World Ranking points - Invitationals

slave1

Perhaps a bit cheeky but thought the Chevron "World" Challenge boost for Tiger's World Ranking at the weekend deserves a thread of its own.

Personally, I think to jump 52 to 21 is crazy for an invite tournament.
Bigger place jump than the number of guys in the field and the highest ranked player in the field was 6, bit of an old boys club to boost your ranking, happy XMas!!!!
I wonder did all in the field gain world ranking position?

Some posters will probably say it's the same rules for everyone but it isn't because only 18 guys get to play and the selection is based on invite so it can't be the same rules for everyone.

saintastic

slave1 wrote: »

Perhaps a bit cheeky but thought the Chevron "World" Challenge boost for Tiger's World Ranking at the weekend deserves a thread of its own.

Personally, I think to jump 52 to 21 is crazy for an invite tournament.
Bigger place jump than the number of guys in the field and the highest ranked player in the field was 6, bit of an old boys club to boost your ranking, happy XMas!!!!
I wonder did all in the field gain world ranking position?

Some posters will probably say it's the same rules for everyone but it isn't because only 18 guys get to play and the selection is based on invite so it can't be the same rules for everyone.

The Chevron and the Nedbank shouldn't get world ranking points. McIlroy had to win just to stay ahead of Westwood in the World Rankings.

The "rich" getting "richer".

heavyballs

saintastic wrote: »

The Chevron and the Nedbank shouldn't get world ranking points. McIlroy had to win just to stay ahead of Westwood in the World Rankings.

The "rich" getting "richer".

totally agree,it's basically a golden circle at the top

listening to Gary Murphy on the radio the other day really shows the other side to being a golf pro

stockdam

Many tournaments (ok all) have restricted fields but most have entry criteria. However there is free entry for many tournaments for major winners etc. Sponsors and organisers want to get the highest profile players in the field and sometimes this excludes players who are playing better.

However invitationals should not be awarded world ranking points.

ssbob

Also found it a bit strange that GMAC didn't go back to defend his title? Maybe he was getting big appearance fee's???

Rory also didn't get any world ranking points for the Shanghai masters as it is not recognised by any of the major tours, strange really!!

slave1

The Chevron isn't recognised by any tour either but is allocated ranking points, strange days indeed

Martin567

ssbob wrote: »

Also found it a bit strange that GMAC didn't go back to defend his title? Maybe he was getting big appearance fee's???

Rory also didn't get any world ranking points for the Shanghai masters as it is not recognised by any of the major tours, strange really!!

I presume it was a logistical issue for McDowell. China to South Africa to Dubai is presumably more manageable than China to California to Dubai.

None of the Invitationals should have WR points. The Shanghai Masters won by Rory had 30 players in the field compared to 18 at the Chevron and only 12 at Sun City.

ssbob

slave1 wrote: »

The Chevron isn't recognised by any tour either but is allocated ranking points, strange days indeed

It is a recognised PGA Tour event, just go on their website

dvemail

Tiger got 44pts for winning yesterday in an 18 man field, Westwood got 38pts for winning in a 12 man field and Rory 38pts for winning in a full field. Wheres the logic in that?
I think the ranking points for small fields like the Nedbank and Chevron should be capped at 20pts or something. Its a disgrace really.

JerryHandbag

I'd love to see the mathematical explanation for this. I can see why Tiger improved his ranking. The event itself despite a small field, it was a strong field. And thats the one thing that I can understand from the world rankings, the stronger the field the more points on offer (at least I think I understand it)

But come on, 18 players? An unofficial off-season tournament that he hosts himself? And jumps 30 places? I'd expect him to jump that much if he won the Masters.

Twitter is awash with conspiracy theories about the powers that be, fast-tracking Tigers climb back to the top in golf :pac:

saintastic

dvemail wrote: »

Tiger got 44pts for winning yesterday in an 18 man field, Westwood got 38pts for winning in a 12 man field and Rory 38pts for winning in a full field. Wheres the logic in that?
I think the ranking points for small fields like the Nedbank and Chevron should be capped at 20pts or something. Its a disgrace really.

As JerryHandbag says below, you get more ranking points for beating better players which I think is good.

In respect to the Chevron getting WR points, Paul Azinger said the following on twitter last night:

"Here's how it works: Chevron says "we will pay millions to sponsor Tigers event, BUT it must have WR points." IMG, "MILLIONS!" Ok, thx".

slave1

Was waiting for the official ranking points to be posted, this really seals the deal for me, Nick Watney finished in LAST place and was awarded 2.4 ranking points.
So you finish last and get points!!!

Using Nick's ranking page as a comparator he was awarded 2.39 points for finishing tied 36 at The Barclays.

Can't see the sense in that as the Barclays would be a well strong field!!!

stockdam

saintastic wrote: »

"Here's how it works: Chevron says "we will pay millions to sponsor Tigers event, BUT it must have WR points." IMG, "MILLIONS!" Ok, thx".

