![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I am looking to create a "Highest OWGR" placing in golfers' templates. I will only include golfers who have joined tour since 1986. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogglywoogly ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This is Oogglywoogly. Here is my response:
- I think we should start with golfers that have been ranked in the top 10. Perhaps just golfers who peaked in 1980s and 1990s. I do prefer "completeness" and would like all golfers who have peaked in the Top 100 or Top 200 to eventually have a "Highest OWGR Ranking." It may take awhile but I think it can be done. A "highest ranking" exists for most ATP tennis players on their wikipedia.
- I think it should be at the end of their "Career" section rather than "Awards and Achievements." The highest ranking isn't an award and isn't necessarily a great achievement for all.
- I was thinking of just doing men at this point. Maybe we can move on to women later.
- For dates I like the idea of including the first and last week for highest ranking though I think this really is only important for #1s. Perhaps, if the player peaks for multiple weeks but all in the same month we can put include the month in the field.
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Encouraged by the responses above, I have produced something more concrete. For all the 107 golfers who have reached the top-10 I have produced mini-templates showing what the highest ranking line in their infoxbox might look like. See {{ Infobox golfer/testcases}} section "Test highest ranking" (remember to "purge" the page if that section is missing). This is basically taken from List of male golfers who have been in the world top 10. The date is the first occasion the player reached that ranking (mdy for USA and CAN, dmy for the rest) I have used a somewhat different style for those who have reached number 1 - there is a second line with the number of weeks they have been at number 1. For Koepka I have also added ", as of September 22, 2019", since he is the current number one. For those who have reached 2 to 10, I have added a second line eg (as of September 22, 2019) but only for those who reached their highest position in the last 5 years. Currently all 107 golfers are there but we may wish to remove the line from some golfers (eg Tom Watson). Three golfers have a * after their rankings (including Watson) as per List of male golfers who have been in the world top 10 "* The available data for 1986 is incomplete and this number may be incorrect. The number given is the player's highest known position." For others we may feel it gives a false impression since the peak of their career was before 1986. I have added a reference after the date to the OWGR data for that week (since it is in List of male golfers who have been in the world top 10) where available, but this can go if people think its excessive. Have also added a couple of hypertext links: "ranking" links to OWGR while the "1" for those who got to number 1 links to List of world number one male golfers.
Anyway, all just examples and open to any questions and comments, and to any mistakes you find. (I have a (hopefully complete) list of those who got to 11 or 12 and may add those later) Nigej ( talk) 07:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Nigej. Good work! I like what you have done and don't have many problems with it. I do have some questions/points though...
- Should we have the last week these players were at number #1 too? With players like Fred Couples or Nick Price the current information is enough I think (date of first week at #1 and number of weeks at #1). But with players like Norman and Woods I think we could also put the last date they were at #1? It might give a better sense of their dominance.
- For other golfers should we also put the first and last date they reached their peak? For example, Ronan Rafferty reached peak #16 for one week in 1990 and matched that peak for exactly one week two years later. I would suggest putting both weeks their and it gives a more accurate sense of his quality of play.
- I agree with the points about Watson and Nicklaus. I think having their "peaks" at something like #4 and #17 are definitely misleading. Perhaps we could place their McCormack peak ranking next to their peak OWGR ranking? And perhaps do that with others that earned both a McCormack and OWGR ranking?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 23:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
It seems that we have refined the issue to a few points:
1. Is this proposed field relevant? Having originally made this proposal I obviously feel so but not everyone agrees. It would be good to hear from everyone involved.
2. How viable is this proposed automated process for updating a golfer's "Peak OWGR" on Wikipedia from OWGR's website? My apologies if this has been answered but if a clear and concise answer could be provided below that would be great.
3. Assuming it is viable there is one more major issue. Most retired golfers from the 1980s and 1990s do not have an OWGR peak on the OWGR's website (unless they have randomly played an OWGR event recently). This will be more difficult to add. How should we proceed?
Also regarding what I feel to be minor issues:
- I agree with Nigej that we only need one week for the golfer's "peak OWGR." My apologies if I complicated things before.
- I don't think we need to focus on women's and amateur rankings right now. We have enough to discuss.
- Perhaps we should start with golfers who have peaked in the Top 50. This might make it easier.
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
I know Nijeg responded below and it looks like we're moving forward. However I wanted to give a response to IP: 51.6.155.94 about the main issues he brought up.
