Back at Number 1

[Blue]

Ai is back at number 1 in the Rolex Rankings this week by the tiniest of margins. The Rolex site -- Official Rolex Website: Rolex Rankings -- shows Ai and Cristie tied with 10.27 avg points because it only displays two decimal places. Doing the math:

Ai 564.61/55 = 10.2656364
Cristie 472.19/46 = 10.265000

shows the margin they're separated by is 0.0006.

[LoJo]

I think it's stupid that the Rolex Rankings change every week by such tiny margins.

It's not good for the LPGA to have a new #1 each wk based on something like a 0.0006 margin. Maybe they need to tweak things so that there is no change "unless" blah, blah, blah. It seems to me it diminishes the #1 status by it being just by the math in such infinitesimal margins.

But...whatever.

[NTB]

I have never liked the Rolex ranking. I think it’s to complicated and not useful.
At the end of each season whoever has won the most tournaments is number one.
If two or more players tie with the same amount of wins then you have a three day play off.
Over all score doesn’t count a player with the lowest score each day wins.
If three players have tied you might have to have a sudden death.
I doubt that would ever happen. One player would dominate.

[gxer]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

I have never liked the Rolex ranking. I think it’s to complicated and not useful.
At the end of each season whoever has won the most tournaments is number one.
If two or more players tie with the same amount of wins then you have a three day play off.
Over all score doesn’t count a player with the lowest score each day wins.
If three players have tied you might have to have a sudden death.
I doubt that would ever happen. One player would dominate.

What I don't like about the Rolex Rankings as compared to the World Golf Rankings, is the lack of a drill down to the detail of the ranking calculations.

Otherwise, I like the Rolex Rankings because it is an objective, points based system.

[Blue]

You need a formula more sophisticated than who won the most tournaments. It should factor in different tours, be weighted by tour and strength of field, and weight more recent tournaments higher as the Rolex Rankings does. But like gxer said, the problem with the Rolex Rankings is it's all shrouded in mystery and they don't provide any detail on how the exact numbers are derived.

[NTB]

Originally Posted by Blue

You need a formula more sophisticated than who won the most tournaments. It should factor in different tours, be weighted by tour and strength of field, and weight more recent tournaments higher as the Rolex Rankings does. But like gxer said, the problem with the Rolex Rankings is it's all shrouded in mystery and they don't provide any detail on how the exact numbers are derived.

You mean like lucky Lunky who won the open. Or some Asian chick that chips
one in and beats a better player. If you win the most tournaments it proves
you are better then the rest most of the time. Period.
They ain't no cake walks out there.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

You mean like lucky Lunky who won the open. Or some Asian chick that chips
one in and beats a better player. If you win the most tournaments it proves
you are better then the rest most of the time period.
They ain't no cake walks out there.

Don't you think that the current system that weights wins on the LPGA higher than wins on the Futures Tour is a good thing and that weights win against a stronger field higher than wins against a weaker field? How are you proposing counting wins?

[xman5]

Originally Posted by Blue

Ai is back at number 1 in the Rolex Rankings this week by the tiniest of margins. The Rolex site -- Official Rolex Website: Rolex Rankings -- shows Ai and Cristie tied with 10.27 avg points because it only displays two decimal places. Doing the math:

Ai 564.61/55 = 10.2656364
Cristie 472.19/46 = 10.265000

shows the margin they're separated by is 0.0006.

It just proves that the players at the top are so close. Right now just a strange convergence of numbers.

It also shows how good Annika was to have been so far ahead in the rankings.

[Saint-Just X]

I'm delighted that Ai Miyazato is back on top,but it does seem ridiculous that you can have a new number one in a week when there wasn't an LPGA event and nobody played.

I assume if Jiyai Shin,or Suzann Pettersen,win the Evian,and Ai and Cristie are far enough down the leaderboard,we could have a third different number one player in the space of three weeks.

It's not the easiest formula to get your head around,but it speaks to the wafer thin margins between the top three or four in the world,right now...

Pax Vobiscum
Saint-Just X

[NTB]

Originally Posted by Blue

Don't you think that the current system that weights wins on the LPGA higher than wins on the Futures Tour is a good thing and that weights win against a stronger field higher than wins against a weaker field? How are you proposing counting wins?

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.