World Amateur Golf Ranking System

[Nosevi]

So here is my rant- D1 and D2 college golfers, no matter how good/bad their school program is are all pretty much in the WAGR system. I think the system is biased towards college golf vs the 27 year old amateur (me).

Also, there are many D2 players that shoot high 70's, low 80's that are ranked

While that may be a "cut off" for handicaps most players that are traveling in D1 golf would have a handicap of 1 or better. Here's an example of some D1 scores.  When I was a freshman I was a 1 and during my junior year I was a +2. Our team wasn't that great, we typically finished 3rd or 4th in the conference. I know some guys that played D2 and they're really solid players. To win an event in D2 golf you typically have to finish under par for 3 rounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

The D2 guys. If the crossover from D1 to D2 is 1 handicap under your system, 3 under ours, then the guys in D2 wouldn't make our 1st team which play off scratch in all tournaments, most are plus handicaps or scratch under our system. No problem with the D1 guys playing for WAGR points, some are right up there, but by definition the D2 guys aren't - if they were playing off plus 3 they wouldn't be in D2. So if they're basically off handicap of 1 maybe pushing scratch under your system (like I said, 2 or 3 handicappers under ours) can they be considered as being close to the top 6000 odd amateur golfers in the world? Not even close.

You're misreading or something. Plenty of the D1 golfers are +2 to +3 golfers. Remember, too, D1 schools aren't necessarily D1 because of their golf team, so you could make a D1 school as a 1, but it's not likely (it's not like Mike was the #1 guy on a good team when he was a freshman).

Not for the first time I'm clearly not being clear

I realise some of the D1 golfers are +2 and +3 and I'm guessing some hold lower handicaps than that. I'm not saying that the D1 guys shouldn't be playing for WAGR points - your college system is a recognised way into pro golf and some of the guys playing D1 are right up there in term of the amateur game throughout the world. I am not in any way saying they should not be playing for WAGR points.

The OP is saying that many of the D2 golfers are ranked as their tournaments also qualify as ranking events. D2 players are not amongst the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world, if they were off +3 they wouldn't be playing D2. The OP says "....many D2 players that shoot high 70's, low 80's that are ranked" - I'm taking him at his word. This being the case this is utterly mad. If the cut off between D1 and D2 is about a 1 handicap under your system (like I said a 3 or so to us) and some of those players are ranked as being in the top 6100 on the planet yet shoot "high 70's, low 80's" that can't make sense. Golfers at this level are not in the top 6100 amateurs in the world, in fact golfers at this level are not close to the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world.

The OP is using the fact that D2 golfers and their events are ranked as a rationale for arguing that numerous lower level events around the world should award ranking points. What I'm saying is that rather than everywhere having numerous local events that award world amateur ranking points to bring them into line with the D2 players getting them in their events, D2 guys playing at the level he describes shouldn't be ranked and their events shouldn't award world amateur ranking points - they aren't in the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world so any system that ranks them as such needs to be looked at.

[acerimusdux]

Quote:

What I'm saying is that rather than everywhere having numerous local events that award world amateur ranking points to bring them into line with the D2 players getting them in their events, D2 guys playing at the level he describes shouldn't be ranked and their events shouldn't award world amateur ranking points - they aren't in the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world so any system that ranks them as such needs to be looked at.

But if they weren't in the top 6100 amateur golfers, would their events count? The event rating is based on the number and position of top 1500 ranked players in the event. If there are no top 1500 players, it can only be the lowest category of event, in which case you would need to win outright in order to earn a ranking from it.

Of course for already ranked players, yes their scores will count even for the lowest category event, but they still have to then play to their expected level, otherwise they are lowering their average score.

I don't think these rankings are that meaningful for players ranked higher than about 3000, but the problem there is mostly that they don't have enough rounds counted. You probably need at least 15 rounds over the last year counted for that ranking to really mean something. Having more events qualify, as GHIN0011458 is suggesting , would probably help.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerimusdux

Quote:

What I'm saying is that rather than everywhere having numerous local events that award world amateur ranking points to bring them into line with the D2 players getting them in their events, D2 guys playing at the level he describes shouldn't be ranked and their events shouldn't award world amateur ranking points - they aren't in the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world so any system that ranks them as such needs to be looked at.

But if they weren't in the top 6100 amateur golfers, would their events count? The event rating is based on the number and position of top 1500 ranked players in the event. If there are no top 1500 players, it can only be the lowest category of event, in which case you would need to win outright in order to earn a ranking from it.

Of course for already ranked players, yes their scores will count even for the lowest category event, but they still have to then play to their expected level, otherwise they are lowering their average score.

I don't think these rankings are that meaningful for players ranked higher than about 3000, but the problem there is mostly that they don't have enough rounds counted. You probably need at least 15 rounds over the last year counted for that ranking to really mean something. Having more events qualify, as GHIN0011458 is suggesting , would probably help.

But when you start the system you need to decide who the top 1500 ranked players are and surely that goes back to what I've said before. Are D2 guys playing off a 1 handicap (under the USGA handicapping system) or worse (several have quoted the rough cut off as being about a 1 handicap, any better and they're D1.....) within the top 6100 amateur golfers on planet earth? Answer is quite obviously NO because there are far, far more than 6100 scratch and better players in the world. The OP has said that many of these players are ranked within the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world and yet blatantly obviously they are not as good at the game of golf as tens of thousands of amateurs who don't get a look in, the OP is clearly saying he's one of them and his argument has merit.

If you have more events qualify, lets say the local events that GHIN0011458 is suggesting, then you have to have that apply globally - it's a WORLD amateur golf ranking system. So we'd have hundreds more events qualify as WAGR events here in the UK....... as they would in France, Spain, Portugal, Australia, Peru, South Africa ......... In fact worldwide, if you set the cut off for qualifying events at the level GHIN0011458 is saying, you'd have thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) more qualifying events world wide. If you did this, would it get the OP any closer to being ranked in the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world? No. It might stop D2 college golfers playing off say a handicap of 1 or 2 under the USGA handicap system being ranked as within the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world (because they aren't) but it wouldn't get the OP ranked within the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world, it'd just open it up to tens of thousands of golfers outside the USA who are (for now :) ) better at golf than the OP.