You mentioned that the MOS:IBX rules must be adhered to. I checked all the #11-50 golfers mentioned by Nijeg. 27/40 entries have their highest (at some point) OWGR ranking somewhere in the text, usually after their latest win. So while ignored a decent amount, it is nonetheless usually mentioned.
You mentioned how highest OWGR is rarely mentioned by the media other than a "sidenote" after a victory. While it is usually only mentioned after a player wins it doesn't strike me as irrelevant. Cameron Champ won yesterday on the PGA Tour. An article here https://progolfweekly.com/winners-circle-cameron-champ-claims-victory-at-the-safeway-open/ and here https://www.golfchannel.com/news/cameron-champ-jumps-100-spots-career-high-official-world-golf-ranking. The second one notes that this is his highest ranking ever. And Champ's highest OWGR is the subject of the entire second article. Also, a player usually doesn't receive a lot of media attention at all except when they win. Should the entire Wikipedia entry therefore only focus on their wins?
You also mentioned how this is adding irrelevant information to the infobox. The golfer's infobox usually includes family information (spouse, children) that is not included for other sports. It also includes all of their best performances at major championships, usually which are anonymous top 25s that receive no media attention whatsoever. Meanwhile, the "professional wins" category is overly capacious and includes just about everything; Padraig Harrington's 31 "professional wins" includes his 2 Open Championships and 6 Irish PGAs. The "highest OWGR" category seems much more valid than a lot of what's already there.
In general I feel like it is a good barometer to determine how good a player can be over the course of their career. I feel like there is nothing quite like it. The PGA Tour's Money List (and now FedExCup) and European Tour's Order of Merit (and now Race to Dubai) are nice but do not fully capture how good a player can be. The FedEXCup and Race to Dubai standings can be misleading because they give exponentially higher points at the end of the season. The Money List and Order of Merit are better in my opinion in determining year long consistency but have their shortcomings. Both of these metrics are only a year long (and used to be significantly shorter in the 1980s and part of the 1990s) and only compare the golfer to his peers on that tour. The OWGR is 2 years long and compares the golfer against everyone. That is also important because Wikipedia, unlike the PGA Tour or European Tour's website, it an encyclopedia that is inclusive and includes entries for all top golfers across the world. In general I just don't think there is anything else like it out there. It is the most parsimonious way of distilling loads of information (top tens, wins, money list, etc.).
Finally I think I don't think it is, in general, misleading. There are some examples (e.g. Camillo Villegas, Notah Begay) who reach the top 10 or top 25 in a particular 2 year window but then are barely in the top 100 again. Perhaps a "Highest Average Ranking" over the course of one's career would be better for players like that but nothing like that exists. Other than maybe Villegas or Begay are there other examples of highest OWGR that you find misleading?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Notwithstanding an objection from an IP user, there seems to be agreement to at least give this idea a go. The merit of the proposed approach is that, if at some point it is decided that it is not working, the field can be removed by blanking the "highest ranking" file (as a temporary measure) or removing the field from the infobox golfer (as a more permanent measure).
The first stage is to change the {{ Infobox golfer}} template to that at {{ Infobox golfer/sandbox}}. The main change is to add:
| label21 = '''Highest [[OWGR|ranking]]''' | data21 = {{Infobox golfer/highest ranking|{{#ifexpr: {{str find0|{{{name}}}|<}}<0 | {{{name}}} | {{str left|{{{name}}}|{{str find0|{{{name}}}|<}}}} }}}}
Some later fields have been renumbered to make room for this field (21). The new line is at the bottom of the "Career" section. There will be a search of the file Template:Infobox golfer/highest ranking. Lines in this file are of the form "|Golfers Name=Text". A search is made in the file, trying to find a match between the "name" field in the infobox and a "Golfers Name" in the file. If a match is found then "Text" is returned and this text is the right hand side of the field. If no match is found there will be no line produced. There is one complication: sometimes the "name" field contains additional text, eg for Lee Westwood it is "Lee Westwood<br><small>{{post-nominals|GBR|OBE}}</small>". Text from the first "<" is stripped away, leaving "Lee Westwood".
Infobox:Golfer is a protected template, so I will have to make a request for the change to be made in the talk page of the infobox. This can take a day or two. At this stage we don't have to worry about the form of the "text" field. We can firm this up later. We just need to be happy with where the new line is and with the left hand side, which is fixed ('''Highest [[OWGR|ranking]]''').
