World Ranking Head Scratcher Files: Phil Wins @ Pebble Edition
Alex Miceli with the latest Official World Golf Ranking absurdity: Phil Mickelson received fewer World Ranking points for winning the full field AT&T National Pro-Am than Tiger Woods received for beating 17 players at last December's Chevron World Challenge.
When Woods beat Zach Johnson by a stroke at the Chevron, which is an unofficial event, he earned 44 world-ranking points and moved from 52nd in the world to 21st in the Official World Golf Ranking.
Mickelson, with his two-shot margin against Charlie Wi at Pebble Beach, earned only 38 points. That also was 10 less than the 48 points that Rafael Cabrera-Bello gained for winning the Omega Dubai Desert Classic and the same amount that Lee Westwood garnered for winning the Nedbank Golf Challenge, a 12-man exhibition event in South Africa in December.
And this is a system we're allowing to determine major championship fields, and in 2016, the Olympic Games field?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:32 PM
Reader Comments (27)
In Dubai 2-3-4 were in the field (although they were the only 3 in the top 25)
At Chevron 11 of the top 25 were there and several in the top 10
At Nedbank many players fro the top 25 were represented, included 3 of the top 4 (I'm to lazy to go look up exact numbers right now)
At Pebble you had one member of the top 10 and only 3 of the top 25
Hence, Phil beat a lot of people, but not many highly ranked people, and doesn't get as many points. Agree or disagree with that (and I don't), but that's how the system works, and it is consistent.
K
Let's toss in one more small factor: How about WHAT you win?
Look, Luke Donald had a great year, won a few events and captured two money titles but seriously, if this silly ranking is to determine the "best" golfer in the world for a particular stretch, then Majors simply must carry more weight. When virtually every top-ranked professional admits that, variously, 'Majors are the only ones that count,' and 'I'd trade five of these for one major,' and 'I'm using this to get read for (the next major') we can see that anything but the big four is simply a payday.
Oh, but I digress. The OWGR is a nothing stat created by a management firm simply to tout its players. One thing is sure: FANS DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. When was the last time you sat in the bar after a round and didn't talk about a player or a tournament but instead all chatter focused on the RANKINGS? You said "never?" You're right.
The only people who actually care about the OWGR are the talking hair-do's at the Golf Channel as in, "Former world number one Tiger Woods today.... etc."
As for Woody and his little end-of-the-year, show-up-and-we'll-pay-you SIXTEEN MAN EXHIBITION.... well, don't get me started. When a hit-and-giggle event such as this gets OWGR ranking points that tells you all you need to know about the rankings.
Worthless.
I'm hard pressed to see how the OWGR could possibly be constructed to the advantage of players from a single management firm. Does it need some tweaking, sure. Is it going away, def not.
Maybe we could get the powers that be to adopt the Sagarin/GolfWeek Ranking instead? Suits me.
Oh wait, that won't work, Tiger's ranked 14th in the Sagarin/Golfweek Ranking, even higher than the 18th spot where he's listed in the OWGR.
Oh well...
Plus I endorse the comment that it's much harder to get into the elite than it is to leave it - there's a strong element of self-perpetuation in the current system, you get automatic entry into the stronger events with more points on offer, denied to those just outside the bubble who fall further behind - although I will acknowledge you still have to play well once you're there.
Let's face it, the yanks will never be satisfied until all the points are in yank-land like most everything else is!!!
Stop whingeing!
My nitpicks about the formula:
Well obviously, the smaller field events simply are weighted too heavily at the top.
A bigger problem is that the smaller field events are weighted too heavily at the bottom. For example, Lee Westwood got 38 points for winning the 12 person Sun City event, the same as Phil did for winning at Pebble. But Francesco Molinari, who finished 22 shots behind Westwood in 11th place at Sun City, got MORE points than the 6 players who tied for 9th at Pebble.
