OWGR Biased Against PGA Tour Players

[MEfree]

Good article here http://theaposition.com/Articles/21/1632/1/An-Academic-Take-on-Whats-Wrong-With-the-World-Ranking

[stogiesnbogies]

Very difficult to compare the two tours....they are divided by many factors icluding quality and type of courses....Typical American courses feature perfectly manicured greens that run 12 stimp or more....euro tour features more roughly hewn greens and landscapes with slower stimps....American golf tends to reward the "bomb and gouge" method...of big ballstriking off the tee and ginormous arcing wedge shots falling from the heavens upon picture perfect greens.....while Euro golf invites more bump and run style play.....there is also a large class division between tours as many PGA guys come from white-bread gated country club backgrounds and are sons of golf royalty (the Haas family comes to mind) while Euro Tour players more commonly come from humbler more hardscrabble backgrounds , often sans college,  and learn the game on municipal "workingmans" courses...See McIlroy, , Poulter, et. al......consequently there's also a considerable political/cultural divide between the tours as well as PGA has a large Christian / Republican constituency while the Euros tend to be more liberal politically -having experienced the benefits of government programs like Universal Healthcare firsthand and not" forgetting where they came from"....they are also more likely to believe that religion is a personal matter and I hear are gobsmacked at the American players endless prayer meetings, fish symbols on bags and "WWJD? wristbands.....cant say that I blame them.

Not to mention the long and shameful PGA history of racism, classism and sexism.....only opening their doors to blacks as recently as 1961! The typical PGA Tour player is a whitebread kid from a gated community in the suburbs who learned golf on a private course with instructors and "attended" one of the south's diploma mills for athletes such as pick anyone from the SEC et. al....usually majoring in PE or Business etc.

The PGA Tour is by far the more corporatist controlled (not to say the Euro Tour isnt-with its snuggling up to oil barrons in Dubai and the like!) and thus tends to offer larger purse money from week to week....but one can hardly help but laugh when some of these spoiled PGA players claim that they "earn their money based on merit".....yeah except that in the modern PGA world a guy who never, ever wins or even comes close can "earn" a million bucks or more per year!

Good News: The game is shifting internationally and there will be increasing pressure to include more non-American "majors". BTW the British Open provides a wonderful paradigm of precisely what I speak of here....it is usually played on a less perfectly manicured course -often links style course where the premium is on that bump and run through harsh weather....imo THE definitive test in golf....as opposed to the good old white boys club in Augusta.....

[NM Golf]

Very difficult to compare the two tours....they are divided by many factors icluding quality and type of courses....Typical American courses feature perfectly manicured greens that run 12 stimp or more....euro tour features more roughly hewn greens and landscapes with slower stimps....American golf tends to reward the "bomb and gouge" method...of big ballstriking off the tee and ginormous arcing wedge shots falling from the heavens upon picture perfect greens.....while Euro golf invites more bump and run style play.....there is also a large class division between tours as many PGA guys come from white-bread gated country club backgrounds and are sons of golf royalty (the Haas family comes to mind) while Euro Tour players more commonly come from humbler more hardscrabble backgrounds , often sans college,  and learn the game on municipal "workingmans" courses...See McIlroy, , Poulter, et. al......consequently there's also a considerable political/cultural divide between the tours as well as PGA has a large Christian / Republican constituency while the Euros tend to be more liberal politically -having experienced the benefits of government programs like Universal Healthcare firsthand and not" forgetting where they came from"....they are also more likely to believe that religion is a personal matter and I hear are gobsmacked at the American players endless prayer meetings, fish symbols on bags and "WWJD? wristbands.....cant say that I blame them. Not to mention the long and shameful PGA history of racism, classism and sexism.....only opening their doors to blacks as recently as 1961! The typical PGA Tour player is a whitebread kid from a gated community in the suburbs who learned golf on a private course with instructors and "attended" one of the south's diploma mills for athletes such as pick anyone from the SEC et. al....usually majoring in PE or Business etc. The PGA Tour is by far the more corporatist controlled (not to say the Euro Tour isnt-with its snuggling up to oil barrons in Dubai and the like!) and thus tends to offer larger purse money from week to week....but one can hardly help but laugh when some of these spoiled PGA players claim that they "earn their money based on merit".....yeah except that in the modern PGA world a guy who never, ever wins or even comes close can "earn" a million bucks or more per year! Good News: The game is shifting internationally and there will be increasing pressure to include more non-American "majors". BTW the British Open provides a wonderful paradigm of precisely what I speak of here....it is usually played on a less perfectly manicured course -often links style course where the premium is on that bump and run through harsh weather....imo THE definitive test in golf....as opposed to the good old white boys club in Augusta.....

