Wornout1iron

Thanks very much everyone for the invaluable feedback.

That is interesting that you feel that. It might be that this appeals to some and not to others. For me it is a matter of whether the majority of golfers like this or not. I don't mind some not liking it or needing it. You may be in the majority and if the market research supports that, then I have my answer. By the way, why do musicians care about being top of the charts. From the sales, they know if they have a good song. Why do they need to know their song sold more than another song that is completely different to theirs and targets a different kind of music lover? If what you are saying applied to everyone, there would be no charts and there would be no best-selling book lists because nobody would care. The truth is they do care. People care how well they did, even when it is not comparing like for like. It's a human nature thing. Forbes Rich List: People care passionately about being on that list, so much so that they send personal accounts to Forbes when they disagree with their ranking. And here we are talking about people who are completely different. Some make money by services, some with products, some with investments. Comparable? No way. Do people like to compare anyway. You bet. Just saying... Well, then Justin Thomas is a "sandbagger". His scoring average is roughly 69. He shot 10 under his average score.

Look, you may well be right, maybe nobody does care about a one off low round for the amateur golfer. Also, scores come in from different courses and in different conditions which do diminish comparability. I accept that and yes, that is a weakness. That said, 59's on tour are brought up all the time despite being on different courses, different conditions and heck, sometimes even on par 70s verses par 72/73s (what is a 59, 13 under or just 59 no matter if you play off a par 67 or 74). These problems in comparability don't bother the media, the fans, the players (or for that matter the Golf Hall of Fame). All are celebrated and all are cool. To be honest, I was expecting (hoping) for more positive feedback and the fact that I am not getting it tells me there is something not quite right with the idea/format so this has been invaluable to hear. For your reading pleasure, see if you can find the comparability of these 59s on tour

You raise an interesting point: how do you measure how good a player is? Some might say, just look at the scores, that will tell you. Others might say, you have to look at the opportunities that one player has verses the opportunities that another has and then compare scores to their average score. For example, if you play off a 6.6 and shoot 3 under your handicap for a given round despite only managing to get to the range once a week (or every 2 weeks even) and only practice your short game once a month, does that make you a better player than someone who plays off scratch and shoots level par although plays every day, practices for 3 hours every day and has a practice green in the backyard? Some would argue that you are a better player than the scratch player (all practice opportunities being equal). Others of course would say that it does not matter how much extra practice another player gets or how much extra coaching he gets, if he beats your score in medal, he is the better player. I get that, but that is not the only way to measure how good someone is. You almost have to ask, if you, with a 6.6 handicap had access to unlimited coaching with any world renowned coach (Harmon/Leadbetter etc), had unlimited time to practice and unlimited cash (through sponsorship or from whatever source), how good could you be? I am guessing a lot better than 6.6, probably even pro level. Therefore you can't just look at handicaps, you have to look at how well someone can play given the opportunities they have. While talent is a big factor in determining handicap, other factors are the time you can dedicate to the game and the level of coaching you have. To beat your handicap by a significant amount on a given day means you have played better than you normally do. Kind of like an average pro suddenly winning a tournament. Does that mean they are better than the top pros? No, but it is something to celebrate and might even be "cool" as this is the great thing about golf. On any given day, with our handicaps, we could have the best net round in the world. Does that make us the best player? No. Does it mean we had the best-ranked round of the month? For sure.

Thanks for this. Yes, the problem with a handicap ranking system is just what you point out, who cares whether there are 1727 golfers with lower handicaps than you in Hessen? That is why the GWR approach would not be to rank you according to your handicap but rather to rank an individual round. So, if you shoot 3 under your handicap of 9,1, that would a great round and might be the best round for that month and compared to someone playing off a 6 handicap who shoots 2 under his/her handicap, for that month, you would outrank them as you are both in the same division. You would be -3 and they would be -2. At the moment, you would outrank Tiger. Tiger's handicap is probably about +2 at the moment and with his recent 77, that would give him a score of +7 (assuming a par 72 course). You would be -3 and Tiger would be +7 (even though you are in different divisions). How cool is that?

