Forums

Re: Strange tier placements

• petezipp 4 Posts

  Mon, Dec 12 2011 2:40 PM

  I am confused by the Leading tiers as posted in Tourny's.

  When I looked at the leaderboard for a monthly 9 hole the leading players were not in the correct tier. i.e.

  hack was a Tour pro

  Amateur was a Pro

  pro was a Tour pro ???

  And this carried on down through a few of the low scores ( for me anyway) .

  Lower down the order players were in the correct section though still scoring 31's.

  Surely they were not all changed with one score or am I missing something?

• WGTicon 12,511 Posts

  Mon, Dec 12 2011 7:32 PM

  hi

  they were likely just moved up, so the scores reflects the score they post on that game in that tier and any new score will be from new tiers.

  -wgticon

• LeonDelBosque 1,551 Posts

  Mon, Dec 12 2011 8:20 PM

  petezipp:

  I am confused by the Leading tiers as posted in Tourny's.

  When I looked at the leaderboard for a monthly 9 hole the leading players were not in the correct tier. i.e.

  hack was a Tour pro

  Amateur was a Pro

  pro was a Tour pro ???

  And this carried on down through a few of the low scores ( for me anyway) .

  Lower down the order players were in the correct section though still scoring 31's.

  Surely they were not all changed with one score or am I missing something?

  Yes, they signed up and played the tourney at whatever tier, and had moved up by the time you looked at the leaderboard.... probably not because of their score in that tourney alone, but because they were posting other good scores as well. This happens a lot. Of the ones you mentioned, only hack to tour pro is a fairly big move, but is pretty easily done in a month by a good beginner who plays a lot. You look at their score/tier histories on their profile pages.

   

• petezipp 4 Posts

  Tue, Dec 13 2011 1:54 PM

  yep i though it was something like that.

  Still feels unfair ( just like real golf) only one stroke between master and hack

  I'll probably wear my mouse out before shooting 6 under

  thanks for the explanation

  pete