Gee thanks for resurrecting a year old thread so you can babble on with more of your liberal horse$hlt. Your posts give me gas.

[Harmonious]

He must be bored up in his ivory tower.

[14ledo81]

He must be bored up in his ivory tower.

Wow! I guess so. Just looking for a fight.

[stogiesnbogies]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Gee thanks for resurrecting a year old thread so you can babble on with more of your liberal horse$hlt. Your posts give me gas.

Well at least the gas provides something with which to fill the empty space between thine ears.

[stogiesnbogies]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

He must be bored up in his ivory tower.

Or perhaps I'm just doing my job....you know...thinking critically about society, culture, etc...a forbidden practice in most conservative quarters these days. If my commentary contains too many multi-syllabic words I'd be happy to help you with it, Sparky.

[stogiesnbogies]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Wow! I guess so. Just looking for a fight.

Or maybe I'm just making some thoughtful  and considered observations about an aspect of our culture -'Tis part of my job description.   I noticed that thus far none of the geniuses who've replied have had anything constructive to say about the content of my commentary......far too engaged in the anti-intellectual practice of attacking the messenger.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Well at least the gas provides something with which to fill the empty space between thine ears.

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Or perhaps I'm just doing my job....you know...thinking critically about society, culture, etc...a forbidden practice in most conservative quarters these days. If my commentary contains too many multi-syllabic words I'd be happy to help you with it, Sparky.

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Or maybe I'm just making some thoughtful  and considered observations about an aspect of our culture -'Tis part of my job description.   I noticed that thus far none of the geniuses who've replied have had anything constructive to say about the content of my commentary......far too engaged in the anti-intellectual practice of attacking the messenger.

Please use multi-quote , as I've asked you in the past. I'm against spreading stupidity over three posts when one will do.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Or maybe I'm just making some thoughtful  and considered observations about an aspect of our culture -'Tis part of my job description.   I noticed that thus far none of the geniuses who've replied have had anything constructive to say about the content of my commentary......far too engaged in the anti-intellectual practice of attacking the messenger.

Gee, I would try to comment but I don't know many multi-syllabic words. And if I want to hear your diatribes, I can always turn on MSNBC. (Now, you can make a clever condescending comment about Fox News and feel much better).

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonious

He must be bored up in his ivory tower.

Or perhaps I'm just doing my job....you know...thinking critically about society, culture, etc...a forbidden practice in most conservative quarters these days. If my commentary contains too many multi-syllabic words I'd be happy to help you with it, Sparky.

Who was it appointed you to this position?  And on a golf forum to boot?

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Wow! I guess so. Just looking for a fight.

Or maybe I'm just making some thoughtful  and considered observations about an aspect of our culture -'Tis part of my job description.   I noticed that thus far none of the geniuses who've replied have had anything constructive to say about the content of my commentary......far too engaged in the anti-intellectual practice of attacking the messenger.

Again, if your mission is to save the world, why not join the Peace Corps?  If you actually had anything stimulating or relevant to say about GOLF, then your comment might achieve some sort of redemption.  As it is, time to ignore.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Good News: The game is shifting internationally and there will be increasing pressure to include more non-American "majors". BTW the British Open provides a wonderful paradigm of precisely what I speak of here....it is usually played on a less perfectly manicured course -often links style course where the premium is on that bump and run through harsh weather....imo THE definitive test in golf....as opposed to the good old white boys club in Augusta.....

Sounds like your problem is a case of white privilege combined with white guilt.  I hope venting on a golf forum helps you resolve your issues.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Very difficult to compare the two tours....they are divided by many factors icluding quality and type of courses....Typical American courses feature perfectly manicured greens that run 12 stimp or more....euro tour features more roughly hewn greens and landscapes with slower stimps....American golf tends to reward the "bomb and gouge" method...of big ballstriking off the tee and ginormous arcing wedge shots falling from the heavens upon picture perfect greens.....while Euro golf invites more bump and run style play.....there is also a large class division between tours as many PGA guys come from white-bread gated country club backgrounds and are sons of golf royalty (the Haas family comes to mind) while Euro Tour players more commonly come from humbler more hardscrabble backgrounds , often sans college,  and learn the game on municipal "workingmans" courses...See McIlroy, , Poulter, et. al......consequently there's also a considerable political/cultural divide between the tours as well as PGA has a large Christian / Republican constituency while the Euros tend to be more liberal politically -having experienced the benefits of government programs like Universal Healthcare firsthand and not" forgetting where they came from"....they are also more likely to believe that religion is a personal matter and I hear are gobsmacked at the American players endless prayer meetings, fish symbols on bags and "WWJD? wristbands.....cant say that I blame them.

