OWGR Week 31....

Not sure if PD is still busy..... but here is a quick top-25 after the WGC...

This Week - (Last week)

1 - -  ( 1 ) - 14.1864 - Tiger Woods
2  - -  ( 2 ) - 8.5631 - Phil Mickelson
3  - -  ( 3 ) - 8.3226 - Rory McIlroy
4  - -  ( 4 ) - 7.5972 - Justin Rose
5  - -  ( 5 ) - 7.4437 - Adam Scott
6  - -  ( 6 ) - 6.6447 - Matt Kuchar
7  - - ( 7 ) - 6.5933 - Brandt Snedeker
8  - -  ( 8 ) - 5.9365 - Graeme McDowell
9  - -  ( 9 ) - 5.3970 - Luke Donald
10 - ( 17 ) - 5.0988 - Keegan Bradley
11 - ( 19 ) - 5.0916 - Henrik Stenson
12 - ( 10 ) - 5.0721 - Lee Westwood
13 - ( 11 ) - 4.9200 - Steve Stricker
14 - ( 13 ) - 4.7224 - Charl Schwartzel
15 - ( 14 ) - 4.6529 - Ernie Els
16 - ( 12 ) - 4.6511 - Louis Oosthuizen
17 - ( 15 ) - 4.6129 - Ian Poulter
18 - ( 16 ) - 4.5883 - Sergio Garcia
19 - ( 18 ) - 4.3131 - Bubba Watson
20 - ( 20 ) - 4.2594 - Jason Day
21 - ( 24 ) - 4.2369 - Jason Dufner
22 - ( 23 ) - 4.1054 - Webb Simpson
23 - ( 21 ) - 4.0703 - Dustin Johnson
24 - ( 25 ) - 4.0701 - Bill Haas
25 - ( 22 ) - 4.0063 - Hunter Mahan

  

Bl00dy Hell!

Did you anticipate the complete result?

Surprised Zachgod hasn't penetrated the top 25 but not surprised to see de Jonge missing. GPB will be pleased to see King Louis start to plummet.

Thanks robo

Stenson is the year's fastest climber - without a win for six months.

kwinigolfer wrote:
Surprised Zachgod hasn't penetrated the top 25 but not surprised to see de Jonge missing. GPB will be pleased to see King Louis start to plummet.

Thanks robo

Stenson is the year's fastest climber - without a win for six months.

Zach Johnson Watch...  Starts the week at 26th... finished T4 and moves all the way up to 26th...  Amazing isn't it?  

He'll climb higher next week . . . . . . . .

A few factoids on the OWGR...

FACTOID: NO player since the 1996 revamp of the OWGR has had even a single week's OWGR average as high as Tiger's current 14.19... Vijay was the closest with his 14.14 in 2004 (noted below)... Greg Norman was next with a 14.11 in 1996 (2 weeks total for Norman over 14).

Consider the last four #1's since Tiger gave it up.

Martin Kaymer - High point while #1 was an average of 8.35.

Lee Westwood - High point while #1 was an average of 9.37.

Luke Donald - High point while #1 was an average of 10.75.

Rory McIlroy - The only one to come close to Tiger's current level with a high point average while #1 of 13.08.

The only other #1 to break into the 14's in this century was Vijay Singh with a high point average of 14.14 in 2004.

But still... this is well below TW's high points. In 2001 He spent 13 weeks over 30.0 (THIRTY). And in his career he's had 166 weeks of averages above 20.0 (TWENTY).

Also pretty amazing that since the OWGR revamp and formula change starting in 1996, no player other than Tiger has reached 15 in the average. Tiger has a total of 398 weeks with an average above 15.

Bottom line:  Should TW start to win majors again.... he could get back to going ballistic in the averages and "lapping" the field once again.  (I haven't done any of the math yet... but if TW should win this week... (and Phil and Rory did very poorly), it looks as though TW would fall just short of doubling up in the average over his nearest competitor)

Note: Ernie Els got over 12 for one week as a #3 to Vijay and Tiger in 2004 as well. Ernie never was #1 in this century, however 8 of his 9 total weeks at #1 were over 12.0 in 1995, but that was before the OWGR changes.

Note 2:  It is quite possible that prior to 1996... Ballesteros, Price or Norman "may" have reached over Tiger's current 14.19 if the formulas used in those days were converted to the base changes from 1996 forward.  But with the methods being so fundamentally different prior to 1996 (3 year ranking period instead of 2 is just ONE of the many differences) I would have NO clue how to make such adjustments.

Very interesting, thanks robo.

By the way PD... can't give you any OWGR help this week... will be otherwise indisposed... :-)

Robo

Thanks for all the stats on the number 1's.  

Will tiger ever get any credit for so comprehensively out playing the era with the strongest field?