I just want to give what I'm saying a bit of perspective but under our system of handicapping the OP is a 2 handicapper. Looking at his GHIN, taking into consideration the scores shot in tournaments and the course ratings etc (no other rounds count in our system) and taking account of all rounds (we don't just use the best 10 of 20, every round counts in our system) the OP would be about a 2 handicap here. Seriously good effort in the time he's played the game and hats off to him. But he wouldn't make any of our county teams at that level and would be touch and go at getting into numerous amateur events that don't currently award WAGR points. Now expand that world wide. Would opening up local events in Missouri allow the OP to be ranked in the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world? No, because you'd have to open up tournaments at that level in every  country in the world and (right now) the OP isn't one of the 6100 best amateur golfers in the world.

If you just did it in the States that may make a difference to the OP. But then, that'd hardly be a WORLD amateur golf ranking system, would it?

Where I think the OP has it spot on is that D2 guys, playing off maybe 1 or 2 under your system (3 or 4 under ours) are blatantly not amongst the best 6100 amateur golfers in the world. If he's right and these guys are ranked within the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world then the system is clearly biassed towards D2 college golf in the US. By all means level the playing field between the D2 guys and the OP (and I agree with him on that) but if you do, that would open it up to so many thousands of other amateurs world wide that it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the OP, all it would do is take the D2 guys out of the ranking system.

[acerimusdux]

Quote:

If you just did it in the States that may make a difference to the OP. But then, that'd hardly be a WORLD amateur golf ranking system, would it?

Where I think the OP has it spot on is that D2 guys, playing off maybe 1 or 2 under your system (3 or 4 under ours) are blatantly not amongst the best 6100 amateur golfers in the world. If he's right and these guys are ranked within the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world then the system is clearly biassed towards D2 college golf in the US. By all means level the playing field between the D2 guys and the OP (and I agree with him on that) but if you do, that would open it up to so many thousands of other amateurs world wide that it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the OP, all it would do is take the D2 guys out of the ranking system.

Yes, I think it would have to be worldwide. But I think it may well be that the main advantage the college golfers have is the opportunity to play in regularly organized competitive 3-day tournaments. I think a lot of the guys in the last 1500-2000 names on the ranking are just guys who had one good tournament. There may well be 20,000+ better players out there who just haven't had the opportunity to play in one of these tournaments over the last year.

So I think the OP's suggestion, to open it up to 2-day tournaments of a similar quality of competition, would be enough to push those guys down the list.

The way it is now, I think the ranking seems fairly meaningful for roughly the top 3000 guys, but the guy at 5000 probably really isn't in the top 20,000 amateur golfers.

[GHIN0011458]

Yes, I think it would have to be worldwide. But I think it may well be that the main advantage the college golfers have is the opportunity to play in regularly organized competitive 3-day tournaments. I think a lot of the guys in the last 1500-2000 names on the ranking are just guys who had one good tournament. There may well be 20,000+ better players out there who just haven't had the opportunity to play in one of these tournaments over the last year.

So I think the OP's suggestion, to open it up to 2-day tournaments of a similar quality of competition, would be enough to push those guys down the list.

The way it is now, I think the ranking seems fairly meaningful for roughly the top 3000 guys, but the guy at 5000 probably really isn't in the top 20,000 amateur golfers.

Right- The goal really would be to give as accurate of a ranking as possible for all people who are amateurs who compete (to a certain extent in some high level two day events). For me, it would give me an idea of where I am at.

Not only would this drive me to go up in ranking, but I think it could drive a lot of guys into competitive golf who take the game seriously. I think there needs to be more individual tournaments so that golf is played the way it is supposed to be played. If we all had a ranking and knew where we sit I think it could be a way to engage the amateur golfer out there.

There is one golfer who I would say is about a stroke better than me but I have beat him in a 2 day, tied him, he has beat me by maybe one or two but he always shows up in USGA qualifiers for some reason. He plays D2 and is ranked 2435 in the WAGR system.I feel like there are a lot better golfers than him out there who aren't ranked because they don't have access to the points. A lot of the tournaments that give points are not even tournaments that you can qualify for in any form.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerimusdux

Quote:

If you just did it in the States that may make a difference to the OP. But then, that'd hardly be a WORLD amateur golf ranking system, would it?

Where I think the OP has it spot on is that D2 guys, playing off maybe 1 or 2 under your system (3 or 4 under ours) are blatantly not amongst the best 6100 amateur golfers in the world. If he's right and these guys are ranked within the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world then the system is clearly biassed towards D2 college golf in the US. By all means level the playing field between the D2 guys and the OP (and I agree with him on that) but if you do, that would open it up to so many thousands of other amateurs world wide that it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the OP, all it would do is take the D2 guys out of the ranking system.

Yes, I think it would have to be worldwide. But I think it may well be that the main advantage the college golfers have is the opportunity to play in regularly organized competitive 3-day tournaments. I think a lot of the guys in the last 1500-2000 names on the ranking are just guys who had one good tournament. There may well be 20,000+ better players out there who just haven't had the opportunity to play in one of these tournaments over the last year.

So I think the OP's suggestion, to open it up to 2-day tournaments of a similar quality of competition, would be enough to push those guys down the list.

The way it is now, I think the ranking seems fairly meaningful for roughly the top 3000 guys, but the guy at 5000 probably really isn't in the top 20,000 amateur golfers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerimusdux

Yes, I think it would have to be worldwide. But I think it may well be that the main advantage the college golfers have is the opportunity to play in regularly organized competitive 3-day tournaments. I think a lot of the guys in the last 1500-2000 names on the ranking are just guys who had one good tournament. There may well be 20,000+ better players out there who just haven't had the opportunity to play in one of these tournaments over the last year.

