2014 Ryder Cup Discussion Thread

[skydog]

That's really not too surprising. I'm fairly new to golf, this is the first Ryder Cup I've watched, and it was pretty boring, to be honest. I love watching these guys play, but the celebrating and all that seems super fake to me. The whole vibe just seemed "put-on." Can't really explain why, that's just how I took it.

Do they get paid for Ryder Cup appearances? Or any sort of monetary benefit?

They get a "stipend" for traveling, etc. but I have no idea how much it is.

Those ratings are abysmal. Golf is going to end up on tape delay on Comcast sportsnet if this recent trend keeps up. Majors may be lucky enough to make it on ESPN the ocho after the PBR championship

[Nosevi]

The minimum points are the same, but the strenght of the field is taking in considiration of how many points players will get exactly.

Take a look for example at the points Sergio Garcia got in his career, ranked by most points per event:

http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=5689

The first ET event is placed 10th, and in his top 15 only two European Tour events. So, besides from majors, people who are winning or high on the leaderboard at the PGA do get more points compared to winning a ET event.

The perfect balance won't excist as long as you have seperate tours, but I definitely don't believe the ET is much (or at all) overrated compared to PGA Tour. That would mean the best players on ET (Dubuisson and Donaldson) are placed too high now around 25th. I think they are right where they deserve to be.

+1

Your opinion is subject to fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Both the PGA Tour and European Tour hold the same status as far as OWGR points are concerned.

No they don't. The link for these quotes is below, but for now, just the quotes will suffice:

"Asian Tour and European Tour players benefit from full field (especially co-sanctioned) tournaments that lure in world class players with appearance fees. Their world rankings are inflated drastically on a continual basis.”

“[The change] doesn’t address the self-perpetuating gaming of the system by European and Asian Tour events, or the preposterous notion of ‘home tour ranking points.’”

Consider an event that attracts no top players but offers a minimum the same as a PGA Tour event (not a top PGA Tour event like Memorial or something which has a higher OWGR winner point share). Both players earn the same OWGR points for winning, despite one playing a stiffer field?

One of many ways the OWGR is inflated for the European Tour.

I'll save myself some typing. Just go read this: http://www.columbia.edu/~mnb2/broadie/Assets/owgr_20120507_broadie_rendleman.pdf

Quote:

Using 18-hole scoring data of all golfers participating in tournaments from 2002 to 2010 on the major tours (PGA, Europe, Japan, Asia, Sunshine and Australasia) and from the developmental tours (Nationwide and Challenge), we test for bias in OWGR rankings by comparing the OWGR rankings with two methods, score-based skill estimation (SBSE) and Sagarin, which do not use tour information in their computations. We find a persistent, large and statistically significant bias in the OWGR rankings against PGA Tour golfers; a golfer of a given estimated SBSE skill level, or a given Sagarin rank, is likely to be penalized in the OWGR rankings for playing events on the PGA tour and rewarded for playing elsewhere. These findings are important, because OWGR rankings determine, in part, eligibility to play in major tournaments, World Golf Championships and other events.

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

No, I totally get the maths - if based wholely on who you are playing and where they are in the OWGR system it'd more and more heavily favour one tour - the PGA Tour. It offers the money, it gets the big names.

I don't think you do. The European Tour is over-rated in terms of OWGR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

But then you've got to ask yourself if the guy that finishes top 50 each week on the PGA Tour is THAT much better than the guy that smokes the field each week on the Sunshine Tour? Probably not - most of those guys go on to win several Majors.

Huh? Of course the guy that finishes top 50 each week on the PGA Tour is WAY better than the guy who plays on the Sunshine Tour. WAY better.

Read the PDF.

I was refering to the guys that have done extremely well on the Sunshine Tour (Els, Oosthuizen, Schwartzel etc.) proving that ability immediately when they came onto the PGA Tour. They didn't suddenly get better over night just because they were playing on the PGA Tour - they were pretty good on their home tour.