Not to mention the long and shameful PGA history of racism, classism and sexism.....only opening their doors to blacks as recently as 1961! The typical PGA Tour player is a whitebread kid from a gated community in the suburbs who learned golf on a private course with instructors and "attended" one of the south's diploma mills for athletes such as pick anyone from the SEC et. al....usually majoring in PE or Business etc.

The PGA Tour is by far the more corporatist controlled (not to say the Euro Tour isnt-with its snuggling up to oil barrons in Dubai and the like!) and thus tends to offer larger purse money from week to week....but one can hardly help but laugh when some of these spoiled PGA players claim that they "earn their money based on merit".....yeah except that in the modern PGA world a guy who never, ever wins or even comes close can "earn" a million bucks or more per year!

Good News: The game is shifting internationally and there will be increasing pressure to include more non-American "majors". BTW the British Open provides a wonderful paradigm of precisely what I speak of here....it is usually played on a less perfectly manicured course -often links style course where the premium is on that bump and run through harsh weather....imo THE definitive test in golf....as opposed to the good old white boys club in Augusta.....

American golfers, however rich some of their familes might be, are not food.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Well at least the gas provides something with which to fill the empty space between thine ears.

Boy you're a pretentious snob. Typical liberal no truth or fact in what you say you just more self indulgent ideological cow manure. I could fertilize my whole yard with the stuff your shoveling.

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Or perhaps I'm just doing my job....you know...thinking critically about society, culture, etc...a forbidden practice in most conservative quarters these days. If my commentary contains too many multi-syllabic words I'd be happy to help you with it, Sparky.

No one around here gave you a job, we're currently not in the market for egotistical prick. And FWIW no need to hyphenate multisyllabic .

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

Or maybe I'm just making some thoughtful  and considered observations about an aspect of our culture -'Tis part of my job description.   I noticed that thus far none of the geniuses who've replied have had anything constructive to say about the content of my commentary......far too engaged in the anti-intellectual practice of attacking the messenger.

Again, you do not have a job here. As far as your commentary is concerned it is nothing more than pompous drivel served up by a self important, arrogant blowhard with a superiority complex.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

No one around here gave you a job, we're currently not in the market for egotistical prick.

Yeah, seriously. That's my job.

[Nosevi]

Obviously this thread is a fair few months old (and I wouldn't want to break the flow of the constructive conversation that was going on) but I wanted to comment on this subject and the Ryder Cup thread that it was being discussed on isn't the place.

Firstly, the piece of work refered to in this thread has been published so here's a link so people can read it for themselves:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mnb2/broadie/Assets/owgr_20120507_broadie_rendleman.pdf

[Nosevi]

Having been 'accused' in another thread of not taking Mr Broadie's work on this subject seriously, or of not reading it properly, I'd like to say exactly what I think of it. Although before I had scan read it (and was less than convinced) I've looked at it pretty closely as I was told all I had to do was read it and it 'proves' that PGA Tour players are disadvantaged in terms of OWGR in comparission to say guys on the European Tour.

Mr Broadie uses 2 methods of 'ranking' players in terms of their pure skill (in the case of his own SBSE) or results performance (in the  case of the GolfWeek Sagarin rankings). He shows that both of these show the OWGR of PGA Tour players to be lower than they should be. But are those systems totally 'valid'?

Looking first at the Golfweek Sagarin Rankings Broadie does not know how they are determined. He says in his piece:

"The exact algorithm for producing the Sagarin rankings is proprietary...."

And:

"Even though the Sagarin algorithm is effectively a'black box' we include the results in our analysis because the Sagarin ratings and rankings are published each week...."

Leaving aside my belief that this is not good science (basing or backing up your conclusion even partly on a statistical analysis which you do  not understand - you can't understand it as the 'authors won't tell anyone how they work out the ratings and therefore rankings...)  let's look at the current rankings as of 29 September 2014. At number 1 in the Golfweek Sagarin rankings is Jim Furyk. At number 4 is Rory McIlroy.