So I think the OP's suggestion, to open it up to 2-day tournaments of a similar quality of competition, would be enough to push those guys down the list.

The way it is now, I think the ranking seems fairly meaningful for roughly the top 3000 guys, but the guy at 5000 probably really isn't in the top 20,000 amateur golfers.

Right- The goal really would be to give as accurate of a ranking as possible for all people who are amateurs who compete (to a certain extent in some high level two day events). For me, it would give me an idea of where I am at.

Not only would this drive me to go up in ranking, but I think it could drive a lot of guys into competitive golf who take the game seriously. I think there needs to be more individual tournaments so that golf is played the way it is supposed to be played. If we all had a ranking and knew where we sit I think it could be a way to engage the amateur golfer out there.

There is one golfer who I would say is about a stroke better than me but I have beat him in a 2 day, tied him, he has beat me by maybe one or two but he always shows up in USGA qualifiers for some reason. He plays D2 and is ranked 2435 in the WAGR system.I feel like there are a lot better golfers than him out there who aren't ranked because they don't have access to the points. A lot of the tournaments that give points are not even tournaments that you can qualify for in any form.

Fair enough guys

I agree the examples you're giving don't make sense, GHIN0011458 and it does seem like the guys you're describing shouldn't be where they are. I guess I just think that for the likes of us to show up on an amateur ranking (I'm new to this competative lark but according to your GHIN our stroke average is more or less identical and shot on courses with about the same rating - ignore my handicap, our system is barking mad) the ranking system would have to be far more wide ranging. I get the frustration that golfers no better than you show up though and agree it'd be nice to use it to track progress. I personally just go by my scoring average which continues to drop - must be doing something right. Good luck in your 'quest' btw

[GHIN0011458]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

I'm not going to argue that it's not frustrating not being able to play in events closer to home and get ranking points but just want to put it in perspective. I was chatting to a lad I know just a few days ago who's on the WAGR, he was just off to play in the Portuguese International Amateur Championship. I live in northern England.

Having 2 ranking events locally is a luxury that not many places in the world share and many of our better amateurs are regularly flying overseas, let alone traveling to neighbouring states, in order to play in ranking events. Not saying it's not a pain to have to travel, and possibly financially restrictive, but it's just the way it is. The WAGR is a WORLD amateur golf ranking system, it's not a local thing

Having two in Missouri might be a luxury but think of it this way; the United States also has 12000+ more courses than any other country in the World. I would think that would also relate to more participants of golf total would be in the United States. So of course the US is going to get more ranking events because they have more participants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Thanks .

Like I said, I realise that the numbers I gave are maximums and that the cut off to D1 tends to be more like 1 handicap not 3. Our handicapping system works differently to yours and there tends to be about a 2 shot difference so a 1 handicapper over your way is what we term a 3 handicapper here - just a different system and for reasons I won't go into I much prefer your system. But what it means is that guys who are, on average, not quite what we call a 3 handicap here are playing for world golf ranking points to be ranked within the top 6100 amateur golfers on planet earth and if/when they get a single ranking point they will appear on the world amateur golf ranking (the bottom players on the system currently have zero points but had some recently).

I realise you're not defending the fact they get ranking points but I'll go further and say it's totally ludicrous. What you term 1 handicappers (and we term 3 handicappers) aren't in the top 6100 amateur golfers in the world, like I said they wouldn't even make our scratch team at my club. Not putting them down, sure they'll progress to D1 and maybe even beyond and good luck to them. But the idea that players at that level in the college system over there get ranked as the top amateurs in the world is ridiculous.

I mean let's be honest though, MOST of the D1 golfers are VERY good and deserve to be ranked. I actually don't mind having the D2 guys ranked as long as ranking points are more available to everyone who wants to compete and an amateur level. How many + handicaps do you know by the way? From what it sounds like, you must know thousands. You very much so defend the golfers on your side of the pond and although this is a WORLD ranking system, there are plenty of players locally who fit the mold.

[Nosevi]

I mean let's be honest though, MOST of the D1 golfers are VERY good and deserve to be ranked. I actually don't mind having the D2 guys ranked as long as ranking points are more available to everyone who wants to compete and an amateur level. How many + handicaps do you know by the way? From what it sounds like, you must know thousands. You very much so defend the golfers on your side of the pond and although this is a WORLD ranking system, there are plenty of players locally who fit the mold.

Sorry if it sounds like that, not intentional but if it comes across that way I do apologise. I'm not in any way saying "our golfers are better than your golfers!" just that when we say a 'Scratch player' it means something totally different. I'll try to explain as it may give my comments a bit of meaning rather than you thinking I'm 'bigging up' our golfers - I'm not.

Over here our handicaps are worked out like this - When we shoot a round that qualifies to be counted towards your handicap it always counts, we don't take the best 10 out of 20. For every round you play over your handicap (at the level we're talking) your handicap goes up by 0.1. That automatically means the 10 rounds you guys don't use add a full shot to our handicaps. Added to that, only rounds shot in qualifying competitions count towards our handicap. No other rounds count so social rounds, match play rounds, stapleford rounds, team rounds etc don't count. The competition has to be declared as being a qualifying competition for it to count towards your handicap. Most (but not all) people don't score quite as well in a stroke play competition as they do in an average social round and this means that their scoring average in the rounds that they can count is slightly higher than in their 'social' rounds. For a player who has no real snags with competition this tends to account for about another shot difference between the systems. For guys that 'choke' in competitions it can be quite a bit more.

So if you have an average golfer shooting rounds in both countries he'll tend to be 2 shots higher handicap here than there so when you say 'scratch golfer' to us that's a 2 handicapper.

However.....

In order to cut our handicap we have to shoot below it and for every shot below our handicap we get cut by 0.1 . What that means is that, while our scoring average is currently pretty much the same, for me to get to +0.1 I have to shoot par, in official competitions, 27 times and for every time I shoot over par I'd have to shoot par in an official competition twice more. For an improving golfer our system is barking mad.