As for the quotes, it's utterly laughable to say "Asian Tour and European Tour players benefit from full field (especially co-sanctioned) tournaments that lure in world class players with appearance fees. Their world rankings are inflated drastically on a continual basis.” The PGA Tour 'benefits' from having the world number one playing on it by 'luring' him in with money. Don't blame him and no snags with the PGA Tour having the highest purses but it's all about the money - that why so many great players from Europe play both tours.

An assumption you have also made is that a minor European Tour event has less 'talent' in than a minor PGA Tour event. The only way both events would award the minimum is if neither have any top players in. If the PGA event had any top players in it would have more than the minimum points on offer.

The bottom lline is if you think the European Tour is over rated in terms of OWGR points (and to bring it back to the thread) why is it the 'Stars' of the PGA are made to look very ordinary indeed by a Welsh lad and French chap who don't warrant their place in the OWGR? (the other European players play both tours). I'd suggest they do deserve those positions and if they were playing the PGA tour their position would possibly be higher.

[rehmwa]

Golf names are not descriptive:

Fourball - I can think of two things wrong with that name "four" (it's a 2-man team) and "ball" (you take the best score, not the best shot, the best score on that hole might not just be from one ball even if the better score loses a ball) - Each 2-man team, each player plays his own ball and you use the better of the two scores..."Best Score"

Foursomes - I can think of two things wrong with that name "four" (it's a two man team) and "somes" (....! @($&(*$#) - Each 2-man team hits alternate shots and that's the score you get....."Alternate Shot"

Scrambles - "scrambling" is about the furthest thing from it - you get to take the best shot of the team (whatever size team is playing) I mean the whole point is eliminate any scrambling scenarios......"Best Shot"

Silly Bodkins, stroke play, match play - OK - much better

what else?

thanks, I feel much better

[iacas]

Take a look for example at the points Sergio Garcia got in his career, ranked by most points per event:

http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=5689

The first ET event is placed 10th, and in his top 15 only two European Tour events. So, besides from majors, people who are winning or high on the leaderboard at the PGA do get more points compared to winning a ET event.

The perfect balance won't excist as long as you have seperate tours, but I definitely don't believe the ET is much (or at all) overrated compared to PGA Tour. That would mean the best players on ET (Dubuisson and Donaldson) are placed too high now around 25th. I think they are right where they deserve to be.

That's irrelevant.

Let's say Sergio gets 10 points for finishing T3 at a PGA Tour event.

Let's say he gets 8 points for finishing T3 at a European Tour event.

If the European Tour event was 33% or 50% "easier," then he's gotten too many points for the European Tour finish, despite earning FEWER points.

+1

Both of you, please just read the PDF. If you disagree with it after that, well, I don't know what to tell you. You're basing things on your opinions or your "sense" of things.

The European Tour awards points at a higher "rate" relative to the quality of the player than the PGA Tour.

I was refering to the guys that have done extremely well on the Sunshine Tour (Els, Oosthuizen, Schwartzel etc.) proving that ability immediately when they came onto the PGA Tour.

Huh?

So let's claim that players who dominate at Stanford go on to win multiple majors because, after all, Tiger Woods did it. Let's ignore the countless people who finished high on the money list who never amounted to anything. He didn't just "suddenly get better" either. He was also an anomaly.

Because seriously, what have these people truly done on the world stage:

Ross Fisher

Danie van Tonder

George Coetzee

Thomas Aiken

Justin Walters

There's your top five on the Sunshine Tour order of merit.

C'mon. At least read the PDF. You're just saying what you think or hope is true.

P.S. Louis and Charl are not multiple major winners.

As for the quotes, it's utterly laughable to say "Asian Tour and European Tour players benefit from full field (especially co-sanctioned) tournaments that lure in world class players with appearance fees.

Laughable? Read the stinking PDF, dude.

An assumption you have also made is that a minor European Tour event has less 'talent' in than a minor PGA Tour event.

You're wrong about my assumption. Read the PDF.

The bottom lline is if you think the European Tour is over rated in terms of OWGR points

…

I'd suggest they do deserve those positions and if they were playing the PGA tour their position would possibly be higher.

It's not whether I "think" it. Their positions would be LOWER. Read the PDF.

