How To Win More World Ranking Points For Inconsequential Events Than Losing In A Masters Playoff...And Other OWGR Horror Stories
You may have heard Jim Nantz mention the Official World Golf Ranking in less than flattering fashion during Saturday's Zurich Classic telecast and I'm guessing the normally diplomatic CBS anchor must have read last week's must see Golf World story by Mike Stachura.
In a nutshell, two Ivy League professors are preparing to show the world how the ranking is fundamentally and illogically biased. The incredibly influential ranking, which determins major championship fields and the 2016 Olympic Games field, is even worse than we thought. But based on some eye-opening quotes from PGA Tour VP Ty Votaw, Camp Ponte Vedra is all ears.
Just two of the hilarious-if-they-weren't-true findings.
* Francesco Molinari won the 2010 WGC-HSBC Champions event and earned 68 points for his victory. The tournament is an otherwise inconsequential, though high-prize-money event held well after the conclusion of the major championships at an undistinguished course in China. The problem: Molinari's point total was worth more than losing the playoff for this year's Masters.
* K.T. Kim is a rising Korean player with an admirable local record in Asian events but a pair of missed cuts and a T-59 in his last three major championships. He earned 32 points when he won the Japan Open in 2010, more than what he would have earned for finishing fourth in the PGA Championship. But he didn't finish fourth, he finished T-59.
And the PGA Tour's position...
The PGA Tour's Ty Votaw, executive vice president of communications and international affairs, says the PGA Tour is looking at the Broadie/Rendleman study. "We feel the insights Dr. Broadie and Dr. Rendleman presented are very interesting and worth further study, and based on the results of the peer review of the professors' work, we will share that paper with the OWGR Technical Committee for analysis," he wrote in an email to Golf World.
Monday, April 30, 2012 at 01:56 AM
Reader Comments (19)
- OWGR will always be perceived as "biased" by one tour or another until pros do not truly embrace the concept of being "international players" and we move on to a "world tour", like tennis. When the best players will start competing against each other more than just 10-12 times a year, the OWGR will be a more true reflection...
- Incidentally, the perceived bias in favour of European players should have prompted PGA Tour members to play more of an international schedule...their fault if they do not take advantage of the system! Lazyiness and complacency is rightly being penalised!
- The alleged bias of the OWGR against the PGA Tour is more than compensated by 3 out of the 4 majors being based in the US and, more importantly, qualification criteria for the US majors being much more accessible for PGA Tour members than for non-members. Hence, the odds for a "PGA Tour journeyman" to finish high up in a major are much higher than for his equivalent on say the European Tour
- Why is the "2010 WGC-HSBC Champions" singled out, despite having a full and strong field including TW, Phil and all American stars? Weren't the WGC tournaments intended by all Tours to be just one notch below the Majors...again, the reason why it is singled out is that it is not staged in the US, incidentally the only non-US WGC that is not, and that's why the PGA Tour has always had a "cold" relationship with this tournament
So, by all means, let's tweak the OWGR, but more importantly let's move to a world tour!
Unfortunately too many people think that no matter how strong a the field if the event isn't played in the States then it is somehow invalid.
I would tend to agree re the Japan Open to a point but the Chinese event was a big event with a top class field
Ive always said, a great show on TGC would to match up the Japan Tour and the Nationwide tour (who gets lower points) and see who wins....
The OWGR is not perfect but i think we have seen that there are a lot of good players playing outside of the US
As others have said above, the home tour bonus is a tad questionable, as is the practice to dish out full points for limited field events (i.e. the Tiger show). I'd like to see those two things changed; other than that: it's doing its job. It's not a bad system overall.
Greer and Barker admit that the OWGR does not have a "perfect" statistical model. The nature of how golf is played worldwide does not currently allow for that, and possibly never could. If the Masters is really a major, why do invitations automatically go to winners of PGA Tour events but not to winners of every European Tour event, or all the others? "Masters" of what? we know the Mastersis an invitational, but surely there is a built-in bias in their invitation criteria. Life is like that (though the majors set-up is one that could be fixed, as is the WGC set-up). As none of this is likely to happen, we are not looking at a quite level playing field, and the OWGR might in part want to add to the leveling as well as give precise figures.
By the way there is nothing more ludicrous about Rory McIlroy becoming number one through statistical degrading than there was about Tiger Woods retaining that slot years after he had last played well. He was so far from "the best" after the main part of the last three years, yet retained top rank -- all through many missing months -- despite that. He had earned his wide lead through the years of good play, and it took that long for those playing well to overtake him. Best argument I have seen for reducing the divisor weeks. It might be better for the figures to be more current.
It will be interesting to see what the boys at Ponte Vedra come up with as a response. Please keep on this, Geoff. It has the potential to get really unlovely, unless PV does what it usually does and sits on the fence, as is its right, the report not being official or commissioned. But it is now out there and it will have its admirers and detractors, some of whom might be vociferous about it, either way. Should be fun.
Of course winning tournaments is more valuable. It is the hardest thing in golf to do win tournaments. Hasn't one of the criticisms been that Luke Donald gets to number 1 without winning a major? Well upping the points for "4th place at the PGA championship" just makes it easier for professional placegetters but non winners to get to the top of the rankings I would have thought?
How about a Fresca