Regarding knowing thousands of golfers with an equivalent of plus handicaps under your system (so about 2 handicaps and lower under ours) I wouldn't say I know thousands but I'm coached at our national academy. So we're talking not just our national guys and girls, or even the A squads (kind of our second team) but also all the junior squads, both boys and girls. Added to that you've got all the 'hopefulls' that come to the academy every autumn, including kids trying to make the junior squads who are 14 or 15. All of these, including the ones that don't make it are playing off a significantly lower handicap than the college D2 guys. Then you have our county squad who are coached by my coach, all the guys that pass through there are lower too. My club has a rep for producing quite a few of our national squad players as well as a few that play for the county. Guys who play for our first team but don't get a look in for the county squad would be (just) plus handicaps under your system. I also practice with a couple of tour pros at my club which is a serious eye opener.

So anyway, yes I see a lot of good golfers pretty much on a daily basis and like you I find it difficult to comprehend how guys playing D2 college golf who, according to their handicaps, would struggle to make my club team (not the one I'm playing for - I'm a member of 2 clubs) and yet are ranked as anywhere close to the top amateurs in the world. My guess (and it's a guess based on golfers throughout the world being pretty similar to in the UK) is that the top 6000 amateurs in the world probably have a handicap of about +3 or lower under your system. Just a guess mind you, could be way out.

[GHIN0011458]

Sorry if it sounds like that, not intentional but if it comes across that way I do apologise. I'm not in any way saying "our golfers are better than your golfers!" just that when we say a 'Scratch player' it means something totally different. I'll try to explain as it may give my comments a bit of meaning rather than you thinking I'm 'bigging up' our golfers - I'm not.

Over here our handicaps are worked out like this - When we shoot a round that qualifies to be counted towards your handicap it always counts, we don't take the best 10 out of 20. For every round you play over your handicap (at the level we're talking) your handicap goes up by 0.1. That automatically means the 10 rounds you guys don't use add a full shot to our handicaps. Added to that, only rounds shot in qualifying competitions count towards our handicap. No other rounds count so social rounds, match play rounds, stapleford rounds, team rounds etc don't count. The competition has to be declared as being a qualifying competition for it to count towards your handicap. Most (but not all) people don't score quite as well in a stroke play competition as they do in an average social round and this means that their scoring average in the rounds that they can count is slightly higher than in their 'social' rounds. For a player who has no real snags with competition this tends to account for about another shot difference between the systems. For guys that 'choke' in competitions it can be quite a bit more.

So if you have an average golfer shooting rounds in both countries he'll tend to be 2 shots higher handicap here than there so when you say 'scratch golfer' to us that's a 2 handicapper.

However.....

In order to cut our handicap we have to shoot below it and for every shot below our handicap we get cut by 0.1 . What that means is that, while our scoring average is currently pretty much the same, for me to get to +0.1 I have to shoot par, in official competitions, 27 times and for every time I shoot over par I'd have to shoot par in an official competition twice more. For an improving golfer our system is barking mad.

Regarding knowing thousands of golfers with an equivalent of plus handicaps under your system (so about 2 handicaps and lower under ours) I wouldn't say I know thousands but I'm coached at our national academy. So we're talking not just our national guys and girls, or even the A squads (kind of our second team) but also all the junior squads, both boys and girls. Added to that you've got all the 'hopefulls' that come to the academy every autumn, including kids trying to make the junior squads who are 14 or 15. All of these, including the ones that don't make it are playing off a significantly lower handicap than the college D2 guys. Then you have our county squad who are coached by my coach, all the guys that pass through there are lower too. My club has a rep for producing quite a few of our national squad players as well as a few that play for the county. Guys who play for our first team but don't get a look in for the county squad would be (just) plus handicaps under your system. I also practice with a couple of tour pros at my club which is a serious eye opener.

So anyway, yes I see a lot of good golfers pretty much on a daily basis and like you I find it difficult to comprehend how guys playing D2 college golf who, according to their handicaps, would struggle to make my club team (not the one I'm playing for - I'm a member of 2 clubs) and yet are ranked as anywhere close to the top amateurs in the world. My guess (and it's a guess based on golfers throughout the world being pretty similar to in the UK) is that the top 6000 amateurs in the world probably have a handicap of about +3 or lower under your system. Just a guess mind you, could be way out.

I mean I would have to disagree with that by a bunch. I am estimating that in all of college men's golf, there are around 7,000 players. D1 and D2 alone there are around 3,000 golfers. D3 you have a few guys who are playing off a plus handicap and NAIA you have a few more. JuCo, a few more. but in the most part you probably have around 2,000 playing at a Plus 1 or better. a +3 though?? You are talking about the top 3 guys on a D1 team and a top guy every so often on a D2 team and then maybe the top 10 at the D3, JuCo, and NAIA.

That is just in the United States, not the world. BUT my question is why do we have so many European players come over and play at these programs? So I mean your top players are getting recruited to come over and play in college as well. St. Louis Amateur golf only has one or two guys playing off a +3 as an amateur. Actually I just looked up the guy who wins everything, and he is a +2.3, the other guy a +2.4. Low HCP's at +3.3.

Is there 6,000 people who play to a +3, yes. Is there 6,000 Amateurs? No way by my calculations. Interested to see what others think though. I would think there is around 2,000 in the world.

[Nosevi]

My guess (and it's a guess based on golfers throughout the world being pretty similar to in the UK) is that the top 6000 amateurs in the world probably have a handicap of about +3 or lower under your system. Just a guess mind you, could be way out.

I mean I would have to disagree with that by a bunch. I am estimating that in all of college men's golf, there are around 7,000 players. D1 and D2 alone there are around 3,000 golfers. D3 you have a few guys who are playing off a plus handicap and NAIA you have a few more. JuCo, a few more. but in the most part you probably have around 2,000 playing at a Plus 1 or better. a +3 though?? You are talking about the top 3 guys on a D1 team and a top guy every so often on a D2 team and then maybe the top 10 at the D3, JuCo, and NAIA.