Ok I see......Chevron will put millions into the event and for that they expect it to be an "important" event. I guess they try to hand select the players to get the most back from TV coverage etc. It's a pity that money dictates the points rather than competition (competition means that it is an open event).

soundsham

dvemail wrote: »

Tiger got 44pts for winning yesterday in an 18 man field, Westwood got 38pts for winning in a 12 man field and Rory 38pts for winning in a full field. Wheres the logic in that?
I think the ranking points for small fields like the Nedbank and Chevron should be capped at 20pts or something. Its a disgrace really.

In fairness 44 pts is a good score would have won a turkey in my home club yesterday

slave1

Bandit!

thewobbler

Some gurning for the sake of gurning on here.

The reason Tiger made such a jump is that he beat a field of top 20 players. Which is a significantly bigger feat in an individual sport than beating 80 also rans mixed in with 4-5 top players.


I can't think of another sport that manages to put together such an accurate rankings system - it always seems to to put players in their rightful spot. So leave the gurning at the door.

Martin567

thewobbler wrote: »

Some gurning for the sake of gurning on here.

The reason Tiger made such a jump is that he beat a field of top 20 players. Which is a significantly bigger feat in an individual sport than beating 80 also rans mixed in with 4-5 top players.


I can't think of another sport that manages to put together such an accurate rankings system - it always seems to to put players in their rightful spot. So leave the gurning at the door.

I agree the rankings system works well overall but there shouldn't be any rankings points available for any of the very small field Invitationals at the end of the year. No matter how you try to spin it, a win in one of these events is a lesser achievement than in any full field event. There was one stage last season where over half the PGA Tour events had been won by players ranked outside the Top 100 at the beginning of that week. That is a measure of how deep the fields are nowadays and any player could win on a given week. The one thing these Invitationals lack is depth.

Tiger only had a place in the field for the Chevron because he's Tiger. Nobody else with a similar ranking to him would have been considered. Therefore it's also incorrect to say that everyone had the same chance to make a rankings jump as him because nobody else ranked anywhere around No 50 or worse in the world would have received that opportunity.

dnjoyce

thewobbler wrote: »

Some gurning for the sake of gurning on here.

The reason Tiger made such a jump is that he beat a field of top 20 players. Which is a significantly bigger feat in an individual sport than beating 80 also rans mixed in with 4-5 top players.


I can't think of another sport that manages to put together such an accurate rankings system - it always seems to to put players in their rightful spot. So leave the gurning at the door.

not sure what gurning is...but as can be seen from the dramatic increase in first-time major winners lately, the depth of talent is such at the moment that pretty much anyone, in any tournamet can win if their putter gets hot. If there are only 17 other guys in a "tournament" then I think it is an easier tournament to win than if there are 150 guys of average professional standard. Granted there were more top 20 players in California, but top 20 players can have bad weeks as well, especially when they are getting decent OWGR points and their wallets padded just for turning up.

thewobbler

The first thing that happens to a first-time major winner is they rocket up the world rankings. Why? Not because they won a 'Major', but because they'll have beaten most of the world's top 20 to take the prize.

If it's PGA certified, you can't arrange a system whereby you handpick which tournaments qualify and which don't. What's the magic cut off point? The Chevron was just the Masters with a smaller field.

k.p.h

The fact that Woods got that many points only seems to make the ranking more accurate to me. Actually I think the rankings are spot on.

The rankings are designed to be accurate, If Woods did not receive that many points it would have meant that the favorite (or second fave) for every major next year was ranked out side the top 50.

That would have left the ranking system inconsistent and not accurate. What would you rather.?

I'm with thewobbler here, gurning (whatever it means!)

A.Partridge

Tiger ?

44 points?

I've had it with these cheats.

SARZY

A.Partridge wrote: »

Tiger ?

44 points?

I've had it with these cheats.

He does his cheating on the Blonde Waitress Course in Crazy Horse, las Vegas.

heavyballs

thewobbler wrote: »

The first thing that happens to a first-time major winner is they rocket up the world rankings. Why? Not because they won a 'Major', but because they'll have beaten most of the world's top 20 to take the prize.

If it's PGA certified, you can't arrange a system whereby you handpick which tournaments qualify and which don't. What's the magic cut off point? The Chevron was just the Masters with a smaller field.

you think so????????
do you not think the players close to Tiger in the rankings before the Chevron should feel a little hard done by?
at least in the Masters you have clear qualifying criteria and nobody behind you in the rankings (bar the obvious ex winner etc) will be there before you
i think we need a poll on this tbh,my personal opinion, there should be no points awarded at all for invitational's.

heavyballs

SARZY wrote: »

He does his cheating on the Blonde Waitress Course in Crazy Horse, las Vegas.

how original.........enough with the Tiger sleeze gags surely

slave1

heavyballs wrote: »

i think we need a poll on this tbh

Poll added.

I choose NO to the points because of the restrictive selection criteria and also the fact that all you have to do is turn up and you are guaranteed 2.4 ranking points, if it was a bigger field with a cut then I may be swayed towards the acceptance of points allocation.

slave1

From the PGA website

BIG POINTS, SMALL FIELDS: Tiger Woods' first win in two years raised consternation in some circles that he could go from No. 52 to No. 21 in the Official World Golf Ranking after winning against an 18-man field in a tournament that doesn't count as official on any tour.