I'm assuming "Stage 2" will involve (1) defining any restrictions - seems to be some agreement to restrict ourselves (at this stage) to those who've reached the top 50, and (2) firming up on the form of the "text" field. Nigej ( talk) 19:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
NB. In label21 I have changed the "OWGR" to "Official World Golf Ranking" since OWGR is a redirect. Nigej ( talk) 05:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
We are live on this now. As of this instant only the data for Shaun Micheel exists but I plan to add more soon, once I've done some checking. Check out Template talk:Infobox golfer#Edit request 1 October 2019 for the discussion about this, which focused on whether we should be using wikidata for this sort of stuff. The field currently uses Highest [[OWGR|ranking]] but I'm happy to make a further edit request in the next few days once we've decided what we want - should be straightworward. Nigej ( talk) 05:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm planning on adding some text at the top of Template:Infobox golfer/highest ranking to the effect that we are in an interim phase where we are considering the merits and practicality of the highest ranking field and that we are currently restricting ourselves to those who've reached the top 50 of the OWGR. I'm expecting us to add most of these fairly quickly (see User:Nigej/sandbox for a first stab at the list of players). I'm thinking that we can review where we are in the new year when we've seen how the weekly update goes and how much effort is required. We also need to firm up on the format of the text in the highest ranking field. Nigej ( talk) 05:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I have added a short section to Template:Infobox golfer/doc direcitng interested parties to Template:Infobox golfer/highest ranking where I have added some firm instructions. I have reinstated the earliest list: complete list of those who have reached at least 12 + major winners since 1986 (hopefully complete).
Seems to me that we have (at least) two issues to resolve:
1. Form of the text. I have made a stab at this. Points to consider (i) I have put a link like this [[List of world number one male golfers|1]] for number 1s (ii) For number 1s there is a second line showing the number of weeks they have been number 1 (iii) For the current number 1, Brooks Koepka, I have added "(29 weeks, as of September 29, 2019), but I haven't included the "as of" date for any other number 1s (iv) For non-number 1s I have added "(as of September 29, 2019)" (or 29 September 2019) only for those golfers who reached their highest ranking since the start of 2015 (see eg Bubba Watson) but not for anyone who reached their highest ranking before that date (see eg Henrik Stenson). My logic being that the "as of" date is useless for older golfers (certainly for Payne Stewart). Is 5 years a suitable cutoff for this "as of" date? (v) the final date they were at the ranking or the number of weeks they were there are not included (except number of week 1 for number 1s) (vi) I'm thinking we should perhaps use {{ date}} in the text, especially for the "as of" date. {{date|29 September 2019|MDY}} produces September 29, 2019 and would make the weekly updating easier since there'd only be 1 style, not 2 (vii) data for 1986 is not complete and we have some golfers whose peak ranking is unclear. I have commented out 3 of these for now that reached the top 10, eg Calvin Peete. The same issue will happen for some golfers where we know they reached the top 50 but can't absolutely say what their peak ranking was (eg Denis Watson who reached at least 29 http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/doc/content/archive/1986/owgr30f1986.pdf). We have 3 options for these situations: leave the peak ranking out, include the peak ranking we know (with some sort of disclaimer), include a more vague statement like "Top 10" or "Top 50". Of course many of these golfers were at their peak before the rankings started (eg Jack Nicklaus.