That is just in the United States, not the world. BUT my question is why do we have so many European players come over and play at these programs? So I mean your top players are getting recruited to come over and play in college as well. St. Louis Amateur golf only has one or two guys playing off a +3 as an amateur. Actually I just looked up the guy who wins everything, and he is a +2.3, the other guy a +2.4. Low HCP's at +3.3.

Is there 6,000 people who play to a +3, yes. Is there 6,000 Amateurs? No way by my calculations. Interested to see what others think though. I would think there is around 2,000 in the world.

Well, if you accept my explanation of the difference between the handicapping systems (ie a +3 there is about a +1 here) and it's pretty close, in 2003 there was a survey in Scotland and at that time there were 191 amateur golfers playing at that level in Scotland. Looking at population numbers, number of courses etc in the British Isles I'd say there would have been maybe 700 golfers at that level over here at that time, something of that order. I can't see there not being 6,000 amateurs at that level worldwide if I'm honest. I'm not saying that you couldn't expand the ranking system but if it stuck to the top 6,000 I think that's about the level that would get a look in.

Regarding our young golfers coming over there, they get a free education in your college system which is excellent, why wouldn't they come? But in honesty the top guys generally don't, they go straight to pro, possibly via a year or 2 of playing high level amateur events round the world while being 'sponsored' to do it by big golf equipment companies. We have 16 year old lads on the boys squad playing off the equivalent of +4 or +5 - they won't end up in the US college system, they'll go straight to the pro ranks. The 15 year old girls playing off an equivalent of +2 or +3 will almost definitely do the same. It's the kids one step down that need the time and training in your college golf system that'll take advantage of the scholarships, not the kids who are already good enough.

Like I say, I like your idea of expanding the world amateur ranking system, a huge undertaking but I like the idea. If it stuck to the top 6,000 in the world would guys playing off scratch in your system, 2 handicappers of there abouts in our get a look in though?

[GHIN0011458]

Well, if you accept my explanation of the difference between the handicapping systems (ie a +3 there is about a +1 here) and it's pretty close, in 2003 there was a survey in Scotland and at that time there were 191 amateur golfers playing at that level in Scotland. Looking at population numbers, number of courses etc in the British Isles I'd say there would have been maybe 700 golfers at that level over here at that time, something of that order. I can't see there not being 6,000 amateurs at that level worldwide if I'm honest. I'm not saying that you couldn't expand the ranking system but if it stuck to the top 6,000 I think that's about the level that would get a look in.

Regarding our young golfers coming over there, they get a free education in your college system which is excellent, why wouldn't they come? But in honesty the top guys generally don't, they go straight to pro, possibly via a year or 2 of playing high level amateur events round the world while being 'sponsored' to do it by big golf equipment companies. We have 16 year old lads on the boys squad playing off the equivalent of +4 or +5 - they won't end up in the US college system, they'll go straight to the pro ranks. The 15 year old girls playing off an equivalent of +2 or +3 will almost definitely do the same. It's the kids one step down that need the time and training in your college golf system that'll take advantage of the scholarships, not the kids who are already good enough.

Like I say, I like your idea of expanding the world amateur ranking system, a huge undertaking but I like the idea. If it stuck to the top 6,000 in the world would guys playing off scratch in your system, 2 handicappers of there abouts in our get a look in though?

That is what I am saying- pro's, yes lots of +3's. Amateurs at that level will either play D1 or they Turn Pro. I mean you must be at some school like in Harry Potter only for golfers because I don't know how you can assemble a school of +4's and +5's. How many of these schools are there? This has to be a school where all of the top golfers in junior ranks in Europe or other countries go. Like a collection of the best of the best kids from around Europe all into one academy.

I feel like you are underestimating a +4 or a +5 like you guys just spit them out over there. Beau Hossler's GHIN Handicap is a +4.6 and ranked #5 in the WORLD as an amateur. You have kids playing to a +5 ready to go?

[acerimusdux]

Is there 6,000 people who play to a +3, yes. Is there 6,000 Amateurs? No way by my calculations. Interested to see what others think though. I would think there is around 2,000 in the world.

I think a lot of this is there is no reasonable way at all to translate handicaps between the different systems. What Nosevi is doing to try and estimate the difference really doesn't work that well in general, but I think it especially breaks down with regard to "scratch" or better players. I think he stated somewhere above that one player he knew he thought would be a +6.5 in the US. I'm not sure he realizes that a true +6.5 in the US would almost certainly be playing on the PGA Tour (and not only that, is probably one of the top 50 players).  That said, the inability to translate between handicap systems is supposedly one of the reasons there was a need to something like the WAGR, but it doesn't really seem to be doing much better, so far.

With regards to U.S. handicaps though, there is a glaring inconsistency within the system itself. It's true that there are some golfers in the US who may get to "scratch" by just playing their own home course, and never playing competitive tournament golf, who really would be 2-3 handicaps or worse in the UK.  But there are probably also competitive tournament players with GHIN handicaps listed around 0 who would be able to go head to head with UK counterparts with similar ratings.

Neither system actually uses "par" in the computation. In the US it's course rating, in the UK something called CSS. But CSS adjusts for some things which we don't adjust for in the US, including not only the weather, but also the fact that players play better on their home course than they do traveling in tournaments. But, since they say that a players plays 1-2 strokes worse when travelling, then a true scratch tournament player is probably really a +1 to +2 handicap even in the UK.

As for the US though, the USGA technically defines a scratch player as "an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke play qualifiers competing in the United States Amateur Championship." But less than 300 golfers in any year actually do that. Could there be more than maybe 2000-3000 amateurs in the US who are actually capable of that? And yet, there are about 24,000 golfers in the US with zero to plus handicaps recorded in the system. So they can't all be meeting that definition. This is why Nosevi wants to discount US handicaps so much.

But if we are talking about competitive tournament players here, we shouldn't be discouting their handicaps so much. Even the D2 guys, they are at least recording lots of rounds in competitive conditions, and so they are probably better tournament golfers than 10,000+ guys who are in the system with similar handicaps "on paper".