Since you both seem to have missed it:

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

Fourball - I can think of two things wrong with that name "four" (it's a 2-man team) and "ball" (you take the best score, not the best shot, the best score on that hole might not just be from one ball even if the better score loses a ball) - Each 2-man team, each player plays his own ball and you use the better of the two scores..."Best Score"

Four balls are in play on each hole. Seems okay to me.

The others are just what they are. :)

[rehmwa]

Four balls are in play on each hole. Seems okay to me.

true  - that would differentiate it from fourball or a 4 man scramble, or a 4some of two- 2man scrambles......er....

hey - but I might just go and read the PDF....

[iacas]

hey - but I might just go and read the PDF....

Well okay, sure, but it has nothing to do with that stuff! :D

[Gunther]

true  - that would differentiate it from fourball or a 4 man scramble, or a 4some of two- 2man scrambles......er.... hey - but I might just go and read the PDF....

At my club we call that 2-man best ball. Foursomes are 2-man alternate shot. Then we have 2 and 4 man scrambles from time to time. But I'm ok with current naming convention as I defer to the history of the game.

[rehmwa]

But I'm ok with current naming convention as I defer to the history of the game.

I do too.  But I can still call it silly and unhelpful.

[Gunther]

I do too.  But I can still call it silly and unhelpful.   :-P

And I would concur, history be damned!

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Because seriously, what have these people truly done on the world stage:

Ross Fisher......

There's your top five on the Sunshine Tour order of merit.

Ross Fisher?

- Represented Europe in the winning 2010 Ryder Cup team

- Represented Britain in a winning Seve Cup Team against the rest of Europe

- Won the Volvo World Match Play in 2009

- Won the KLM Open, European  Open, Irish Open, Tshwane Open of South Africa.......

Do you want me to continue?

Going back to the last full field event on the PGA Tour it looks like Matt Every came in in 50th spot. Fancy listing his achievements on the 'World Stage' (and by that I don't mean solely on the PGA Tour :) )

Look, I get where you're coming from (have even read much of the PDF :) ) Statistics can show absolutely anything you choose and there are some assumptions made in it that I don't totally agree with. I acknowledge the fact that the PGA tour is the 'strongest' tour over all. It's strongest because it has your best players on as well as the best players from tours such as the European tour. The US players don't choose to play outside the PGA tour due to the money available and so clearly the PGA tour is, what could be described as 'stonger'.

But I really do get the maths. I understand  the 'fudge factor' involved in the OWGR system in order to try to get the system to work. It's not supposed to be a system that says who is playing on tour with the best players (and doing well against them obviously). It's supposed to be a system which compares players on different tours and tries to rank them in order of achievement. Everyone can see how players on the same tour are doing - just look at the money list, but the OWGR is trying to do something all together different.

Does it truly 'stack it' in favour of guys on the European Tour over PGA guys? By that you almost have to mean those that play the European AND the PGA tour over those that only play the PGA Tours. I'd say no, not really. The likes of Rory and Sergio aren't playing in events that get close to the minimum ranking points available (they couldn't do as the fact they are there prohibits it) so I'd say no, most of the arguments in the afore mentioned PDF don't really apply at the top end of the equation.

Does it apply to the top guys who only play the European Tour? Donaldson, Dubuisson? Again I'd say no if they can convincingly beat (or at least play far better) than guys solely playing on the PGA Tour that are ranked well above them in the OWGR as they did in the Ryder Cup.

Does it apply further down the table? Maybe it does but then perhaps those guys in the 'mid order' should consider playing outside the USA if they want to make an impact on what you describe as "the world stage".

But that's the 'rub' isn't it? 'The World Stage' isn't the PGA Tour in America. Achieving on the 'World Stage' involves doing what Ross Fisher has done and actually going out into the world and achieving something. But, by and large, most American PGA Tour players don't. And then they get surprised when a 'nobody' from France or Wales playing in the Ryder Cup makes them look silly.

