Forums

World Stroke Play Rankings 3rd August 2009

• coolswing 1,017 Posts

  Wed, Aug 5 2009 1:54 AM

  Just want to say  thanks to Tallacepaul for taking the time and effort to maintain this ranking chart, I've kept stats on the tourney results for a while now so I know that it involves a lot of work to do this.

  Up to now no one has come up with a better system and opinions seem to be widely divided among the players on the effectiveness of this ranking system.  Personal I find that this system could be refine a little more to give a truer picture of the players performance, but as it is, it does give you an indication of who's playing well at the current time and who is not.  Also it really indicates who are the experience and consistent performers as the system is certainly weighted towards players who achieved good results over a long period.  Other than this ranking chart we really don't have anything else to lean on as we all know the average score is just not an indicator of performance or skills.

  If anuone have any ideas on how to build an effective ranking system please do speakup so we could all add out input, and if we all work together, we should be able to finally establish an offcial ranking system that we could rely on.

• seveking 983 Posts

  Wed, Aug 5 2009 4:05 AM

  Also wanted to say thanks to Paul, this is maybe not perfect, but it's the most accurate system we've got at the moment.

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Wed, Aug 5 2009 4:49 AM

  Give TallAcePaul some credit, it can be quite time-consuming to maintain such rankings. As a teenager, I used to maintain weekly pop charts compiled jointly by me & friends, and you've got to sacrifice something before such charts are meaningful and are as nice to look at as TallAcePaul's charts are. This gives us an alternative look at this site's best players; I like that, and look forward to seeing the upcoming installments of the chart and the developments in it.

• Caven 63 Posts

  Wed, Aug 5 2009 7:15 AM

  It has never ceased to amaze me the lack of depth of male consciousness, it always comes down to mine is bigger than yours.  Thus we must always compare.

  Nivlac had a good thought a few months ago about rankings, use all the stats to determine who the best players are.  I suggest that one's position on the money list and average position of all tournament finishes minus a small penalty for withdrawals also be included as stats.  Yet even this can be manipulated to some degree.

  Paul has improved the old ranking system of averages, and I'm sure has put in a lot of time and effort as did the WGT person who developed, wrote the code, and maintained the old averages.  However, it is merely a beginning towards something with meaning, that is if we must fill our egos.

  Avatar Lee and Tibbets have always been, since inception of WGT, and will always be the best virtual golfers as far as consistency on any level no matter the format or the calculation, if that helps fill that need to know.

  If we just cannot be, if we cannot just enjoy the moment, then I suggest using the individual stats as a guide to comparison of capabilities.

• TaxAnalyst 18 Posts

  Thu, Aug 6 2009 5:06 PM

  Thunderbird said it right, and I  find it unsurprising that he did seeing that he is an ex-pro.  I am an ex-pro baseball player, and I can tell you I never had a second chance to throw a ball once I let it go.  The most accurate measure of performance is, and always will be, single-play format.  Those like Tibbets and Snaike (who clearly have nothing better to do that stoop to personal attacks on anyone who dares to have an opinion that differs from theirs) won't understand it, because they have likely not experienced having to perform in the clutch in real life.  Computer golf is the only measure you have for it.  If you think playing 100 times to make sure you top the leaderboard makes you the most talented, you're just wrong.  Persistence is not synonymous with performance.  Single play measures the latter while excluding the former, which gives the most accurate ranking.  Period.

• Caven 63 Posts

  Tue, Aug 11 2009 7:19 AM

  Correct me if I misunderstand, your career was defined by one errant throw.

  Any person is defined by his or her entirety, not one aspect.

  Single play is one small part of this game when comparing skills, and as I stated earlier single play is measured by variables not readily compared equally for all, and not by itself a true performance measure.

  By the way, life itself, the decisions we make and actions we take everyday whether they are good or errant demand all human beings to perform in the clutch, so everyone has experienced real life.  Golf and ball are not real life.

   

• PRIESTESS 10,721 Posts

  Tue, Aug 11 2009 1:43 PM

  as i understand it, you rquire suggestions for an adequate ranking system that can reflect on a players ability....the answere is simple... 1 round,per day....by only allowing 1 single round per day,,it will bring added pressure to the the arena.... top players are players who can play under pressure..

• TaxAnalyst 18 Posts

  Thu, Aug 13 2009 4:19 PM

  Caven:  you misunderstand.  No, my career was not defined by one errant throw.  Not sure where you created that interpretation from. 

  To restate it for you, single play defines a player's skill over time better than multi-play.  Sure, you can't rank a player based on a single round in a single tourney.  But single-play performance (over a series of tourneys) is a far more accurate determinant of performance ability.  Period.  It's not even an educated debate to try to argue that multi-play is a representative measure.  When you can simply hit the reset button and do it over, skill is not a material component.

• Caven 63 Posts

  Thu, Aug 13 2009 6:40 PM

  The one throw career was derived from your statement of not getting a second chance once you threw the ball.  You had thousands of opportunities to throw the ball correctly and overshadow that one mistake, or were you judged on the one throw?

  Single play is a component of measurement, such as a single ball game you played.  You were also evaluated on many other measures, including practice, all of your statistics, reaction under stress, and a host of other criteria you are familiar with.

  My point is that single play is not the end all for individual performance measure, but a part of it.  If you read the other posts in this thread my contention is that all stats be used in evaluation, along with new stats of placement on money list, and average tournament placement in all tournaments played.  These would all be weighted variables.  This would be a true measure, I believe.

  Also, in unlimited play mode you will see the best someone can perform.  As I stated previously it is more than just resetting, otherwise everyone would shoot 27's and 54's everyday, there is a good degree of skill (and luck)  to putting together a perfect round, like having that one perfect ball game in a thousand, is not that perfect ball game skill based, or is it you had a thousand tries you should have had a perfect game and takes no skill?  I experience just as much excitement with 7 or 8 birdies in a row going for 9 as I did winning single play tourneys.

  Why I replied to this I do not know, I am not a big believer in measuring performance as that is an ego driven phenomenon, but then we are a result based society.  Too bad we lack a higher level of consciousness as a culture.  I'm as guilty as the next person, yet in this game I play against the course and really don't care how anyone shoots.

• TaxAnalyst 18 Posts

  Fri, Aug 14 2009 12:08 PM

  Sorry, it's still idiotic to think that multi-play has a place in measuring talent.  It doesn't.  Here's an example of why for those who are simple-minded and don't get it.

  Player A: Can shoot 65-67 95% of the time.  Occassionally will shoot a round at 63.

  Player B: Shoots 70-73 95% of the time.  However, will shoot 60 1 out of 100 rounds.

  Multiplay results would tell you that Player B is the more competent player, and that's why multi-play has no business being in the rankings. 

  Over time, single-play tournament results will expose that Player B is simply mediocre, while Player A is consistently better.