PS tiger is now a luke donald ahead of the number 2!

McLaren wrote:Robo

Will tiger ever get any credit for so comprehensively out playing the era with the strongest field?

I doubt it... at least among some... or at least now now. IMO there is too much "emotionalism" in all things topic Tiger.   But IMO once his career has wound down... he'll begin to get the credit he deserves.  And it was much the same way with Jack.  There were plenty from Arnie's Army days that NEVER gave Jack his due... that is until maybe the '86 Masters when Jack won a lot of them over.  But even then... I'm not sure they gave Jack the credit he deserved.

To the above point I offer into evidence the 1989 book "The History Of The PGA Tour" by Al Barkow.  This book was produced in conjunction with the PGA Tour, it's forward written by Ben Crenshaw and it's introduction by then Commissioner Deane Beman.  What's fascinating about that book is there was a project undertaken at the time (starting in 1986) that attempted to clarify the record on official wins and then quantify that research into an all time ranking.  Not one, but THREE separate approaches to parsing the data were attempted.  Even Joseph C. Dey, Jr. added his comments endorsing the approach.  

The list of people involved in reviewing the data and deciding what should be included, and how events should be weighted was the who's who in golf of the day.  The most recognized media in one phase... golf historians in another... then a PGA Tour commissioner appointed panel that among others included guys like Barkow himself, Beman, Joe Black, Joey Dey, Jay Hebert, Jack Tuthill, and Herbert Warren Wind to further examine the topic.

And guess what... in all three approaches... it wasn't Jack... it was SAM SNEAD that came out on top.  Majors were important in that day, and weighted more heavily... but they apparently weren't the "be all, end all" in golf.  Regular events were considered very important too and not just pooh-poohed the way some want to do today.  

Bottom line:  I don't know all the ins and outs of exactly HOW for so many the measure of golf greatness has morphed down into a simple measure of 18 majors is greater than 14 majors so case closed Jack is the best.  Especially when in those measures nobody goes back and looks at the fact that at a time when American's dominated world golf in the 60's... Jack won a major with only 9 American's participating.   And even as late  as 1980 when the "rest of the world" was starting to produce more and more great golfers... Jack won his two majors with only 8 International players participating in the U.S. Open... and only 7 in the PGA.  Compare that to fields of today.

I believe OBJECTIVE analysis and PERSPECTIVE is what is needed when analyzing golf history.  IMO we now know the "statistical" approaches taken by the PGA Tour in that 1989 book did not paint a compete picture of reality.  Because of so many OTHER factors, today we just KNOW Jack was better than Snead.    And once the "dust has settled" on Tiger's career... and the emotionalism surrounding him subsides... and more objective people study the subject...  we'll understand that the career's of these two great golfers (Jack and Tiger) simply can't be compared as simply as 18>14.... (or whatever number of majors Tiger ends up with)  NO... IMO Tiger WILL get get his just due..... whatever that turns out to be.

robopz wrote:

McLaren wrote:Robo

Will tiger ever get any credit for so comprehensively out playing the era with the strongest field?

I doubt it... at least among some. IMO there is too much "emotionalism" in all things topic Tiger.   But IMO once his career has wound down... he'll begin to get the credit he deserves.  And it was much the same way with Jack.  There were plenty from Arnie's Army days that NEVER gave Jack his due... that is until maybe the '86 Masters when Jack won a lot of them over.  But even then... I'm not sure they gave Jack the credit he deserved.

To the above point I offer into evidence the 1989 book "The History Of The PGA Tour" by Al Barkow.  This book was produced in conjunction with the PGA Tour, it's forward written by Ben Crenshaw and it's introduction by then Commissioner Deane Beman.  What's fascinating about that book is there was a project undertaken at the time (starting in 1986) that attempted to clarify the record on official wins and then quantify that research into an all time ranking.  Not one, but THREE separate approaches to parsing the data were attempted.  Even Joseph C. Dey, Jr. added his comments endorsing the approach.  

The list of people involved in reviewing the data and deciding what should be included, and how events should be weighted was the who's who in golf of the day.  The most recognized media in one phase... golf historians in another... then a PGA Tour commissioner appointed panel that among others included guys like Barkow himself, Beman, Joe Black, Joey Dey, Jay Hebert, Jack Tuthill, and Herbert Warren Wind to further examine the topic.

And guess what... in all three approaches... it wasn't Jack... it was SAM SNEAD that came out on top.

Bottom line:  I don't know all the ins and outs of exactly HOW for so many the measure of golf greatness has morphed down into a simple measure of 18 majors is greater than 14 majors so case closed Jack is the best.  Especially when in those measures nobody goes back and looks at the fact that at a time when American's dominated world golf in the 60's... Jack won a major with only 9 American's participating.   And even as late  as 1980 when the "rest of the world" was starting to produce more and more great golfers... Jack won his two majors with only 8 International players participating in the U.S. Open... and only 7 in the PGA.  Compare that to fields of today.

