Back at Number 1

[dangerbob]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

I think I was talking LPGA. Futures should be excluded.
If some of the top players are in the field then its not a weaker field.
A win is a win.

In all pro sports that have playoffs some of them play weaker teams.
When it comes down to the tournament that proves who's the best.
You would only play a strong player.

I would also accept the top two money winners have a go at it.
Now you might say if one plays all the tournaments and comes in second
and only one win, how is that fair?
Play more tournaments. Quit complaining.

I think there should be a incentive to play all the tournaments.

Right on, Notax. Like the famous quote from the late Vince Lombardi, "Winning isn't everything...it's the only thing."

Isn't that the purpose of the game...to WIN? In football, you can have the best statistics by the end of the regular season, but if you don't win the Super Bowl, it amounts to nothing. If you are a "wild card" team (having the worst records in the playoff) and you win the Super Bowl...you are the CHAMP!

[Blue]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

I think I was talking LPGA. Futures should be excluded.
If some of the top players are in the field then its not a weaker field.
A win is a win.

In all pro sports that have playoffs some of them play weaker teams.
When it comes down to the tournament that proves who's the best.
You would only play a strong player.

I would also accept the top two money winners have a go at it.
Now you might say if one plays all the tournaments and comes in second
and only one win, how is that fair?
Play more tournaments. Quit complaining.

I think there should be a incentive to play all the tournaments.

Right now the Rolex Rankings include the LPGA, LET, KLPGA, JLPGA, ALPG and the Futures Tour. Results are weighted. A good finish on the LPGA counts more than a good finish on the LET and a high finish on the Futures Tour counts very little. It also factors in strength of field. Doing well in a tournament with a lot of other top players counts more than doing well in a tournament with fewer top players.

The idea is to make it possible to rank everyone who plays women's professional golf all around the world on the five major tours plus the Futures Tour, even one round, over the past two years, and determine who is best. That's why the rankings have 500+ players in them. I think this is valuable.

If you just count the LPGA which is what it sounds like you want, and you just count wins, you'll only be able to rank about 70 players tops and that's assuming that all 70 tournaments in a two-year period are won by different players. In reality it will be more like 40 players.

Isn't the ability to rank all pros, even those who don't win and who play on minor tours a good thing?

Since you put so much credence on wins, do you think Song-Hee Kim who has never won anywhere (she won five times on the Futures Tour but it was more than two years ago so it doesn't count toward her ranking), should not be in the rankings at all, let alone ranked number 9 in the world? She's had 10 top tens on the LPGA Tour this year alone four top 3s? Actually, of all the players in the top 20 of the Rolex Rankings, only six have won on the LPGA Tour this year. Another seven have won on other tours in the world. Should the remaining seven not be included at all?

I don't think your comparison to team sports really holds. In team sports, there are two competitors. There is one winner and one loser. In a golf tournament, there are 140+ in a full field event. Is there one winner and 139 equal losers? Of course not.

[NTB]

Blue in one of your other post you were talking about how unfair it would be
for one to go to a playoff having played weaker players.
Now you want to defend a system incorporating all players regardless.
You really can't see the flaw in that? The math has to be unexplainable.
If Paula Creamer in good health went to the futures tour she would probably
win every time she played. Math can't correct that nor make it fair.

This is why in college basketball they have a NCAA tournament and an NIT.

Some one on the futures tour wins five times and gets a high ranking on the
rolex. They decide to have a playoff and she has to play number five on the
LPGA she would get her butt kicked all over the course.

At best it some more gobbly-gook-math.
I have played some really good golfers and beat them just not on a regular
basis. I just had one of those rounds that no formula could far-see.
I'll go a step further I have won trophies because I had a good summer in
tournaments. Trust me I wasn't the best in those tournaments.

What kind of formula could you possibly come up with to compare me to
even the worst college player. They would have kicked me all over the course.
What you have is a formulated theory and theories are debatable.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

Blue in one of your other post you were talking about how unfair it would be
for one to go to a playoff having played weaker players.

This does not sound like something I would ever say. Do you have a link to my post?

I don't remember ever being involved in a discussion of fairness of playoffs in the sport of golf.

[xman5]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

Blue in one of your other post you were talking about how unfair it would be
for one to go to a playoff having played weaker players.
Now you want to defend a system incorporating all players regardless.
You really can't see the flaw in that? The math has to be unexplainable.
If Paula Creamer in good health went to the futures tour she would probably
win every time she played. Math can't correct that nor make it fair.

This is why in college basketball they have a NCAA tournament and an NIT.

Some one on the futures tour wins five times and gets a high ranking on the
rolex. They decide to have a playoff and she has to play number five on the
LPGA she would get her butt kicked all over the course.

At best it some more gobbly-gook-math.
I have played some really good golfers and beat them just not on a regular
basis. I just had one of those rounds that no formula could far-see.
I'll go a step further I have won trophies because I had a good summer in
tournaments. Trust me I wasn't the best in those tournaments.

What kind of formula could you possibly come up with to compare me to
even the worst college player. They would have kicked me all over the course.
What you have is a formulated theory and theories are debatable.

