The World Rankings

[crayputter]

There has been massive debate online and in sports columns everywhere about whether Luke Donald is a worthy world no.1 right now after Tiger's 3rd Tour win this season.

Looking at the OWGR points, if you take the Top 20 players in the world (Donald - Oosthuizen ), the top 5 players with the most number of points in total so far is :

1. Donald - 509.704 points (average : 9.803)

2. McIlroy - 432.741 points (8.655)

3. Westwood - 377.516 points (8.207)

4. Simpson - 340.450 points (6.547)

5. Woods - 312.614 points (7.815)

You're probably wondering how is it that Simpson has more points than Woods and yet, lower in the rankings....well that's because Simpson has played in more events than Woods, hence their divisors are different.

The MIN divisor for events in the OWGR is 40 and the MAX is 52. So if you've played 60 events so far, it doesn't matter. Your divisor will still be 52.

What this means is that Donald (whose divisor is max with his participation in the US Open last month at 52 ) will not lose anymore points for the rest of this season, irregardless of how he performs the rest of this season. For example if he sits out the rest of the season, his 9.803 will remain as such. Other players can overtake him, but his number won't change. Obviously...if he consistently performs, his average will grow because his divisor doesn't change. My point is, his average WON'T drop.

Rory (50 divisor) and Westwood (46) CAN lose points in the next few events they participate in, as long as they finish worse than T-10. Obviously Rory has only 2 events left where he can lose points before he hits the max divisor of 52. Westwood has another six events where he can lose points (by quite a bit...maybe down a full point to 7.3 or something like that if he finished middle of the pack in all events )

Now...Tiger.....this guy's played in only 34 events so far...so he has got another 6 events to play where his divisor (the MIN of 40) does NOT change, but his numerator (points) can grow....by a bit if he wins a few...

So the reality of the rankings....if you took Tiger's total points of 312.614 divided by the ACTUAL events he's played in (34), that would yield an average of 9.194...so Donald, by virtue of his consistent play, with that massive 509 points, for now at least...is worthy of the throne. Like Tiger, Luke has hit his max divisor where it won't change so it will only grow with solid performances/wins.

I'm sure we will see a great battle at the top between Tiger and Luke because of this and they will start to separate themselves massively from the rest of the players.

So up next Greenbrier....where if Tiger wins....and Rory and Westwood have a ho-hum Open, Tiger will be at No. 2 behind Luke...

And unless Simpson or Watson win the Open, there will be no changes to the Top 4 in the OWGR after the Open championship is done.

Cheers

Ray

[Timothy Voyles]

Rankings are what they are... a set of numbers for numbers guys to play with. Anyone who watches golf consistently knows who's top right now.

[BruceMGF]

Originally Posted by Timothy Voyles

Rankings are what they are... a set of numbers for numbers guys to play with. Anyone who watches golf consistently knows who's top right now.

It's not what it claims to be  - a ranking of who's best (2nd best, 3rd best, etc.).  It's just another ongoing competition where gaming the rules of the event is as important as scoring low.

[k-troop]

I agree with the OP's assertion that Donald is #1 in the World if you consider play over the last 1-2 years.  However, in 2012, there's a clear #1, and it's not Luke.

I don't think Tiger's worried either.  He knows (now) that he'll keep winning, and the numbers will work themselves out.  It's not like he's going to be excluded from any fields because he's only #4 in OWGR.

[brocks]

What this means is that Donald (whose divisor is max with his participation in the US Open last month at 52 ) will not lose anymore points for the rest of this season, irregardless of how he performs the rest of this season. For example if he sits out the rest of the season, his 9.803 will remain as such. Other players can overtake him, but his number won't change.