Now Broadie quotes that the Sangarine system "is based on a mathematical formula that uses a player's won-lost-tied record against other players when they play on the same course on the same day, and the stroke diferential between those players, then links all players to one another based on common opponents. The ratings give an indication of who is playing well over the past 52 weeks."

So looking at the 'scores on the doors' of Furyk and McIlroy over the preceding 52 week period giving this weeks rankings:

Win/Lose/Tie (total) - win rate ie win/played

Jim Furyk currently ranked 1

When playing v top 10 player - 77/47/7 (131) - 0.59
v top 50 - 472/156/32 (660) - 0.72
v top 100 - 814/212/41 (1067) - 0.76
overall - 2093/309/57 (2459) - 0.85

Rory McIlroy currently ranked 4

v top 10 - 81/49/4 (134) - 0.60
v top 50 - 498/118/29 (645) - 0.77
v top 100 - 851/160/39 (1050) - 0.81
overall - 2572/291/70 (2933) - 0.87

Now Golfweek won't release how they come up with the idea that Jim Furyk has been more successful as a 'winner' than Rory McIlroy over the last 52 week period but however you 'spin' the figures of win vs loss, win vs played, win vs loss and tie.... Rory comes out on top. They won't say how they can say Jim Furyk is the number one but anyone who follows golf knows he isn't (much as I like the guy). I'd suggest their algorithms are a tad off. The Golfweek Sangarin rankings that put Furyk at number one in the world and McIlroy at number 4 are not taken seriously by anyone outside the States yet Broadie uses them to back up his own method of determining the true rank or skill of the players. I'd suggest any system that can't work out that the guy that's won the most (and done it with convincingly the lowest stroke average, most strokes gained, most top 10 finishes etc) is probably the number one player right now. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong but Furyk hasn't actually won a tournament this year. Rory has won 4 times, 2 are Majors, 1 a WGC and our own PGA in the UK. I'd say that any system that (currently) puts Furyk above McIlroy is flawed.

Looking at Broadie's own SBSE (Score-Based Skill Estimate) The one thing he is totally spot on about is in it's name - it's an estimate. In fact if you count up the number of times he uses the word 'estimates' in it you'll give up :)

Broadie says that his formula uses an "estimate of the mean score of player i on a 'neutral' course."

But then adds:

"Although we do not take specific information about course setup and weather conditions into account in estimating....."

This is where the formula falls down (or at least 'should' fall down in any kind of statistical analysis).

The SBSE uses players who play against both those on (for example) the European Tour and those that play on the PGA tour, to compare players on each tour that do not play against each other. So if Player 1 is a 'star player' from Europe who plays both tours then Player 2 (a player on just the PGA Tour) is compared to Player 3 (a player on just the European Tour) based on their scoring performance relative to Player 1. And scoring performance is important. Also note that we're not talking about star PGA players coming and playing on 'standard' tour events on the European Tour, it only really happen the other way around.

Looking at the Scoring average of players this year that play both the PGA and European tours:

Player - PGA scoring average/European scoring average

Rory - 68.836/69.43
Sergio - 68.959/70.02
Justin Rose - 69.632/70.11
Graeme McDowell - 69.651/70.47
Charl Schwartzel - 69.680/70.17
Paul Casey - 70.198/70.57
Further down
Luke Donald - 70.745/71.47
Lee Westwood - 70.747/71.03
Louis Oosthuizen - 70.864/71.26

Exception to the 'rule' Henrik Stenson - 70.177/69.87

Almost all the players that play both tours have a higher stroke average on the European tour than on the PGA tour. Bearing in mind that many of the tournaments that these players play in are 'co-sanctioned' (so the scores count towards the player's stroke average on both tours) the difference between the scores those players post in purely PGA Tour events and the scores they post in purely European Tour events is far higher than the differences shown above. Mathmatically it has to be to give the differential when some events are counted by both tours. And the players they are being used as a common denominator for only play in the events which are not co-sanctioned (they can be directly compared in co-sanctioned events). Given that on average the players that play both tours split their time roughly 50% co-sanctioned events to 25% solely on one of the tours (weighted differently towards either the PGA Tour or European Tour for each player), the score differential between the  scores they post on purely European Tour events vs purely PGA tour events is roughly 3 times that shown above..... or on average a  full shot and a half ..... or, as we're talking about guys fighting to get a spot in the big tournaments, more than the difference between the guy in 50th place in the PGA Tour scoring stats and the guy in 173rd spot. Broadie disregards this fact.