2. As a longer term issue, we need to review the commitment to update the data, the effort required and indeed the accuracy. I suggest that we look againat this aspect in the new year, when the system has been going for a few months. At that stage we can also consider how to proceed in terms of the women golfers. Nigej ( talk) 08:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The references provided for the infobox data only verify what the ranking was on the date given; they do not verify the more important piece of information - that the ranking given is the highest ever attained. For the vast majority, the only reliable source available will generally be the OWGR profile page, and even then only when they have a profile page which gives that information - for most older/former/retired players it does not. I have only checked a very small sample (less than 10) but most do not have valid references for the highest ranking; see Billy Mayfair, Steve Elkington, Justin Leonard, Loren Roberts. It would be WP:OR if someone is collating & determining the highest rankings from historical weekly rankings. I've not spent a whole lot of time searching, but I haven't found any reliable source (there is golfrankingstats, but I have reservations about that) to verify most of even these 4 examples. 51.6.155.94 ( talk) 21:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Is anything being done to remedy this problem? 51.6.155.7 ( talk) 10:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Tewapack and I have had a binge and added 399 golfers to the Template:Infobox golfer/highest ranking that all reached the OWGR top 50. A number are commented out: Tom Watson (golfer), Andy Bean, Calvin Peete, John Mahaffey, David Ishii, Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino, Hubert Green, Masahiro Kuramoto, Dan Pohl, Howard Clark (golfer), Graham Marsh, Jim Thorpe (golfer), David Graham (golfer), Don Pooley, Denis Watson, Tateo Ozaki, Naomichi Ozaki, Roger Maltbie, Chen Tze-chung, Doug Tewell, Gordon J. Brand, José María Cañizares, Gary Koch. These are golfers from the 1980s. Either the player was near their peak in 1986 (where the available data is incomplete) or they were past their best and giving a peak ranking is confusing (eg Jack Nicklaus and Tom watson who were number 1s in Mark McCormack's world golf rankings). The list (currently at User:Nigej/sandbox) is almost certainly not complete. It was generated mostly from end of year top 50s. Probably some who were only briefly in the top 50 will have been missed. Let me know if you find anyone missing (or add them yourself). Still only partly checked, so some work required there. Nigej ( talk) 09:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like almost all golfers who have turned pro since 1986 and have a Wikipedia profile to have their highest ranking included on their template. I think we have established that the highest ranking in general is valuable. I believe it is valuable for those outside of the top 50 too. It has been mentioned that we should not include a peak ranking for golfers at a peak ranking of #645 or #1807 because it is trivial. I believe this is true. However golfers like that don't have Wikipedia pages. Only golfers who have had a decent amount of success (usually at least top 200 in the world at some point) have Wikipedia pages. Therefore almost all of those golfers should have highest ranking noted on their template.
I said "almost" earlier though; there are some caveats. I'm not sure if amateurs who have just turned professional should have a highest ranking because it will be misleadingly low (e.g. Victor Hovland). It will be a pain to constantly update. Also, the "straddlers" (golfers who played after 1986 but peaked or may have peaked before 1986): I believe that all golfers who had a McCormack ranking at some point should have that peak ranking on their template. I also believe that golfers who had both a McCormack and OWGR ranking should have both peak rankings on their template.
Now if we want to go about this there are some questions. Is there a systemic way to do this? Can we easily populate highest OWGR for these golfers outside the top 50 from the ranking graph? Also, there are many retired, non-active golfers whose highest ranking is not listed on their OWGR page. Should these rankings be added manually?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 22:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
To Nigej, Tewapack, Jopal22 Ok, so we've already added the highest ranking of several hundred golfers (maybe around 500?) so it looks like we just have 1,300 relevant ones left. I think this can be done. Even if it needs to be done piecemeal I think it is manageable. I can guarantee I will add at least several hundred of these rankings. With dozens of golf editors and a limitless amount of time I see no reason why this cannot be accomplished. What do you think?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 22:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Nigej how have things progressed with adding numbers 50-100? I do not see them added yet. Oogglywoogly ( talk) 22:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
51.6.161.113: I am sympathetic to some of your reservations but largely agree with Nigej that you are being overly pessimistic. Below are my responses:
- You seem to be worried that Nigej may abruptly stop updating Peak OWGR. I don't see it. He is an incredibly reliable editor and is perhaps the best golf editor we've ever had. He has 57,000 edits (yes 57,000) and has created hundreds of pages over the past 13 years. I just don't think he is going to abandon the project abruptly.
- Now of course he can't do it forever and maintaining a datafile is a lot of work. I agree it is more difficult than updating text. When he stops, however, I think there is a good chance that someone else will take over as there are a lot of technically competent people on wikipedia. Also, while it is impossible to know for sure if someone will take over the standard your have created (certainly about the future) is equally impossible.
- If someone doesn't take over we just do it piecemeal. I don't think this is a big problem because, as Jopal22 mentioned, it has an "As of" date so the Peak OWGR may be out of date but not necessarily inaccurate. Meanwhile, most big jumps in Peak OWGR come with a win. Golfers' Wikipedia page is always updated after a win which does includes a decent amount of effort (adding to - or even creating - the win table, adding to "Professional Wins" in the template, editing text). Changing the peak OWGR and "as of date" does not require much more effort.
You also have reservations about expanding to the top 200. My response is below:
- You have questioned whether the "top 200" is a valid concept. There are not a lot of references in the media to it but they do exist. For example, CBS Sports references how the top 200 barometer signifies that a golfer is still "relevant." Golf Digest has an article about Ho-Sung Choi; it references how finally reaching the top 200 was a big milestone in his career. This website notes how OWGR creates their Strength of Field category based on the top 200.