Sorry, that is completely wrong. First, the maximum divisor of 52 is taken over a moving window of the last two years. So if Luke stops playing, his divisor will start dropping as soon as his 52nd event is more than two years old. If his 52nd event happens to be two years old right now, it would start dropping immediately. Second, points for events more than 13 weeks old get depreciated each week. Simpson's US Open win is now worth 100 points, but in 11 weeks, it will start losing about a point a week. By this time next year, it will be worth about the same as Tiger's win at the Memorial, and by the time the 2014 Masters is played, it will be worth less than a win at the John Deere. So if Luke stopped playing, his average would start dropping immediately, even if his 52nd event was only 18 months old. You can see that just by looking at his average over the last couple of weeks. He hasn't played since the US Open. On the Monday after the US Open, his average was 10.12. The next week, it was 9.96, and this week, it's 9.80. All with the same divisor of 52. The World Rankings are misnamed. They should be called the World Standings. Nobody jumps up and down when the Yankees win three in a row, but are not in first place in the standings. They understand that the standings show who is ahead for the whole season, not who is best this week. If you want to know that, just look at the latest leaderboard. The purpose of the OWGR is to identify who has played the best over the last two years. Recent results have more weight, but if you had a crappy 2011, you'll have to play a lot better than somebody who had a great 2011 if you want to pass him in the rankings in 2012. Tiger appears poised to pass MC ilroy and the Bobbsey Twins before the year is over, but right now, he's still paying for 2011, and the last half of 2010. A good rule of thumb to compare recent play, though, is to just look at the raw WGR points earned year to date. Tiger is now first in that, and Rory is second.

[jamo]

Sorry, that is completely wrong. First, the maximum divisor of 52 is taken over a moving window of the last two years. So if Luke stops playing, his divisor will start dropping as soon as his 52nd event is more than two years old. If his 52nd event happens to be two years old right now, it would start dropping immediately.

I was thinking the same thing. If he doesn't play all of July (theoretically of course, there's no chance he skips the British), that's an entire month of points from July 2010 coming off the books.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by jamo

I was thinking the same thing. If he doesn't play all of July (theoretically of course, there's no chance he skips the British), that's an entire month of points from July 2010 coming off the books.

From July 2010 to the end of 2010 he had 2 second place and 3 third place finishes, as well as an 11th in the British.  Based on what you guys are saying, it sounds like he will have to play pretty well the rest of this year to avoid dropping points.

[brocks]

From July 2010 to the end of 2010 he had 2 second place and 3 third place finishes, as well as an 11th in the British.  Based on what you guys are saying, it sounds like he will have to play pretty well the rest of this year to avoid dropping points.

It's a bit counterintuitive, but in Luke's case, losing those events from his ranking window would actually help his average. If you look [URL=http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/players/bio.sps?ID=4163&name;=Luke&Rank;=1&TotalPts;=509.76359]here,[/URL] you can see what each event in the last two years is worth for Luke. It gives the event, the player's result, the number of points it was originally worth, and the number of points it's worth now, i.e. after depreciation. And you can see that as events approach two years in age, they aren't worth much. Luke's 3rd place finish at the 2010 RBC Canadian Open is only worth 0.59 points now, less than half as much as DiMarco just got for finishing T49 at the ATT last week. Even a win in a major is only worth about one point just before it ages out of the two-year window. What that means is that for a top player like Luke, whose average is around ten points, any result that is currently worth less than that hurts his average --- even a high finish in a strong event. And as a corollary, when those old events age out of the window, that helps his average, as long as he's played more than the minimum 40 events over two years. The reason players like Luke see their average decline if they don't play well is that more recent events, like his win at this year's Transitions, lose about one percent of their value each week. I've posted in other threads that this is a flaw in the system --- it should not *ever* be the case that you would have a higher average if you skipped a major than if you won it --- but the practical effect isn't that bad, since all the top players have the same problem.

[firstorlast]

i just can't believe luke donald is number 1

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by firstorlast

i just can't believe luke donald is number 1

I thought Rory took over after last week?

[firstorlast]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I thought Rory took over after last week?

ha i think he did too i read this and wasn't even thinking. didn't even cross my mind haha sorry about that

[kathybhylton]

Originally Posted by Timothy Voyles

Rankings are what they are... a set of numbers for numbers guys to play with. Anyone who watches golf consistently knows who's top right now.

Could not agree more. They're just numbers.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I thought Rory took over after last week?

At least he is a worthy #1 who has won at least 1 (now 2) majors.  I always thought Donald and Westwood were jokes at #1.  It was as bad as women's tennis.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by turtleback

At least he is a worthy #1 who has won at least 1 (now 2) majors.  I always thought Donald and Westwood were jokes at #1.  It was as bad as women's tennis.