[Gunther]

Ross Fisher? - Represented Europe in the winning 2010 Ryder Cup team - Represented Britain in a winning Seve Cup Team against the rest of Europe - Won the Volvo World Match Play in 2009 - Won the KLM Open, European  Open, Irish Open, Tshwane Open of South Africa....... Do you want me to continue? Going back to the last full field event on the PGA Tour it looks like Matt Every came in in 50th spot. Fancy listing his achievements on the 'World Stage' (and by that I don't mean solely on the PGA Tour :) ) Look, I get where you're coming from (have even read much of the PDF :) ) Statistics can show absolutely anything you choose and there are some assumptions made in it that I don't totally agree with. I acknowledge the fact that the PGA tour is the 'strongest' tour over all. It's strongest because it has your best players on as well as the best players from tours such as the European tour. The US players don't choose to play outside the PGA tour due to the money available and so clearly the PGA tour is, what could be described as 'stonger'. But I really do get the maths. I understand  the 'fudge factor' involved in the OWGR system in order to try to get the system to work. It's not supposed to be a system that says who is playing on tour with the best players (and doing well against them obviously). It's supposed to be a system which compares players on different tours and tries to rank them in order of achievement. Everyone can see how players on the same tour are doing - just look at the money list, but the OWGR is trying to do something all together different. Does it truly 'stack it' in favour of guys on the European Tour over PGA guys? By that you almost have to mean those that play the European AND the PGA tour over those that only play the PGA Tours. I'd say no, not really. The likes of Rory and Sergio aren't playing in events that get close to the minimum ranking points available (they couldn't do as the fact they are there prohibits it) so I'd say no, most of the arguments in the afore mentioned PDF don't really apply at the top end of the equation. Does it apply to the top guys who only play the European Tour? Donaldson, Dubuisson? Again I'd say no if they can convincingly beat (or at least play far better) than guys solely playing on the PGA Tour that are ranked well above them in the OWGR as they did in the Ryder Cup. Does it apply further down the table? Maybe it does but then perhaps those guys in the 'mid order' should consider playing outside the USA if they want to make an impact on what you describe as "the world stage". But that's the 'rub' isn't it? 'The World Stage' isn't the PGA Tour in America. Achieving on the 'World Stage' involves doing what Ross Fisher has done and actually going out into the world and achieving something. But, by and large, most American PGA Tour players don't. And then they get surprised when a 'nobody' from France or Wales playing in the Ryder Cup makes them look silly.

Hey, Matt Every did pretty well on The Big Break. And, I hear no one on tour, on any continent, can match him in rolling joints. So tight.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Ross Fisher?

- Represented Europe in the winning 2010 Ryder Cup team
- Represented Britain in a winning Seve Cup Team against the rest of Europe
- Won the Volvo World Match Play in 2009
- Won the KLM Open, European  Open, Irish Open, Tshwane Open of South Africa.......

Do you want me to continue?

Going back to the last full field event on the PGA Tour it looks like Matt Every came in in 50th spot. Fancy listing his achievements on the 'World Stage' (and by that I don't mean solely on the PGA Tour :) )

Hey, Matt Every did pretty well on The Big Break. And, I hear no one on tour, on any continent, can match him in rolling joints. So tight.

Fair play. I didn't know about The Big Break. I'll retract my comparision imediately :)

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Ross Fisher?

Ross Fisher leads… having played TWO EVENTS. So that doesn't make your case at all. It's not his home tour - he stopped in for some EASY PICKINS . He's also done very little on the world stage. He has ONE top-ten finish in a major. Heck, he only qualified to play in two of the last nine.

And how about the other four players I mentioned? I gave you Ross Fisher, and even he STILL hasn't done much of anything. The other four are complete nobodies.

Going back to the last full field event on the PGA Tour it looks like Matt Every came in in 50th spot. Fancy listing his achievements on the 'World Stage' (and by that I don't mean solely on the PGA Tour :) )

You said a guy consistently finishing inside the top 50. In other words, a top 50 money winner on the PGA Tour. (And yes, Matt Every was 33rd.) He also WON a PGA Tour event THIS YEAR and finished inside the top ten six times.

