Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Rolex Rankings Movers of the Year 2013.

1 post in this topic

As we wait for the 2014 season to begin (we are about three weeks away), it gives me a little time to look back at the players that made the biggest moves in the Rolex Rankings in 2013.

The Rolex Rankings system awards points to players based on an accumulated 104-week "rolling" period, with the points awarded in the most recent 13-week period carrying a stronger value.
A player is then ranked according to her average points per tournament, as determined by dividing her total number of points by the number of eligible tournaments played during the 104 week period. A minimum divisor (35) is also used.

I have gone back to the first Rolex Rankings of the year and compared them to the current rankings. The only requirements for my list is: (1) A player must have been ranked in the top 100 at the start of the year, or be in the top 100 now. (2) A player must have started the year 2013 with a minimum rating of 0.50 (or else this chart would be filled with unknown names.)

The Year's Biggest Gainers:
1- Lydia Ko - 2.40 to 7.48 = Gain of 5.08 (moved from #43 to #4)
2- Suzann Pettersen - 7.04 to 10.39 = Gain of 3.35 (move 6 to 2)
3- Inbee Park - 8.03 to 10.91 = Gain of 2.88 (move 4 to 1)
4- Ha Na Jang - 1.44 to 4.20 = Gain of 2.76 (move 92 to 14)
5- Lizette Salas - 1.47 to 3.76 = Gain of 2.29 (move 89 to 20)
6- Ariya Jutanugarn - 0.54 to 2.81 = Gain of 2.27 (move 236 to 29)
7- Sei Young Kim - 0.70 to 2.71 = Gain of 2.01 (move 189 to 33)
8- Beatriz Recari - 1.89 to 3.77 = Gain of 1.88 (move 57 to 19)
9- Mamika Higa - 0.68 to 2.17 = Gain of 1.49 (move 195 to 50)
10- Ihlee Lee - 1.52 to 2.73 = Gain of 1.21 (move 84 to 32)
11- Gerina Piller - 1.41 to 2.61 = Gain of 1.20 (move 95 to 37)
12- Hee Young Park - 2.62 to 3.80 = Gain of 1.18 (move 37 to 18)
13- Jodi Ewart Shadoff - 1.00 to 2.07 = Gain of 1.07 (move 137 to 54)
14- Pornanong Phatlum - 1.69 to 2.62 = Gain of 0.93 (move 70 to 36)
15- Jessica Korda - 1.61 to 2.50 = Gain of 0.89 (move 78 to 41)
16- Lexi Thompson - 4.05 to 4.91 = Gain of 0.86 (move 24 to 9)
17- Caroline Hedwall - 2.47 to 3.35 = Gain of 0.88 (move 40 to 23)
18- Stacy Lewis - 8.39 to 9.14 = Gain of 0.75 (move 3 to 3)


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • I'm good friends with a number of college coaches, particularly women's college coaches, and while I have no doubt that some likely care about height, most will take the player with the good scores so long as their game is commensurate. You're making a big assumption that a 5'5" girl is going to be bumping hybrids all day long. Jamie Sadlowski is only 5'10". Sadena Parks is 5'3". Kim Sei-young is 5'4". Brooke Henderson? 5'4". Randomly chose players from the top 20 on the LPGA's Driving Distance list. Distance is an, absolutely, but there's a big world between "bumped hybrids that roll onto greens" and "spinning the ball with irons." Height correlates to distance, but we're not talking about an R2 value of 0.89 or something. Now, before this gets too far off topic… let's leave it at that. P.S. Off topic because we're talking about how to get noticed by college coaches, not generalities of height and distance and impact on scoring in the vague, non-specific sense.
    • There are two ways he could reasonably respond to this… A) How would he know?
      B) The current rule does just that. I think you're misreading what he wrote. And you have no idea what the "primary cause" is, particularly since you're not even discussing a specific situation right now. I can see how soling your putter near the ball could be more likely to cause a ball to move than walking in and stopping a foot+ away from the ball. A ball overhanging the hole is not deemed at rest until the time has elapsed (or the player taps in). The situations are not alike. You, too, seem to be reading this incorrectly. Re-read 18-2/0.5. There's no presumption of guilt or innocence. The facts are simply weighed, and the most likely cause determined. The player is not guilty until proven innocent. Kindly stop just making stuff up. On that we agree.
    • I have a daughter playing D1 golf.  While the competition isn't as severe, D1 and high D2 coaches do have stereotypes for their golfers.  They want them a certain size and a certain build.  They will take a kid that is 5'9" that averages a 78 over a girl that is 5'5" and averages 75 .  They know that the 5'9" hasn't maxed out their potential and can grow in the distance department just on size alone.  They want girls going into greens with irons and spinning the ball, not a bumped hybrid that rolls onto the green.  Heard this from several coaches in the process.
    • I'm curious if Phil had found a setup edge with putting if he'd share it so openly with his fellow pros? He's rather competitive, but has been open about some of his strategies in the past. It probably depends on the individual stroke tendencies.
    • Did they ever look at just an exception to this rule for obvious external causes like wind and gravity? To a large extent though the hovering of the club was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause - absent wind. Why is a putt that comes to rest on the edge of the cup and then goes in when a player walks toward it to mark it not treated the same under this rule. It's at rest and then it moves. Treat like situations alike, right? Why make an exception because it's on the green or near the hole? The player walking in is the likely cause and aren't extra heavy footsteps not allowed, because they are likely to tip the balance? Might not be 'opposite', but I do think your idea is a bit like shifting of the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff. If done this way you could stick with the existing 51% threshold to be tighter on latitude. It just seems that way with a few of the rulings as applied. To a large extent though the hovering of the club to avoid a penalty was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause of movement - absent wind. I personally like that the wind moving the ball regardless of whether or not the club was grounded does not result in a penalty now.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. billymo2
      (24 years old)
    2. bostonboy9416
      (16 years old)
    3. kpaulhus
      (29 years old)
  • Blog Entries