[GHIN0011458]

I think a lot of this is there is no reasonable way at all to translate handicaps between the different systems. What Nosevi is doing to try and estimate the difference really doesn't work that well in general, but I think it especially breaks down with regard to "scratch" or better players. I think he stated somewhere above that one player he knew he thought would be a +6.5 in the US. I'm not sure he realizes that a true +6.5 in the US would almost certainly be playing on the PGA Tour (and not only that, is probably one of the top 50 players).  That said, the inability to translate between handicap systems is supposedly one of the reasons there was a need to something like the WAGR, but it doesn't really seem to be doing much better, so far.

With regards to U.S. handicaps though, there is a glaring inconsistency within the system itself. It's true that there are some golfers in the US who may get to "scratch" by just playing their own home course, and never playing competitive tournament golf, who really would be 2-3 handicaps or worse in the UK.  But there are probably also competitive tournament players with GHIN handicaps listed around 0 who would be able to go head to head with UK counterparts with similar ratings.

Neither system actually uses "par" in the computation. In the US it's course rating, in the UK something called CSS. But CSS adjusts for some things which we don't adjust for in the US, including not only the weather, but also the fact that players play better on their home course than they do traveling in tournaments. But, since they say that a players plays 1-2 strokes worse when travelling, then a true scratch tournament player is probably really a +1 to +2 handicap even in the UK.

As for the US though, the USGA technically defines a scratch player as "an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke play qualifiers competing in the United States Amateur Championship." But less than 300 golfers in any year actually do that. Could there be more than maybe 2000-3000 amateurs in the US who are actually capable of that? And yet, there are about 24,000 golfers in the US with zero to plus handicaps recorded in the system. So they can't all be meeting that definition. This is why Nosevi wants to discount US handicaps so much.

But if we are talking about competitive tournament players here, we shouldn't be discouting their handicaps so much. Even the D2 guys, they are at least recording lots of rounds in competitive conditions, and so they are probably better tournament golfers than 10,000+ guys who are in the system with similar handicaps "on paper".

I agree. With all of this. Nice post. I really like and second the bolded parts :)

I didn't realize there were 24,000 Zero or better.

[Nosevi]

That is what I am saying- pro's, yes lots of +3's. Amateurs at that level will either play D1 or they Turn Pro. I mean you must be at some school like in Harry Potter only for golfers because I don't know how you can assemble a school of +4's and +5's. How many of these schools are there? This has to be a school where all of the top golfers in junior ranks in Europe or other countries go. Like a collection of the best of the best kids from around Europe all into one academy.

I feel like you are underestimating a +4 or a +5 like you guys just spit them out over there. Beau Hossler's GHIN Handicap is a +4.6 and ranked #5 in the WORLD as an amateur. You have kids playing to a +5 ready to go?

The numbers of golfers at that level in Scotland in 2003 were all amateurs as Pros never hold a handicap here in the UK, even at their own clubs. Regarding the "school" and how many of them are there here the answer is one - it's the English Golf Union National Academy and every good young amateur in the country will end up there at some time or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

Is there 6,000 people who play to a +3, yes. Is there 6,000 Amateurs? No way by my calculations. Interested to see what others think though. I would think there is around 2,000 in the world.

I think a lot of this is there is no reasonable way at all to translate handicaps between the different systems. What Nosevi is doing to try and estimate the difference really doesn't work that well in general, but I think it especially breaks down with regard to "scratch" or better players. I think he stated somewhere above that one player he knew he thought would be a +6.5 in the US. I'm not sure he realizes that a true +6.5 in the US would almost certainly be playing on the PGA Tour (and not only that, is probably one of the top 50 players).  That said, the inability to translate between handicap systems is supposedly one of the reasons there was a need to something like the WAGR, but it doesn't really seem to be doing much better, so far.

With regards to U.S. handicaps though, there is a glaring inconsistency within the system itself. It's true that there are some golfers in the US who may get to "scratch" by just playing their own home course, and never playing competitive tournament golf, who really would be 2-3 handicaps or worse in the UK.  But there are probably also competitive tournament players with GHIN handicaps listed around 0 who would be able to go head to head with UK counterparts with similar ratings.

Neither system actually uses "par" in the computation. In the US it's course rating, in the UK something called CSS. But CSS adjusts for some things which we don't adjust for in the US, including not only the weather, but also the fact that players play better on their home course than they do traveling in tournaments. But, since they say that a players plays 1-2 strokes worse when travelling, then a true scratch tournament player is probably really a +1 to +2 handicap even in the UK.

As for the US though, the USGA technically defines a scratch player as "an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke play qualifiers competing in the United States Amateur Championship." But less than 300 golfers in any year actually do that. Could there be more than maybe 2000-3000 amateurs in the US who are actually capable of that? And yet, there are about 24,000 golfers in the US with zero to plus handicaps recorded in the system. So they can't all be meeting that definition. This is why Nosevi wants to discount US handicaps so much.

But if we are talking about competitive tournament players here, we shouldn't be discouting their handicaps so much. Even the D2 guys, they are at least recording lots of rounds in competitive conditions, and so they are probably better tournament golfers than 10,000+ guys who are in the system with similar handicaps "on paper".

He realises exactly how good these guys are because he sees them pretty often. On the elite amateur circuit you could argue that the difference in the systems is only a stroke but it will always be at least a stroke. Your amateurs and ours are competing in the same tournaments - your's count only their best 10 scores, ours pick up a 0.1 addition to their handicap for every one of the 10 rounds your guys ditch from their calculation. Mathematically there has to be at least a 1 stroke difference. if your guys only ever post scores shot on the worldwide amateur circuit then I guess it'll only be a 1 stroke difference, if they also post 'casual rounds' (they can, don't know if they do?) then it would probably be a touch more.