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this and for including the link. Nice to see that something like this is appreciated by golfers (and it's not just me). Congratulations on doing so well in Argentina. I will study digitalgolftour and see if there are elements that can be brought into GWR. All the best to you, your constructive feedback is appreciated.

Thank you to all for your feedback. I know it takes time to look at another person's idea and to give constructive comments. I will take all of the above onboard and decide which direction I need to take GWR. All the best and happy golfing #golow

Hi there. Thanks and no slight taken. To be honest, great ideas are never fully formed when they begin. They go through a series of pivots (great pun there!) and often become something completely different from what the person originally envisaged. Not to compare for millions of reasons but Twitter started as something very different to what it is now. It had no business plan as to how it would ever moneitize. Facebook also morphed massively from what it was originally supposed to be. Sometimes things take off, sometimes they don't. Few people would be bold enough to say they can predict the success or failure of something in the future when it is just embryonic. Ultimately the users decide the fate. Maybe GWR's fate is to have a short life, maybe not. At this stage I am just gathering feedback using a beta model that has tons of holes in it. Actually, this is how tech companies introduce new software changes, in beta form, and the users then give feedback and they fix or scrap depending. This is beta version. If you hate it cool but hate it for the concept, not for the holes, holes can be filled if the concept is of interest to users.

To be honest, the important questions are not verification or data mining fears but rather whether people think this is a cool idea or not. If they do, the verification and data mining concerns can be addressed. If they don't think it is cool (conceptually) then all the verification and data protection in the world does not matter as it is simply not needed. Reading the above I am getting the sense that people don't like the idea conceptually which is good to hear as maybe I should not continue with it if nobody wants it. That said, I have had some good feedback too so a balanced consideration is required!

As I stated above, there is no requirement for email or verified information (to protect people who are concerned about that). That said, I take the point there with this "non-verification" approach there are challenges as to who is entering their scores and whether those scores are in fact genuine. These are good points. The reason I did not go the "verification" approach was because the extra steps involved which tend to turn people off.

Thank you so much for this. Thanks for this feedback. Actually, you would not be no. 48,238,327 in the world because 1. if you have a bad round, you are probably not going to enter the score and 2. In most divisions about -8 is the best score (net of handicap) so you would be say tie for number 3 in the world in your handicap division if you beat your handicap by say 4 shots. For example if 1 million people are tied at -5 in their division and you shoot -4, you are second (in terms of ranking as that is the second best score of the month). Agreed if there were 1 million at -5 and you shot -4 to be ranked 1,000,001 that would suck. We don't do it like that. This way you could say, wow, if I had made that last putt, I would have been tied best in the world in my division.

I have seen this but it is fiddly and well, a hundred bucks is a hundred bucks. GWR is more binary. You shoot a score, you enter it. Tried to keep it as simple as possible.

Is Game Golf free? GWR is free.

Hi guys, Firstly, thanks for coming back on this so swiftly. Let me just say, this is not a spamming thing or data collection thing or anything like that. It is a genuine idea that I had to create a fun way of measuring your weekly/monthly round of golf against other golfers out there. I imagine there would be a lot of ties as if you shot 12 over par off a 12 handicap you are net "level" and I am sure there would be a lot of people on that score but equally, you could have a great round of say 5 over off a 12 and be net -7 which is pretty cool. As least I think so. Also it encourages people to go as low as they can and this fights against handicap padding which can be a problem sometimes. Thanks also for the feedback re data concern. Clearly this something that needs to be clarified as it has been raised multiple times in the comments above. If you look at the site, email is an optional field for this exact reason. You can submit scores with just your name (which does not have to be your real name). I included email so I could notify people that their scores were entered (I do it manually at the moment) and that I shared it on the GWR Twitter account and on Instagram.

Hi there everyone, Hopefully, it is ok to post this here. If not, please let me know. I am looking for some feedback on a fun golf side project called Golf World Rankings. Basically, it is a no frills and zero red tape way of getting a fun world ranking from every round of golf you have, whether in an official competition or just socially. The idea is to give everyone something to play for, aim for and measure against. Been something I thought about for years but finally got the courage to create it and put it out in the wild :) If you don't mind taking a look and letting me know your thoughts, that would be awesome. I think it could really be fun if a lot of people got involved. Link is below. (removed) All the best, Steve London, UK