Matt, again, won this year and finished with over $2.5M on the money list at #33. Against weaker competition, Ross Fisher is currently in 45th place in the Race to Dubai and has earned a measly $527 Euro in 23 events ($ 28,685 per event). Every earned nearly four times as much per event. I'm pretty sure the PGA Tour does NOT pay four times as much as the European Tour.

And even with Ross Fisher's bump from the OWGR, he's… 115th, to Every's 58th…

Look, I get where you're coming from (have even read much of the PDF :) ) Statistics can show absolutely anything you choose and there are some assumptions made in it that I don't totally agree with. I acknowledge the fact that the PGA tour is the 'strongest' tour over all. It's strongest because it has your best players on as well as the best players from tours such as the European tour. The US players don't choose to play outside the PGA tour due to the money available and so clearly the PGA tour is, what could be described as 'stonger'.

That's not what the PDF talks about.

The PDF talks about how more points for the quality of play are awarded to the other Tours.

I've not ever talked in this thread about the "strength" of the PGA Tour, so you giving me that point is not one I care to take, as it's not really up for debate.

The point is that if you play most of your golf on the European Tour (or several of the other Tours, like the one in Japan, etc.), your OWGR is artificially inflated.

Does it truly 'stack it' in favour of guys on the European Tour over PGA guys?

Yes. I'll quote again from the PDF:

We find a persistent, large and statistically significant bias in the OWGR rankings against PGA Tour golfers; a golfer of a given estimated SBSE skill level, or a given Sagarin rank, is likely to be penalized in the OWGR rankings for playing events on the PGA tour and rewarded for playing elsewhere.

I'd say no, not really.

Then go argue with Mr. Broadie.

I'm not talking about just the top end. It does go down far enough to affect who plays in majors, though. PGA Tour-based players sit at home while lesser skilled players sneak into the top 50 or 64 or whatever and play in some WGCs and majors.

But that's the 'rub' isn't it? 'The World Stage' isn't the PGA Tour in America. Achieving on the 'World Stage' involves doing what Ross Fisher has done and actually going out into the world and achieving something. But, by and large, most American PGA Tour players don't. And then they get surprised when a 'nobody' from France or Wales playing in the Ryder Cup makes them look silly.

By "world stage" I mean events in which the world participates. The golf world. The cream of the crop. Majors. WGCs. Big events. Tough tournaments.

Ross Fisher hasn't achieved very much, and if you think winning the Tshwane Open matters all that much, well, I don't know what to tell you. It doesn't. Who did he beat? A bunch of people virtually nobody has ever heard of? Great.

---

OWGR points for European Tour players are inflated.

That's all I'm saying. And that's what the PDF says too.

[Nosevi]

No, he beat a bunch of people YOU haven't heard of - very different.

I said a guy that comes onto the Sunshine tour and smokes the competition is every bit as good as a guy who comes in 50th on the PGA tour. Read back, I think that's what I said. Ross came in and smoked the competition. You said he'd achieved nothing on the world stage. You were wrong. It's far simpler to say "You know what, never heard of the guy. I was wrong." than try to say playing for your continent in the Ryder Cup doesn't amount to achieving on the 'World Stage'. And he has 2 top 10s in majors - came 5th in the US Open in 2009. I should give that one up.

And I would argue with Mr Broadie. In order to present an unbiased analysis he has got all his data re the players from the PGA Tour (regardless of which tour they play on) and compared it to a skill based system of player 'ranking' divised by a US Golfing publication. He's then taken that skill based system and in cross referencing it to the OWGR system he's implemented a 'fudge' which means that rather that using the actual position on the skillls based system, he's used the position a given player holds on that system relative to their position on the OWGR system......... which he claims is flawed. If that's not enough to throw off his figures the skills based system he's using ignores the fact that many players that play on both the European Tour and the PGA Tour have a lower stroke average when playing in the States. Perhaps it's the lack of heavy rough, perhaps it's the weather but, generally speaking the difference is there.

So you have the good Mr Brodie using data entirely provided by an organisation coming from one side of the argument, comparing courses that are not immediately comparable, while taking into account a ranking system he is 'proving' is invalid in his calculations and coming to the grand conclussion that, "a ranking system where points are determined by a committee, rather than objective analysis, could easily lead to the biases described in this paper." When the ranking points are no longer, in fact, determined by a committee, they are determined by a set formula.