For whatever reason (and I'm not being judgemental, I'm just stating fact) those players that play both tours score higher on the European Tour - either the courses or weather makes it harder to play the game of golf.

As these players are the common denominator - they are being used to 'assess' the skill of both the players on the PGA Tour and the players on the European Tour who only play their own tour, the course (or weather) difficulty is hugely important. We all play the game of golf - which will generally be a closer score, a more skilled player against a less skilled player playing on an easier course or those players matched up on a harder course. Taking it to it's n'th degree, which would be the bigger battering - a 10 hadicapper against a tour pro on your home track or a 10 handicapper against that tour pro on the Black Course or off the back tees at Augusta when it's set up for The Masters? What was it tiger said when Speaking of the US Open I think - "a 10 handicapper wouldn't break 100....."

My point is this - the golfers being used to compare guys from different tours are the guys that play both and they are up at the top of the rankings (however you calculate them). It's harder to score on the tournaments that the 'just European players' play in than it is to score in the tournaments that the 'just PGA players' play in. If it's harder to score, then you would expect the differential to be greater between those on the European Tour only compared to the 'both tour' top guys, than it is between the 'PGA Tour only' and the 'both tour guys'. That's what happens as the course (or weather) gets harder - the scoring differential increases between those at the top and those with a bit less skill.

This is entirely ignored in Broadie's statistical model and it assumes a linear score differential indicates a linear skill differential regardless of the dificulty of the round. Golf isn't like that. Broadie is either ignoring this fact or he's not a golfer. Possibly both.

And at the end of the day what the OWGR system is trying to do is important. Broadie states:

"The OWGR method is based on tournament finishing positions, while the SBSE and Sagarin methods are based on 18-hole scores. The diference between OWGR points for finishing first versus second is much larger than the diference in points for finishing nineteenth versus twentieth.That is, OWGR points are awarded using a nonlinear scale."

Professional golf is about winning tournaments (or placing as high up in them as possible). Getting the job done, holding it together down the stretch, winning the tournament SHOULD be worth more. That's what they're all trying to do after all. That's why the OWGR system awards more points for success. That's why practically every sport in the world that has a ranking system or prize money system does the same.

The Sagarin method is seriously flawed.... unless you think that Jim Furyk should be above Rory based on wins vs losses when Rory has both more wins overall and a higher percentage of wins. I like Jim Furyk a lot, in fact he's one of my favourite golfers, but he's currently not the World number one by any measure anyone can come up with other than Golfweek who won't say how they came to that conclusion.

The SBSE system is also flawed (although perhaps to a lesser degree) as it assumed a linear score differential indicates a linear skill differential as course/scoring difficulty increases. It  doesn't in golf and never has. As the game gets tougher (maybe due to the weather our guys play in more than the courses) the scoring of the top guys goes up a bit, the scoring of the guys with a little less talent goes up more.

The conclusion Broadie comes to is flawed as it is based entirely on these 2 systems.

Now by all means disagree with me. Perhaps you think Furyk has had more success or deserves a higher 'power rating' than McIlroy given their golf over the last 52 weeks. Or perhaps you think the fact that practically all the players that play both tours find it harder to score on the tournaments that are only on the European Tour than they do on the tournaments that are only on the PGA tour is a statistical anomyly, a fluke. Or perhaps you think that as scoring gets harder the gulf between the super talented guys at the top and the rest below them doesn't widen. But I think Mr Broadie had an agenda - to 'prove' that the guys on the PGA Tour are lower down the OWGR than they should be. He says it at the begining of his paper as an 'attention grabber' - it's blidingly obvious who his target audience is. He ignores several fairly obvious facts in his analysis (like Rors is a tiny bit better at golf than Jim at the moment no matter what Golfweek says....) and the 2 models he uses to prove the fact that the players on the PGA Tour should be higher on the OWGR are flawed.

I would therefore say that Broadie has failed to prove his conclusion (which he gives in the introduction of his piece ?!?).

I read the PDF. I remain unconvinced :)

[BENtSwing]

I read the PDF. I remain unconvinced :)

So all of that was to say that you don't believe what a 2012 study on the OWGR concludes?