This is the guy I was referring to that I practised next to. You could say I'm exaggerating and just add the 1 shot so he's 'only' really a +6 in that case:

http://www.englandgolf.org/playerprofile.aspx?sitesectionid=536&sitesectiontitle;=England&pref;=16096

This is a lad I've seen down there a bit. Only a +4.5 or so under the US system but not bad for a 16 year old:

http://www.englandgolf.org/playerprofile.aspx?sitesectionid=538&sitesectiontitle;=England+Boys&pref;=39670

Look guys I'm not in any way putting one system down (I think we should adopt your system and am sure we will eventually) but taking what's said above - 24,000 players with handicaps at the level of GHIN0011458 or better in the US so what would you guess it is worldwide? 400,000? 500,000? Probably quite a few more? All I was saying was that if the WAGR system was opened up so that guys like him got a look in but it only ranked the top 6,000 it wouldn't make any difference at all to him. For guys at scratch level to get a look in it would have to be ranking the top half a million not the top 6,000. That was all I was saying.

Edit: the bit that says "GHIN0011458 or better" shouldn't be in bold, was not exaggerating it, just a lazy cut and past from another post but it won't un-bold.

Edit 2: I'm really, really not putting down the US handicapping system, I really, really want us to adopt it, our is frankly bonkers.

Edit 3: There are plenty of guys who turn pro off +5 or +6. By definition they must be an amateur off that level just before turning pro. Sergio Garcia was a +7 I believe. It's not unheard of.....

[acerimusdux]

There is one golfer who I would say is about a stroke better than me but I have beat him in a 2 day, tied him, he has beat me by maybe one or two but he always shows up in USGA qualifiers for some reason. He plays D2 and is ranked 2435 in the WAGR system.I feel like there are a lot better golfers than him out there who aren't ranked because they don't have access to the points. A lot of the tournaments that give points are not even tournaments that you can qualify for in any form.

Yes, I can see that. I found another golfer from your state, currently ranked #2771, who I think makes for an interesting comparison.  We'll call him 'Joe' and your D2 player 'Steve'.  Since Joe is not a college golfer, he has less opportunities to play in approved events. He takes advantage of those he is able to qualify for, but still has only 5 tournaments, for 14 rounds, counted over the last year. And since the denominator of the ranking calculation has a minimum of 28, he's not getting nearly full credit for playing as well as he has in those tournaments.  If he had played another 14 rounds at the same level, he'd have ranked #1054.

Steve meanwhile has the opportunity to play many more tournaments, but also takes advantage of some of the same opportunities Joe has. Of the 5 tournaments Joe played, Steve appeared in 3 of them. So we can compare how they did head to head in those three events in 2014:

Joe

tot rds rnk Tournament

215 3  7th Metropolitan Amateur Championship

276 4 T2 Missouri Stroke Play Championship

146 2 T33 Missouri Amateur Championship

Steve

tot rds rnk Tournament

223 3 T21 Metropolitan Amateur Championship

294 4 T25 Missouri Stroke Play Championship

147 2 T43 Missouri Amateur Championship

Overall, for those 9 rounds, Joe average 70.8 while Steve averaged 73.8, a full 3 strokes worse. In addition, in the match play portion of the Missouri Amateur, Steve was eliminated in the 1st round, while Joe won his 1st round match and was eliminated in round 2.

Steve is still making some respectable showings in statewide play here, but Joe's scores (he also finsished T34, the 7th best amateur, in the Metropolitan Open, and appeared in the US Amateur Championship in Atlanta after winning the Jeferson City, MO qualifier outright by 4 strokes) suggest he's at least one of the top 20 amateurs in the state (and probably top 10).

And yet Joe ranks behind Steve in the WAGR.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

There is one golfer who I would say is about a stroke better than me but I have beat him in a 2 day, tied him, he has beat me by maybe one or two but he always shows up in USGA qualifiers for some reason. He plays D2 and is ranked 2435 in the WAGR system.I feel like there are a lot better golfers than him out there who aren't ranked because they don't have access to the points. A lot of the tournaments that give points are not even tournaments that you can qualify for in any form.

Yes, I can see that. I found another golfer from your state, currently ranked #2771, who I think makes for an interesting comparison.  We'll call him 'Joe' and your D2 player 'Steve'.  Since Joe is not a college golfer, he has less opportunities to play in approved events. He takes advantage of those he is able to qualify for, but still has only 5 tournaments, for 14 rounds, counted over the last year. And since the denominator of the ranking calculation has a minimum of 28, he's not getting nearly full credit for playing as well as he has in those tournaments.  If he had played another 14 rounds at the same level, he'd have ranked #1054.

Steve meanwhile has the opportunity to play many more tournaments, but also takes advantage of some of the same opportunities Joe has. Of the 5 tournaments Joe played, Steve appeared in 3 of them. So we can compare how they did head to head in those three events in 2014:

Joe

tot rds rnk Tournament

215 3  7th Metropolitan Amateur Championship

276 4 T2 Missouri Stroke Play Championship

146 2 T33 Missouri Amateur Championship

Steve

tot rds rnk Tournament

223 3 T21 Metropolitan Amateur Championship

294 4 T25 Missouri Stroke Play Championship

147 2 T43 Missouri Amateur Championship

Overall, for those 9 rounds, Joe average 70.8 while Steve averaged 73.8, a full 3 strokes worse. In addition, in the match play portion of the Missouri Amateur, Steve was eliminated in the 1st round, while Joe won his 1st round match and was eliminated in round 2.

Steve is still making some respectable showings in statewide play here, but Joe's scores (he also finsished T34, the 7th best amateur, in the Metropolitan Open, and appeared in the US Amateur Championship in Atlanta after winning the Jeferson City, MO qualifier outright by 4 strokes) suggest he's at least one of the top 20 amateurs in the state (and probably top 10).

And yet Joe ranks behind Steve in the WAGR.