Well, world #1 doesn't require you to win a major.  What it does require is that you win consistently, which Donald has done as much as anyone over the last 2 years.  I think Donald is in the all-time top 5 for # of weeks at #1 in OWGR; he held it for over a year.

[MEfree]

Rory has solidified his hold on #1 and Tiger is very close to being #2...He will get 1 event closer to the 40 min at the Tour Championship and if he and Luke play about the same the next two weeks, I think Tiger will pass Luke.  Luis Oo jumped up to a virtual tie 10 with Stricker today.

Winning majors might be important, but the only guys in the top 10 who have won at least 1 in the last 2 years are Rory, Bubba and Webb.  In fact, 6 of last weeks top 10 have never won a major.  For me it is hard to consider a guy like Darren Clarke better than a guy like Luke Donald RIGHT NOW just because he won a major during the ranking period.  If winning a major during the 2 year ranking period is a requirement to be #1, then your choices for #1 can be pretty limited at times.  i.e. after the 2010 US Open you would have had to choose from

Graeme McDowell	Louis Oosthuizen	Martin Kaymer
2009	Ángel Cabrera (2/2)	Lucas Glover	Stewart Cink	Yang Yong-eun
2008	Trevor Immelman

and after the 2011 Open you would have had to pick from

Darren Clarke	Keegan Bradley
2010	Phil Mickelson (4/4)	Graeme McDowell	Louis Oosthuizen	Martin Kaymer
2009	Ángel Cabrera (2/2)	Lucas Glover

Of those, I think Kaymer was the only guy to make it to #1 and it can be argued that he wasn`t the strongest #1.  When things are close and nobody is dominate, then there will always be someone who is upset with the rankings.

I don`t think the OWGR algorithm is perfect, but with Rory and Tiger at the top and the only guys with 3 PGA Tour wins this year, maybe more people will agree that they get it mostly right.

[ThominOH]

Personally I hate the WGR system..  It shouldn't take anything into consideration past a 52 week window.. I don't mind the scaled points as results become older, but not weekly.. I would like to see the result be done by quarter.. All results from quarter to quarter are weighted equally.. I also am not a fan of giving a winner and undue advantage on points..  I would like to see WGR tweak their point system similar to NASCAR, where steady and consistency is rewarded more so..

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

Personally I hate the WGR system..  It shouldn't take anything into consideration past a 52 week window.. I don't mind the scaled points as results become older, but not weekly.. I would like to see the result be done by quarter.. All results from quarter to quarter are weighted equally.. I also am not a fan of giving a winner and undue advantage on points..  I would like to see WGR tweak their point system similar to NASCAR, where steady and consistency is rewarded more so..

I have been critical of the OWGR mainly for a mathematical flaw in how they computed what should simply be a weight average, but also for giving too many points for limited field events.

However, I disagree with your proposed changes.  Reducing quarterly instead of weekly would simply mean bigger jumps in the rankings week to week as key results drop from one quarter to the other.  As it stands, the value the current quarter and 100% and then things decay gradually as they get older.

For the final year end ranking, I like the idea of only looking at the last 52 weeks, but think that at least all 4 majors should count at full value with it making sense to me that for something like World Player of the Year, that none of points are subject to decay.  As it stands now, the funny season events in Oct-December count at full value for year end ranking while the earlier events like the Masters have decayed in importance.

For weekly rankings, I think the two year look back is appropriate as it gives a much better sense of a players potential performance.  I am not 100% sure, but with only older 4 events played between March 2008 and March 2009, I don`t think that Tiger would have been inside the top 64 and thus would have been ineligible for the early 2009 WGC events where he finished t17 and t9. He may also have been left out of these events in 2011.

[Everydaygolf]

I was looking for a stat the other day and couldn't find it.  It would be interesting to see a ranking of +/- in relation to the playing group.  I just thought it would be cool to see who consistently beats their playing partners.  For example, someone like Ken Duke may consistently beat his playing partners even though he doesn't win.

Another stat I was looking for a breakdown on is the time of day the round was played.  I was curious if there are guys out there who play better in the morning/afternoon.  I know for me I consistently play better in the morning.

Let me know if you guys know where these could be found.  Just a couple of weird stats I was curious about.