2 Common Perceptions - Stongest Field/Tour

[Golf_Predictor_Guru]

Two common perceptions in golf are:

1. The US PGA Players Championship has the best field in golf.
2. The US PGA Tour has stronger fields than the European PGA Tour.

The Players Championship, although a fine event on a great course, does not have the strongest field in golf. Not by some way in fact. The WGC and FedEx playoffs have much stronger fields.

The second assertion is very true, although I was loath to admit it as a European until I saw the numbers .

See this blog post for statistics that I've dug out to prove both.

[BallStriker]

The flaw in your logic is taking the world rankings as conclusively correct...which, of course, they are not.

The fact is that the Nationwide Tour regularly provides a stronger and deeper field than the Euro Tour.

[iacas]

The Players Championship, although a fine event on a great course, does not have the strongest field in golf. Not by some way in fact. The WGC and FedEx playoffs have much stronger fields.

That only works because you're taking the world ranking points and averaging them. The WGC has smaller fields.

In other words, with your math a tournament consisting of the top five players only is the "stronger field" over one with the top 50 players, but we all know it's not. Strikes me as a fairly obvious flaw.

[Surefire]

The fact is that the Nationwide Tour regularly provides a stronger and deeper field than the Euro Tour.

Interesting!

Although you claim this is a fact, I will call it a theory. What do you base your theory on?

[Golf_Predictor_Guru]

Like any system, the WR points system is not perfect, but I'm not aware of any huge problems with it. There have been some anomalies, but generally speaking the cream rises to the top. I don't have any stats on the Nationwide Tour, but I very much doubt it is stronger than the European Tour. I don't know of any major champions, Ryder Cup players, Presidents Cup players or world top 50 players that play on it regularly, for example. You also get more points for winning on the European Tour than the Nationwide Tour, which wouldn't be the case if the fields were stronger. I try not to state "facts" without at least trying to back them up with some numbers.

There is no definitive way to please pedants over how to exactly measure field strength. Averaging the world ranking is one indicator (albeit slightly simplistic). Granted, the more players that play in a tournament may make it harder to win, but that very much depends on who's making up the numbers.

Perhaps combining the average world ranking and the field size might be a more accurate metric. Using that, I suspect the Players Championship would move up to second behind the CA Championship, which has a field of about 80. I shall investigate and report back.


ps. I just noticed the typo in the thread title -oops!

[Golf_Predictor_Guru]

I've experimented with incorporating field sizes into the equation and the 2 WGC events still come out on top. The Players Champ moves up to third on the list, ousting the Mercedes-Benz Champ which has a very small field.

It's hard to argue with the field strength of the WGC-Accenture Match Play. Its 75 strong entry list (including alternates) this year had the top 74 golfers plus no. 78 in the world. If that's not a strong field, I don't know what it is!

[mcfc_nick]

I've experimented with incorporating field sizes into the equation and the 2 WGC events still come out on top. The Players Champ moves up to third on the list, ousting the Mercedes-Benz Champ which has a very small field.

ye but sometimes that doesnt work! i mean, personally, i think that having people like john daly in the field looks stronger than having people like brendan jones in it!