Forgive me if I'm not blown away by the argument.

I enjoy a good debate but are we perhaps straying a tad off course with this one :)

Edit: Just seen your "That's all I'm saying" comment. Good plan, I'll folllow suit. Would sit better on a different thread :)

[iacas]

No, he beat a bunch of people YOU haven't heard of - very different.

Yeah. Cuz that Danie van Tonder is a real household name… C'mon. You're being silly now.

The European Tour gets inflated OWGR points.

I said a guy that comes onto the Sunshine tour and smokes the competition is every bit as good as a guy who comes in 50th on the PGA tour. Read back, I think that's what I said. Ross came in and smoked the competition. You said he'd achieved nothing on the world stage. You were wrong. It's far simpler to say "You know what, never heard of the guy. I was wrong."

I know who Ross Fisher is. I've seen him play in majors. I watched him bat .500 in his sole Ryder Cup. Even Vaughn Taylor has played in a Ryder Cup…

I categorize Fisher's single top-ten finish ever in majors and lone appearance in the Ryder Cup as "doing nothing" on the world stage. Again, he wasn't even eligible to play in seven of the last nine majors . Despite leading the Sunshine Tour Order of Merit in two appearances, he's not very good. That means the Sunshine Tour is full of pretty sucky golfers, if someone who is kind of sucky himself (Ross Fisher) can lead their money list with only TWO starts.

So you have the good Mr Brodie using data entirely provided by an organisation coming from one side of the argument, comparing courses that are not immediately comparable, while taking into account a ranking system he is 'proving' is invalid in his calculations and coming to the grand conclussion that, "a ranking system where points are determined by a committee, rather than objective analysis, could easily lead to the biases described in this paper." When the ranking points are no longer, in fact, determined by a committee, they are determined by a set formula.

Incorrect/misleading.

Scoring data was for all the Tours. It was supplied by the PGA Tour, because they have access to and can supply scores as part of the federation of professional tours. Unless you wish to claim that they altered the scores of the European Tour, Asian Tour, Australasia Tour, Sunshine Tour, Japan Tour, Nationwide Tour and Challenge Tours… the fact that he got the tournament results from the PGA Tour means nothing. There's no bias in the PGA Tour saying "you want tournament results for the past decade from a bunch of tours? Okay. Here you go. Here's a bunch of data."

Furthermore, the scoring and Sagarin systems simply compare players to each other. Neither system is biased for the U.S.

Sagarin is "wins versus losses" (or ties) of players in the same field. SBSE is adjusted scoring average (of players in the same field on the same course). If Player A routinely beats Player B when they play the same courses on the same days, Player A is better. If Player A beats Player B, and Player B beats Player C, player A is better than Player C. (That's the point behind this line in the PDF: "As shown in the example, equation (1) allows golfers who never play on the same course to be ranked on a single scale as long as there are other golfers to link them together. ") It goes on to say: "In short, the SBSE method is a standard workhouse model in statistics that we apply here to estimate golfer skill."

The Sagarin 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 differential 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.”

Both methods remove the course entirely and allow both A > B and A > B > C type rankings.

"So you have the good Mr Brodie using data entirely provided by an organisation coming from one side of the argument"

- False/Misleading. The PGA Tour does not have a stake in the "argument" - they simply supplied data. I doubt you wish to allege that they altered the data.

"comparing courses that are not immediately comparable"

- False, he is not comparing courses, he is using two methods to compare player skill independent of course (i.e. by comparing results when players compete on the same courses).

"while taking into account a ranking system he is 'proving' is invalid in his calculations and coming to the grand conclussion that, "a ranking system where points are determined by a committee, rather than objective analysis, could easily lead to the biases described in this paper." When the ranking points are no longer, in fact, determined by a committee, they are determined by a set formula."

- False/Misleading - The formula is determined by the committee. That's all that says. There's been no real change to the way the OWGR is calculated since 2012.