- Nigej noted that from 1987 - 2008 (i.e. the majority of OWGR's existence) the OWGR only ranked the top 200.
- Lastly, we are already halfway there. It seems a bit odd to stop at the top 100 when OWGR has historically measured the top 200 and only the top 200. Meanwhile, almost all post-1986 golfers on Wikipedia will have peaked within the top 200 so we are excluding very few.
Now I do admit there is more volatility from # 101-200 and many of those golfers will ultimately peak in the top 100. Maybe for active players perhaps we can just update the top 100 but for retired post-1986 golfers we can include their #101-200 peak. I personally don't really care if a young developmental tour player just peaked at #161 or whatever as it very likely doesn't represent his ultimate peak.
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 05:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
How should we move forward? Do we just add #101-200 for retired post-1986 golfers?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 22:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Ok.
I am suspicious if Roberto de Vicenzo actually won the Los Largartos Open in 1974. We know that Jacklin won the tournament in February 1974 because their is a primary source for it (Glasgow Herald). It does say on the PGA Tour's website that de Vincenzo won the tournament in 1974 (presumably much later in the year, like Nov or Dec). However I am unsure for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is because this is the only year that the event would have been held twice in the same year. The event was held for 11 straight years, it appears always in Feb or March, and then suddenly for the last edition they move it to the fall??? Meanwhile, we don't have a primary source for it; the only source we have is the PGA Tour's website. Usually the tour's website is pretty good but here I am suspicious. First off, it does not list any details of this victory under "1974 season," only next to one bullet point among a list of all of the hundreds of events he won. The other four Los Largartos events he has won have brief descriptions. I get the sense that the tour may have accidentally added a Los Largartos victory, perhaps getting confused amidst all of the events that he won (including all of the Los Largartos wins). There was also another event entitled the Los Largartos Grand Prix held around this time - maybe they are getting confused with that. Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 00:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywooogly
So, from existing WP articles, we have the following winners of the Argentine tournament:
Los Lagartos Grand Prix (Argentina) | |
---|---|
Year | Winner |
1974 | Roberto de Vicenzo |
1979 | Luis Carbonetti |
1984 | Jorge Soto |
1988 | José Cóceres |
1989 | Eduardo Romero |
1990 | Angel Franco |
51.6.161.113 ( talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes we have some of the victors but not most of them. And we don't have any reliable third party sources for the tournament - we need three or four. If you want to make a wiki page out of this that is up to you but I wouldn't advise it.
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 01:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Tewapack moved Desert Classic to The American Express because of the new sponsored name. Isn't standard practice to use an unsponsored name as long as one is available? It seems like we went through this last year with the Fort Worth Invitational. pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 19:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it back. pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 06:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if you have more information on this event. I was looking a to make a page about it.
I have a primary source for the 1974 event. Also it states on Simon Owen's wiki page that he won the event in 1978. Owen was a fairly well known player (finished runner-up at the British Open that year) but I cannot find any primary sources for his win or anything else on this event. Do you have anything?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
With much assistance from Nigej (thanks!), we have been compiling & cross referencing the early Sunshine Tour seasons from various sources (at User:Wjemather/Sunshine Tour#Seasons), it would appear that the final 3 Western Province Opens were as below. I can find no evidence for an edition being held in 1975, although our article states Allan Henning as the winner with a score of 288 (but typically, no sources!) – I'm thinking it could be a misreading of the scores in this source [2] (top of 3rd column).
Season | Date | Venue | Winner | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|
1975/76 | 24 Jan 1976 | King David |
![]() |
282 |
1974/75 | 30 Nov 1974 | Rondebosch |
![]() |
280 |
1973/74 | 12 Jan 1974 | Mowbray |
![]() |
277 |
Does anybody know any different? 51.6.161.113 ( talk) 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 21:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
People may have comments on this or be interested in it. /info/en/?search=Draft_talk:Ben_Silverman_(golfer)
-- 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D06:C657:E7B:7CFE ( talk) 09:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
See WT:GOLF#Highest OWGR in template to get up-to-date on the issue. I promised a review of the issues in the new year, which is now.