Also, the first round losers at last year's Accenture Match Play got over 2 world ranking points just for showing up and losing their first round match. Obviously that is ridiculous and gives credence to the argument that the system keeps "the riff-raff" out
There are other things that may not be perfect, but in general, I think it does as good a job as any system I've seen. Certainly, it's much better than what the professional tennis tour uses, where it is mathematically possible for a number 1-ranked player to successfully defend a major title and lose their number one ranking.
Anyone who wants to completely overhaul the OWGR probably couldn't do a better job. But there are still flaws that should be addressed.
The R&A, USGA, Augusta National and respective Tours are in control of the system.
The Shanghai Masters didn't and it was arguably a better field.
The system is not the worse, but certainly is not perfect, and does need continued adjustments. TW going from 50th to 27th or something (sic) with a win in the Chevron exhibition is a good example that limited-field events need some governing on the OWGR points awarded. Also, more emphasis for deducting points for WD, DQ, or MC should be weighed in the process.
@ metro 18 You are correct IMG no longer 'controls' the OWGR that they had originated to promote thier clients - at one time only IMG knew how they ratings were computed.
the above nails it. Chevron got more points because there were more name guys there. thats what i want. strength of schedule is paramount.
The system discriminates against new players--so what. every club in life discriminates against new players.
Masters is the best major, and it has the smallest field... should it recieve fewer rating points too?
If you exclude the silly season events, you will get more trevor immelman's in the field, and you will drop guys like els faster. Parity--anonymity--will be encouraged. If its not bad policy, its certainly bad TV.
OWGR should reboot on January 1, with the previous year determining who gets in the Majors, such as OWGR has anything to do with that.
Or, OWGR should be abolished in favor of official money. The various TOURS can decide how to count earnings among and between their organizations.
the US guys would love you suggestion--bunch of euros would get dropped from the US Open in favor of guys here in the states.
While I'm no great fan of the OWGR, you are wrong about the LPGA's Rolex Rankings. They have a minimum divisor of 35, which given the small number of LPGA events, is even more onerous than using 40 for the men.
The logic is that if you have a player like Michelle Wie, who at one time was playing in a half-dozen events a year, and finishing in the top ten regularly, she would have been #1 or #2 and that wasn't going to be acceptable.
On the PGA Tour, without a 40-event minimum, at the end of 2011 Tiger would have moved up from 23 to 16. Back in 2010, it would have kept him on top of the ranking for even longer.
Whether that's good or bad isn't my concern, but the system rewards people who play a lot.
If it was in existence in 1953, when Hogan won five of the six tournaments he entered, including all three majors he played in, it wouldn't have resulted in him being #1. And that would most likely have caused outrage.
K
Why not just count official tour events - Euro, PGA, Asian, Austrailian official tour events only? No points for sanctioned events - only for OFFICIAL tour events world-wide - there is a BIG difference. Keeps marquee players from hosting their own event with a closed field and they give each other OWGR points for showing up. Simply elminate all OWGR points for non - official tour events.
In order to take an average you need a minimum divisor, but 40 is to high and unfairly penalizes new and injured players. Also the home tour bonus is a joke, and you shouldn't get points for finishing in the bottom half of a field etc
Overall though the OWGR does a good job, and most players benefit at some point from some of the quirky things in the OWGR that should probably be abolished, so it's fair.
Masters may be the best tournament, I agree, but it is the weakest field of all the majors.
The 12-player Ned Bank is now recognized by the Sunshine Tour as an "official" win on their tour.
An event can be sanctioned or approved by the PGA Tour but teh money and / or the win does l not count as a Offical Tour Event. That being said, how can OWGR points be 'given' to a non-oficial event if teh money and the ponts are not counted as official.
Just saying, there is just too much discrimination for awarding disproportionate OWGR points among these type of exhibition, less-than-full field, silly season, bonus type invite-only, events. We fully understand they have specific entry systems for which qualifies a player's entery. So does the normal Wednesday Pro Am on tour.
We agree full with your comment : "most players benefit at some point from some of the quirky things in the OWGR that should probably be abolished, so it's fair."