The Chevron World Challenge has received rankings points for three straight years, and part of the deal was it had to have a qualifying standard and the two sponsor exemptions had to be among the top 50 in the world. Woods was No. 49 at the deadline.

What caused his swift rise as much to do with only playing 27 times in the last two years, giving him the minimum 40 divisor.

There will be some slight changes next year for Woods' event at Sherwood, and for the Nedbank Challenge in South Africa, which Lee Westwood won and received 38 ranking points.

The Official World Golf Ranking board, at its annual meeting in July, approved a modification for tournaments that have fewer than 30 players. Those events will no longer get the "home tour" rating component. Those essentially are bonus points that depend on how many players from the host tour are in the event.

But it won't make that much of a difference.

The ranking of the players at Chevron contributed 215 points, and the home tour allowed for 36 additional points to determine the overall strength of field. That translates to 44 points for the winner. Without the home tour component, the winner would have received 40 points. Instead of No. 21, Woods would have gone to No. 25.

irish bloke

No, points should NOT be awarded

Below is who would have being invited to the tournament.
If correct, than that would have included Westy, McIlroy, Donald, Kaymer etc....

"Since 2009, the event offers Official World Golf Ranking points. The field increased to 18 players including the current four major winners, the top 11 available from the Official World Golf Rankings, the Defending Champion, and two special exemption players selected by the Tiger Woods Foundation."

In effect, it’s not an invitational (exception of 2 players). It’s a tournament for the best performers of the year.

If a tournament is offering a big purse and ranking points for the top players in the world, is it right to cut these points if big players decide not to turn up?
How do you control this. Do you make players turn up?

The amount of big purse tournaments is increasing rapidly with the emergence of Asian golf and players have greater choice as to where they want to go. This will only make thing more difficult in the world of rankings.

Russman

Martin567 wrote: »

I agree the rankings system works well overall but there shouldn't be any rankings points available for any of the very small field Invitationals at the end of the year. No matter how you try to spin it, a win in one of these events is a lesser achievement than in any full field event. There was one stage last season where over half the PGA Tour events had been won by players ranked outside the Top 100 at the beginning of that week. That is a measure of how deep the fields are nowadays and any player could win on a given week. The one thing these Invitationals lack is depth.

QUOTE]

I agree with this.
The strength in depth is so great now that, on any given week, anyone in the top 100 or 150 can win an event. Just because an unsanctioned 18 man invitational field contains some top 20 players doesn't mean it should carry such weight in ranking points IMO. A full field event is much more competitive.
The Chevron is a great event and raises a lot of much needed cash for charity and provides some great TV, but is essentially an end of season exhibition with a large prize fund.
My own opinion is that for any event to carry world ranking points, there should be a minimum number of entries, say, 50 or maybe 64.

irish bloke

No, points should NOT be awarded

Lots of sports do this. Elite always play smaller events for greater money and points.
Look at the tennis APT finals for example. Top 8 players available will play.

Right from the thread get go it was this year’s Chevron tournament in question.
Where is the debate on G Mc’s win last year in this event and how unfair the ranking points were then???
If Rory went over and won this tournament, I can assure you we would be all praising him and there would be no thread on ranking point fairness.

This so called invitational had criteria and the criteria was that the best players in the world were invited.
Im not saying the ranking system is 100% correct, no system is. But I like to see an argument from both sides and this one is a little too biased for me.

Russman

I'd agree with the same debate no matter who wins or plays TBH.

I take the point about tennis alright but I think golf is slightly different as its not mano e mano competition. A player ranked 20, 30 or 40 places lower than a top player in golf frequently wins tournaments against higher ranked players but in tennis its much less frequent for someone ranked 50 to knock off Roger Federer. Usually when the top 4 players in tennis play in a tournament, one of them wins, but when we had a "Big 5" in golf (Tiger, Phil, Ernie, Vijay & Retief) other players won just as much, broadly speaking.

I think smaller, elite field events that have OWGR points make it harder for anyone to break into the upper echelons of the game and I'm not sure thats a good thing. By all means have these end of season events, but whether they should carry ranking points...........I'm not so sure.

I'm fairly sure there aren't any points for the Grand Slam event in Bermuda which I think is correct (open to correction).

Martin567

Graeme McDowell actually benefitted from this directly in 2009. He got a very late entry into the Chevron after Tiger's withdrawal. He then finished 2nd which allowed him to barely sneak into the Top 50 at year-end. This guaranteed his entry into the 2010 US Masters.

Graeme then had a fairly slow start to 2010 and was lucky to stay in the Top 50 at the end of May and gain entry into the US Open. If he hadn't played in the 2009 Chevron, he would have failed to qualify directly for Pebble Beach and would have had to pre-qualify. Everyone knows he won at Pebble but you could certainly argue that the WR points he gained at the Chevron were unfair on all the other players on the fringes of the Top 50 who were not invited to play in a limited field Invitational.