I believe OBJECTIVE analysis and PERSPECTIVE is what is needed when analyzing golf history.  IMO we now know the "statistical" approaches taken by the PGA Tour in that 1989 book did not paint a compete picture of reality.  Because of so many OTHER factors, today we just KNOW Jack was better than Snead.    And once the "dust has settled" on Tiger's career... and the emotionalism surrounding him subsides... and more objective people study the subject...  we'll understand that the career's of these two great golfers (Jack and Tiger) simply can't be compared as simply as 18>14.... (or whatever number of majors Tiger ends up with)  NO... IMO Tiger WILL get get his just due..... whatever that turns out to be.

Not from Super he won't.

I'm sure he'll be remembered as the best golfer of his generation but one who is an utter contemptable c word of a person.

Robo, thank you for the very interesting reply.

I think a good method to rate players would use a system where players are judged on how often they beat a certain field strength. OR their performance relative to the fields they played.

So in very crude terms a player gets a profile like this;

Events of 80 and above OWGR points: Player A wins X% of the time
Events of 70 to 79 OWGR points: Player A wins X% of the time

and so on.

I am sure you could rate performance instead of just wins, but I think the above example shows how you could start to objectively rate a players performance compared to the strength of the field they faced.


Because of cases like Robo has mentioned above I think jack may suffer in terms of not having faced modern field strengths.

With a comprehensive enough model and enough data it might be possible however to make predictions on how jack would have fared against stronger fields.

Robo - Those are amazing stats. Thanks for sharing. Agree with you that for Professional Golf the GOAT moniker, for many (most?), will likely go to who has won the most professional majors, so Jack at the moment. Certainly was not his fault the Open Championship was so weak or there were so few "international" players of high calibre.

Pelé will probably be remebered as the greatest footballer ever. But his then peers were far from what we would see later on, i.e. in the era of Maradona, Zidane etc.

When I play football (or golf) against my young nephew I'm a f-king superstar. It's all relative. But nothing beats the history books.

So re. Jack vs Tiger I guess we can only tell in 20 years from now.

Not sure what PD's status is today... but I will NOT be able to help him out and post OWGR later today.   Not that it matters all that much as none of the events coming up in the near term are using OWGR rankings as an entry criteria.   Perhaps the only real interest is how today's winner might fare in the OWGR...   So with that in mind... here are the estimates for the final round:

OWGR Scenarios  (most assume the BEST case scenario with a win, but the player rankings below could be lower depending on other players not mentioned - Tiger Woods remains #1 regardless of any other players finish)


- - - -  Players 2-under or better going into round 4 - - - -

-9...Jim Furyk can move as high as #10 (but would need Stenson to finish 14th or worse)

-8...Jason Dufner can move as high as #8 (Stenson finishing 2nd would knock that down a spot)

-7...Henrik Stenson can move as high a #6 (Kuchar finishing T5 or better would knock that down a spot)

-6...Jonas Blixt can move as high as #19

-5...Steve Stricker can move as high as #5 (but only with a Scott WD or DQ.  A T2 from Kuchar would knock him down another spot)

-5...Adam Scott moves to #2 with a win, but can also get there with a 2nd place finish unless Rory finishes T3 or better.

-3...Rory McIlroy moves to #2 with a win - or -  goes to #2 with a 7th place finish or better if Mickelson remains below 60th and Scott doesn't win or finish 2-way T2nd.

-3...Lee Westwood can move as high as #6

-2...Dustin Johnson can move as high as #8

-2...Kevin Streelman can move as high as#15

-2...Robert Castro can move as high as #27

NOTE: And on the off chance that Snedeker or Rose could get back into this... the above could be scrambled further.

EDIT: And let's not forget the Zach Johnson watch. He's currently at -1 and in a gaggle at T12. That would probably leave him around #26, maybe up or down one depending on others. But if he were to go EVEN or one or two under and were to finish in the 4th-5th range... he could possibly sniff top-20. And if he should win... then as high as #9 with the right combination of finishes from others.

princedrac says:
Woods
Phil
Rory
Scottie
Rose
Kuchar
Sneds
DufDaddy
McDo
Stenson

Sounds like a long way away, but points gained now for marginal Top 50 players - e.g. Jonas Blixt - will be BIG by year's end when it comes to dishing out Masters' invitations.

Some guys must be plummetting: Donald, Watney, Van Pelt, Olesen, etc.

Stenson number 10, amazing comeback.....above Westwood and Donald now, who would have thought that 12 months ago!

Yes, great to see Stenson back.
I wonder how much it had to do with his caddy switch?