Leaving aside all the stuff about handicap systems either side of the Atlantic and whether I see a lot of low handicappers (sorry for not being clear I was referring to our National Golf Academy, hardly a 'normal' spread of handicaps as the best golfers come from all over the country) that's a stark example of where the WAGR system is being (or at least very much appears to be being) biassed towards the US college golf system and I can see why that would annoy the OP. Maybe he's right - just open up loads of tournaments across the globe to the ranking system and it'd at least allow everyone to be on a level playing field.

Sorry if what I was saying came over as 'bigging up' our golfers, was not my intention. I was saying that if there are that many good golfers here there must be umpteen thousands across the globe precisely because I don't think our golfers are any better than anyone else's. Clearly wasn't clear in that. My apologies.

[acerimusdux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

This is the guy I was referring to that I practised next to. You could say I'm exaggerating and just add the 1 shot so he's 'only' really a +6 in that case:

http://www.englandgolf.org/playerprofile.aspx?sitesectionid=536&sitesectiontitle;=England&pref;=16096

Yeah, he's #16 in the WAGR, reigning European Amateur Champion, and the first guy to win that title two years in a row.  He very likely will be a touring pro before long. He's a legit +5 or so.  And I wouldn't dispute that he he maybe could get it to +6 or better in the US system, if he really wanted to , but it's just that guys at that level don't normally bother going to great lengths to do so.  There aren't really that many plus vanity cappers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Edit 2: I'm really, really not putting down the US handicapping system, I really, really want us to adopt it, our is frankly bonkers.

Both are somewhat bonkers, just in different ways. In the US, it is easier to lower your cap, but it's also easier to lose that low handicap. Maybe you don't see this as much because you are working more with young improving golfers, but in the UK system there are lots of hangers on carrying low handicaps that they are no longer capable of playing to. That ends up balancing things out, to where it appears that scratch golfers in one system post scores on average about the same as in the other.

According to CONGU , the Scottish Golf Union Handicap Audit 2003 found 448 scratch or better handicaps in Scotland, 191 of those at +1 or better. Scotland, with a population of 5.3M, is 1/60th the size of the US (319M). So if the US has the same proportion of scratch or better handicaps, we would expect 60*448 = 26,880 scratch or better and 60*191= 11,460 plus or better handicaps in the US.

Per Golf Digest , there are 1.53 million men with handicaps on GHIN, and per USGA , 1.6% of those are scratch or better and .92% are +1 or better. So about 1,530,000*.016=24,480 scratch or better and 1,530,000*.0092=14,076 plus or better. Not all US handicaps are recorded in GHIN, but for that level of player, I expect the overwhelming majority would be. So there don't seem to be dramatically different rates of scratch or better handicaps in the US vs. UK.

Moreover, in the link from CONGU above, on the second page, the Scottish Golf Union also looked at the scores returned by those golfers with handicaps of one or better, and found this:

Quote:

The mean net differential of this group of players was 1.7.

This means that these golfers were scoring on average 1.7 strokes above their handicap. That's about the same as it works out for low handicap players in the US. Yes, the handicap in the US is calculated only on half the rounds, and you only shoot the handicap or better about 20% of the time, but the average score is still not more than 2 strokes above the handicap for that level of player. For mid caps, it's more like 3 strokes; a 12 handicap would shoot an average score 15 strokes over CR. And for very high handicaps, it might be 5 strokes. But for guys around scratch, it's not more than 2.

So I'm not convinced either that low handicaps are much more common in the US, or that they are shooting any higher scores on average than equivalent handicaps in the UK. You probably have a good argument that many of your young improving golfers would have lower handicaps in the US system, but I don't think it applies as a general rule to all golfers.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerimusdux

Moreover, in the link from CONGU above, on the second page, the Scottish Golf Union also looked at the scores returned by those golfers with handicaps of one or better, and found this:

Quote:

The mean net differential of this group of players was 1.7.

This means that these golfers were scoring on average 1.7 strokes above their handicap. That's about the same as it works out for low handicap players in the US. Yes, the handicap in the US is calculated only on half the rounds, and you only shoot the handicap or better about 20% of the time, but the average score is still not more than 2 strokes above the handicap for that level of player. For mid caps, it's more like 3 strokes; a 12 handicap would shoot an average score 15 strokes over CR. And for very high handicaps, it might be 5 strokes. But for guys around scratch, it's not more than 2.

So I'm not convinced either that low handicaps are much more common in the US, or that they are shooting any higher scores on average than equivalent handicaps in the UK. You probably have a good argument that many of your young improving golfers would have lower handicaps in the US system, but I don't think it applies as a general rule to all golfers.

Think we may be going round in circles here

It doesn't really matter what either of us think the differences are but for what it's worth you're right that for our players that are better than scratch their scoring average is about 1.7 over their handicap, for guys at my level it creaps up to about 2, (obviously all shot in competition). I haven't done a detailed analysis of the US GHIN, I'll leave that to someone else, but as an example the OP's scoring average is 3 shots exactly over his handicap and 3.275 above the average course rating of the courses he's played in the 20 rounds in his current Revision Scores in the GHIN. Sounds pretty good to me as he's often in competitions and that makes a difference. I've just sat and punched in random GHIN numbers for an age and for all the low handicappers I've stumbed across it's been 3-3.5 every time in line with the OP. Just above scratch and it's creaping up towards 4 over the average course rating. But I'm obviously using a very small data set and maybe these golfers are not the average and I've just happened to stumble upon one end of the spectrum every time? I've hardly done a detailed analysis on it. Make you a deal though - give me a bunch of GHIN numbers of 'normal' club plus handicappers over there with a score average of 1.7 over their USGA handicap and I'll eat humble pie. Sound fair?

At the end of the day it's all pretty irrelevant. What I was saying is that there are so many guys at the OP's level and better across the globe (24,000 in the States so take a shot at guessing globally including places like China) that if the ranking system opened it up to all of them but only ranked the top 6,000 he'd get lost in the rush - the odds of featuring would be miniscule and they'd have to rank a lot more players for guys at and around scratch (forgetting one system vs another) to feature. I can understand him wanting a shot though and good on him.