COMMUNITY

Yep. I've brought this up before. Can't wait to hear Robert Premaux Jr.'s take on this. And how can #2 be 16th or something in the FedExCup and #4 in the world is #4 in the FedExCup standings? I know they're not supposed to be power rankings, but just because the Pistons won the NBA Finals a few years ago doesn't mean they're #5 of the best NBA teams.

"So someone, with some reasonable discussion, explain to me HOW can the #1 ranked player in the Official World Rankings NOT be in the Tour Championship?"


It's really very simple. The world rankings measure a players performance over two years, and the FedEx is only for one.

Tiger played great last year. Six wins, won the FedEx Cup, 2nd at the US Open, 6th at the PGA and Masters, 14 top tens, etc, etc., etc. So even though he's played poorly (by his standards) this year, no one's stepped up and taken over, though Phil and Westwood had plenty of chances. And since he's played poorly this year, and only marginally in the playoffs, he didn't make it to East Lake for the Tour Championship.

World ranking and FedEx ranking are independent of each other. There is a greater similarity between Ryder Cup ranking and World ranking, though Ryder Cup rankings weigh more heavily on the second year's performance.

Hope that helps.

That was about as reasonable as you can get and makes sense.

I'm sure someone who has a better grasp on the intricacies of the rankings will add to this.

Definitely does make sense.

Here is the long detailed version that requires a friend working at NASA to help figure out:

The Official World Golf Ranking, which is endorsed by the four Major Championships and the six professional tours which make up the International Federation of PGA Tours, is issued every Monday, following the completion of the previous week’s tournaments from around the world.

The official events from the six professional tours together with the Canadian, OneAsia, Nationwide and European Challenge Tours are all taken into account and “Ranking Points” are awarded according to the players’ finishing positions and are generally related to the strength of the field based on the number and ranking of the Top-200 World Ranked players and the Top-30 of the Home Tour players in the respective tournaments (Event “Rating Values”). However, the four Major Championships are rated separately to reflect the higher quality of the events together with the Players Championship in the United States. In addition, the BMW PGA Championship in Europe, the Australian, Japan and South African Open Championships and the Flagship events on the Asian and Nationwide Tours are allocated higher minimum points levels to reflect their status.

The World Ranking Points for each player are accumulated over a two year “rolling” period with the points awarded for each event maintained for a 13-week period to place additional emphasis on recent performances â€" ranking points are then reduced in equal decrements (of 1/92nd of the original amount) for the remaining 91 weeks of the two year Ranking period. Each player is then ranked according to his average points per tournament, which is determined by dividing his total number of points by the tournaments he has played over that two-year period. There is a minimum divisor of 40 tournaments over the two year ranking period and a maximum divisor of a player’s last 60 events.

The winners of the Masters Tournament, the US Open Championship, the Open Championship and the PGA Championship are awarded 100 points (60 points for 2nd place, 40 for 3rd, 30 for 4th down to 1.50 points for a player completing the final round), and the winner of the Players Championship is awarded 80 points (points are awarded down to 1.20 points for 60th place and ties). The BMW PGA Championship has a minimum 64 points for the winner (points to 56th place). Minimum points levels for the winners of official Tour events have been set at 6 points for the Canadian Tour (points to 6th place), 12 points for the European Challenge Tour (points to 14th place), 14 points for the Asian, Sunshine and Nationwide Tours (points to 17th place), 16 points for Australasian and Japanese Tours (points to 19th place) and 24 points for European and the United States Tours (points to 27th place). In addition the Open Championships of Australia, Japan and South Africa have a minimum of 32 points for the winner (points to 37th place) and the Flagship events on the Asian and Nationwide Tours have a minimum of 20 points for the winner (points to 22nd place). In the cases of co-sanctioned Tour events, the minimum points levels are determined using the “average” of the minimum Tour ranking points from each Tour (rounded up to nearest whole number).

Points are reduced by 25% for tournaments curtailed to 36 holes because of inclement weather or other reasons.

Kudos to you if you can understand all that

Ok so I have a basic understanding of how the rankings work even before reading that college textbook. Players earn points in tournaments based on their final standing. Each tournament from the all of the tours have different point values based on strength of field. Over two years, the value of these points decrease (so, for example, if the player won on a tournament ending September 14, 2008, it would be near valueless now, and tomorrow would be valueless). The points are totaled and divided by the number of events played (minimum 40).

Hope this helps a little bit.

What it helps me understand is this...Tiger would have received ZERO points for God knows (I'm not going to go back and check) how many tournaments and those tournaments that he had earned points for in the previous year should be of less value so his "weighted average" even with all those 0's still averages out that he is number 1 in the World.

What it tells me is that the scientific, algorithmic, trigonometric, calculus based formula is SCREWED UP!

Oh 72, absolutely it is screwed up. I think two years is too long a time. But if you go back to early 2009, Tiger held a 10 point lead in the average. He was around 19, Phil was no. 2 at 9. So that is a lot of ground to cover...

The world rankings are very, very simple:

1. They span two years. Remember Tiger's 2009? No major victories but he won the FedEx Cup and about what? Six tournaments? Seven worldwide? Those still count as does everybody else's sucky 2009 when they didn't win seven tournaments and play well in the majors.

2. They put a HUGE emphasis on winning and the majors. How many tournaments has anybody else BUT Tiger won over the last two years? Not as many as Tiger. Same goes for finishing high in the majors.

3. They ultimately hinge on an average performance, not a cumulative performance. In other words, the golfer who only plays in three events and wins all three is ranked much higher than the golfer who makes 40 cuts but never cracks the Top 5.

Plus, if you've studied them closely, you'd have noticed that Tiger's massive lead on No. 2 has almost disappeared ... and it's been that way for months. The fact is it's not the freaking rankings that are the problem; it's the freaking Phil Mickelsons and Steve Strickers and Lee Westwoods who couldn't step up and unseat Tiger.

And finally, Tiger will have to win early in 2011 to remain No. 1. His 2010 season is so terrible by his standards that he won't remain No. 1 if he continues to just make cuts and not win.

And finally finally, the world rankings HAVE been tweaked over and over and will continue to be tweaked. They will NOT be tweaked because the rest of the world can't play well enough to seize control of No. 1.

Are we really such cattle as a species that we just see something and react without studying, reading, doing homework or researching? Or are we repeating something some moron talk show/radio show host said?

did Robert just call me a cow?

No, you can be human.

The whining over the world golf rankings is giving me tired head like I get over the annual whining over the BCS. I'm not the biggest fan of defending either, but neither holds back the team/golfer who wins and controls their own destiny ... unless you're Auburn. :)

If Phil didn't suck, all of the guys who hate Tiger and therefore hate the world rankings would be happy. But Phil sucks ... if he didn't, he'd be No. 1 by now.

No, you can be human.

The whining over the world golf rankings is giving me tired head like I get over the annual whining over the BCS. I'm not the biggest fan of defending either, but neither holds back the team/golfer who wins and controls their own destiny ... unless you're Auburn. :)

If Phil didn't suck, all of the guys who hate Tiger and therefore hate the world rankings would be happy. But Phil sucks ... if he didn't, he'd be No. 1 by now.

More likely repeating what some jackass sports writer wrote.