around the top 30 in the rankings.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Tiger had slipped to 52 in the world the week before he won Chevron.
 
spazzdog said:
Does anybody know the formula... I mean like x+y(z) = b (example for visual)

So, again using Tiger and the list you provided of his 2 yr accomplishments, combined with the following statement about needing 40 tournaments with a 0 pts assigned for less than 40... Has Tiger played in 40 tournaments (and made the cut, which I assume is necessary to accrue points) in the last 24 months?

Like the U.S. tax code, it seems this mystery formula is much more complex than it needs to be... My opinion.

On a side note, thanks for participating guys!
Click to expand...



The formula is a player's points accrued for all events played over a 2 year period are added together. There is a decaying of points as time goes on (the decay starts after 13 weeks), and that percentage of decay for each event is subtracted from the points gained. That number is then divided by the number of events that player participated in during the two year period. (Minimum=40, Maximum=52)

The real hard math comes in determining how many points each event is worth. Some are simple, like the majors. Others are determined by the rankings of the players in the field. There are a few other factors as well, like the home tour bonus. The OWGR doesn't publish (or at least I haven't been able to find) the formula they use for determining each tournament's point value.

Here is the chart that shows how many points each player gets relative to their finish in tournaments: http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/doc/content/OWGRPT12.pdf
Majors (on the far right) are worth the most points, and it scales down to the Sunshine Winter Tour events on the left.

Here is Tiger's current OWGR profile:

Untitled-4.jpg


Rank Points = the amount of points earned at that particular tournament
Weight = the % of decay over time for those points. In this case, everything back to Pebble Beach still carries full weight. Tiger's win at Chevron is down to 90.22% of the original point value of 44. Tiger's T4 at the 2010 U.S. Open only carries 7.6% of its original weight.

The crazy thing is that Tiger hasn't played in 40 events over the last two years, so his point total is being divided by a greater number than actual tourneys played. If you divided his point total by 33, his actual number of tournaments played, he'd be ranked 5th, and would be only 5/100 out of 4th place.

If you ever listen to Matt Adams' show on S/XM in the mornings, he will have Ian Barker from the OWGR on occasionally. Matt has Ian compute the OWGR just on 2012 results. It isn't a rolling 12 month calculation, but does show players who have been hotter more recently.
 
blugold said:
Here's a mystery for me, how in the hell is Adam Scott the #1 Ranked Golfer in the world?

http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2014/05/missing-links-adam-scotts-quie.html
Click to expand...

Scott is ranked #1 because he does a good job of gaming the system, so to speak. He doesn't play a lot, but when he does, he plays in majors, WGC's, FEC playoffs, and other events with stacked fields. He's played well in many of those over the last 2 years, so he's accumulated a lot of points in each of those events, and with his divisor being low (41), his average stays high.

The same holds true for Stricker, who plays way less events than Scott, yet is still in the top 16 in the rankings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top