The math is explainable but is complex. Your analogy to the NCAA is off. It is more like the BCS which is decided who gets to play for the championship , which uses a computer ranking system (mostly).

It works as follow.

Rankings are based from the tournaments on the Major Tours and the Futures Tour. You do not need to be a Pro.

1) They are based over a 2 year period.
2) Players receive points for each finish in a tour event. The number of points available in an event is dependent on the strength of field of the event, detemined by the competitors current rankings. Exceptions are the LPGA Majors and the Futures events which have fixed points.
3) Rankings points are weighted over time so that recent results are more important.
4) A minimum divisor is used.

Below is the weighting table.



The column that is used now is the one marked new. This was a change a few years ago to this. This change the weighting to a straight line graph after 13 weeks from a step graph.

So the math is readily explainable, but not easy to do. This is not a randomly thought out system. A lot of thought was put into it.

When they first came out with the rankings they did a back calculation to determine the Rankings.

[xman5]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

At best it some more gobbly-gook-math.
I have played some really good golfers and beat them just not on a regular
basis. I just had one of those rounds that no formula could far-see.
I'll go a step further I have won trophies because I had a good summer in
tournaments. Trust me I wasn't the best in those tournaments.

Give yourself more credit.

If you won that week then you were the best that week.

In your mind they may have been better players then you. Over a number of tournaments they may win more then you since they are better in your mind. But why do you consider them better, because of their better results over time. So all that the Rolex Rankings are doing are quantifying that perception that they are better then you by using the actual results.

So over that period in time when you had your good results and got those trophies, YOU WERE BETTER then they were. And your ranking would have reflected that. But then if you revert back to what was your regular play you would have quickly gone back down in the rankings.

To be a top 10 ranked player on a continuous basis you need to play well over a long period of time and you need to continue to play well.

Look at the top 10. Week after week those are your top finishers. Right now we don't have a runaway number 1 Like Annika was or Lorena was. No one is going to be winning 8-10 tournaments a year and runaway. It is a tightly grouped bunch at the top. Slip up a little and you will quickly go down. Win a major and go the other way.

Right now it is making for a little bonus to the competition each week.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by xman5

The math is explainable but is complex. Your analogy to the NCAA is off. It is more like the BCS which is decided who gets to play for the championship , which uses a computer ranking system (mostly).

It works as follow.

Rankings are based from the tournaments on the Major Tours and the Futures Tour. You do not need to be a Pro.

1) They are based over a 2 year period.
2) Players receive points for each finish in a tour event. The number of points available in an event is dependent on the strength of field of the event, detemined by the competitors current rankings. Exceptions are the LPGA Majors and the Futures events which have fixed points.
3) Rankings points are weighted over time so that recent results are more important.
4) A minimum divisor is used.

Below is the weighting table.



The column that is used now is the one marked new. This was a change a few years ago to this. This change the weighting to a straight line graph after 13 weeks from a step graph.

So the math is readily explainable, but not easy to do. This is not a randomly thought out system. A lot of thought was put into it.

When they first came out with the rankings they did a back calculation to determine the Rankings.

How does the chart show how the strength of field is factored in?

As I said, I agree with the ranking system. I would only like it to be more transparent.

[xman5]

The strength of the field is determined at the start of the tournament by the rankings of the players in the tournament. At that time specific # points are awarded for 1st place, 2nd place and so on. Not sure at what place is the cutoff. What that allocation is I don't know. I am not sure of the exact calculation for the stength but they most likely do a reverse count of the top x with a certain number assigned to #1,2,3 etc)

So after the tournament you are awared that number of points. When these points are added to your total points, but are weighted based on the week that they are from based on that chart.

Just making up numbers. Lets say I got 10 weighted points for this weeks tournament. In susbquent weeks when the rankings are calculated I still get the 10 points added into my total until it is after 13 weeks.

Now at 14 weeks the results from that week are now only adding 9.7 to my total and what was at 104 weeks now does not count.

And now after 15 weeks the results from that week are now only adding in 9.5 to my total and the next 104th week will drop off.

Only the last 104 weeks are counted. Of course not all weeks had tournaments on all tours so there are no points from that week.


Off course these are made up numbers to illustrate the calculation but you get the general idea.

[gxer]

xman,

I thought the Rolex Rankings used the same points declining calculations or weighting if you will as the World Golf Rankings do, but I see from your posted information that that is not correct.

[xman5]

They made this change after the first year. I think that they are still the current calculations. I know of no other changes.

The only other change that I know of is the min 35 divisor, which happened before this change.

The purpose of the change is to make a smother transition from week to week.

So the graph is a straight line decline after 13 weeks and not like the steps in your house which was the original when the bunched each 13 weeks into identical periods (see the column that says current, that was the original way). Now they do the column that says new. This chart was from a few years ago when they were making the change.

I think what made it more like the mens was the change to the minimum divisor in stead of minimum # of tournaments. That made it more like the mens.

They also use the same concept with the strength of the field but use a minimum starting point for the type of event. Majors have a fixed number.

So they are more similar in there calculation then they are different.