And I would argue with Mr Broadie.

Go for it. I'm done.

The European Tour gets inflated OWGR points.

http://capelleongolf.com/2010/01/19/bias-continues-in-the-world-golf-rankings/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577299702668540234

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-04/gwar-stachura-world-golf-ranking

[iacas]

I would be more inclined to take Mr Broadie seriously if he wasn't writing purely for a US institution, using data entirely provided by a US institution for the sole aim of benefitting that institution. I'm surprised he didn't open with his conclusion, it would have been simpler.

Oh good, I finally get to use this one:

It's tournament results. It doesn't "benefit" anyone. They simply are what they are.

[turtleback]

Ross Fisher?

- Represented Europe in the winning 2010 Ryder Cup team

- Represented Britain in a winning Seve Cup Team against the rest of Europe

- Won the Volvo World Match Play in 2009

- Won the KLM Open, European  Open, Irish Open, Tshwane Open of South Africa.......

Do you want me to continue?

Going back to the last full field event on the PGA Tour it looks like Matt Every came in in 50th spot. Fancy listing his achievements on the 'World Stage' (and by that I don't mean solely on the PGA Tour :) )

Look, I get where you're coming from (have even read much of the PDF :) ) Statistics can show absolutely anything you choose and there are some assumptions made in it that I don't totally agree with. I acknowledge the fact that the PGA tour is the 'strongest' tour over all. It's strongest because it has your best players on as well as the best players from tours such as the European tour. The US players don't choose to play outside the PGA tour due to the money available and so clearly the PGA tour is, what could be described as 'stonger'.

But I really do get the maths. I understand  the 'fudge factor' involved in the OWGR system in order to try to get the system to work. It's not supposed to be a system that says who is playing on tour with the best players (and doing well against them obviously). It's supposed to be a system which compares players on different tours and tries to rank them in order of achievement. Everyone can see how players on the same tour are doing - just look at the money list, but the OWGR is trying to do something all together different.

Does it truly 'stack it' in favour of guys on the European Tour over PGA guys? By that you almost have to mean those that play the European AND the PGA tour over those that only play the PGA Tours. I'd say no, not really. The likes of Rory and Sergio aren't playing in events that get close to the minimum ranking points available (they couldn't do as the fact they are there prohibits it) so I'd say no, most of the arguments in the afore mentioned PDF don't really apply at the top end of the equation.

Does it apply to the top guys who only play the European Tour? Donaldson, Dubuisson? Again I'd say no if they can convincingly beat (or at least play far better) than guys solely playing on the PGA Tour that are ranked well above them in the OWGR as they did in the Ryder Cup.

Does it apply further down the table? Maybe it does but then perhaps those guys in the 'mid order' should consider playing outside the USA if they want to make an impact on what you describe as "the world stage".

But that's the 'rub' isn't it? 'The World Stage' isn't the PGA Tour in America. Achieving on the 'World Stage' involves doing what Ross Fisher has done and actually going out into the world and achieving something. But, by and large, most American PGA Tour players don't. And then they get surprised when a 'nobody' from France or Wales playing in the Ryder Cup makes them look silly.

You didn't read the pdf, did you?  I say that because while you take issue with what Erik is saying you haven't said a word challenging the methods or data of the pdf.

Both of you, please just read the PDF. If you disagree with it after that, well, I don't know what to tell you. You're basing things on your opinions or your "sense" of things.

C'mon. At least read the PDF. You're just saying what you think or hope is true.

Laughable? Read the stinking PDF, dude.

You're wrong about my assumption. Read the PDF.

It's not whether I "think" it. Their positions would be LOWER. Read the PDF.

Since you both seem to have missed it:

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

You just do not understand.  It is easier to ignore evidence than deal with it when you have a losing case.  How could they hope to contend with Columbia University's well-known bias in favor of people (Americans or otherwise) playing on the PGA tour?  LOL

[Nosevi]

Quote:

You didn't read the pdf, did you?  I say that because while you take issue with what Erik is saying you haven't said a word challenging the methods or data of the pdf.

Yes I do, just later on. But like I said, I'm done :)