The system has been running for about three months with the list currently restricted to those who have ever reached the top 100. Some who have reached this, have their entries commented out (for reasons see earlier discussion). The list is complete (as far as I can tell): 745 golfers. The following table summarises the weekly changes since moving to the top-100:
Week | Number 1 | New highs | New entries | Risers |
---|---|---|---|---|
44 | Koepka | Ancer, Conners, Kim, Fitzpatrick, Waring, MacIntyre, Imahira, Scheffler, Perez | 24 | |
45 | Koepka | Imahira, van Rooyen, Perez, Kitayama, MacIntyre, Waring, Hébert | Schwab | 15 |
46 | Koepka | Im, van Rooyen, MacIntyre | Kinhult | 22 |
47 | Koepka | Wiesberger, Imahira, Perez, Lewis, Lorenzo-Vera, MacIntyre, Scheffler, Morikawa, Waring, Kinhult, Bezuidenhout | 24 | |
48 | Koepka | Perez, Norris, Kinhult, Bezuidenhout | 14 | |
49 | Koepka | Imahira, Perez, van Rooyen, Norris, Kim, Kinhult | Hwang | 25 |
50 | Koepka | Janewattananond, Norris, Hwang | 19 | |
51 | Koepka | Imahira, Janewattananond, Perez, Kim, MacIntyre, Morikawa, Bezuidenhout, Hwang | 20 | |
52 | Koepka | Norris, Kim, Morikawa, Scheffler, Schwab, Hwang | 19 | |
1 | Koepka | Imahira, van Rooyen, Morikawa, Kinhult | Wolff, Muñoz | 25 |
2 | Koepka | Janewattananond, Morikawa | Griffin | 21 |
3 | Koepka | Fitzpatrick, Ancer, Perez, van Rooyen, Scheffler, Norris, Waring, Muñoz | 27 |
Koepka, as world number 1, has his number of weeks increased by 1 each week. As you can see an average of 25 or so need checking each week and an average of 6 need updating. A new golfer enters the list every two weeks or so.
From my perspective the system seems to working relatively smoothly but I'd be pleased to receive any comments on the system as currently implemented. Nigej ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I have generated a list of those who've reached the top 200 but never the top 100. These are in User:Nigej/sandbox (might be a bit out of date). About 530 of these, not exactly household names. Whereas we have articles for all of those who've got to the top 100 there about 50 of these with no current article. The list is not complete because I have only checked every 10th week or so, but is likely to include nearly all those who got near the top 100. Obviously the weekly updating would be roughly twice as much effort. Any thoughts? Nigej ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone here think that the Players Championship should have a companion "List of" page, the same that each of the major pages have? Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Same deal here as de Vicenzo's last "win" at Los Largartos. Gary Player allegedly won this event in 1976 but we have no primary source. The only source - like de Vicenzo's case - is the PGA Tour's website. And this time it's only a press release, not even the player's page. Like the Los Largartos situation, it seems like the PGA Tour got confused among all of Player's victories at this event (and perhaps, like de Vicenzo, all of his wins in general). Further weakening the source's credibility, the press release appears to get the name of the event wrong in multiple examples.
The other sources we use for the General Motors Open are the Glasgow Herald and the Age. I intended to look through the November and December 1976 issues of these papers. Unfortunately the late 1976 issues of the Glasgow Herald are not available on Google News. However the Age is accessible and I could not find any information on this alleged event. (Incidentally I did find an article on Player winning the South African Open during this era). We should probably delete this. Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I am looking to create a "Highest OWGR" placing in golfers' templates. I will only include golfers who have joined tour since 1986. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogglywoogly ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This is Oogglywoogly. Here is my response:
- I think we should start with golfers that have been ranked in the top 10. Perhaps just golfers who peaked in 1980s and 1990s. I do prefer "completeness" and would like all golfers who have peaked in the Top 100 or Top 200 to eventually have a "Highest OWGR Ranking." It may take awhile but I think it can be done. A "highest ranking" exists for most ATP tennis players on their wikipedia.
- I think it should be at the end of their "Career" section rather than "Awards and Achievements." The highest ranking isn't an award and isn't necessarily a great achievement for all.
- I was thinking of just doing men at this point. Maybe we can move on to women later.
- For dates I like the idea of including the first and last week for highest ranking though I think this really is only important for #1s. Perhaps, if the player peaks for multiple weeks but all in the same month we can put include the month in the field.
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Encouraged by the responses above, I have produced something more concrete. For all the 107 golfers who have reached the top-10 I have produced mini-templates showing what the highest ranking line in their infoxbox might look like. See {{ Infobox golfer/testcases}} section "Test highest ranking" (remember to "purge" the page if that section is missing). This is basically taken from List of male golfers who have been in the world top 10. The date is the first occasion the player reached that ranking (mdy for USA and CAN, dmy for the rest) I have used a somewhat different style for those who have reached number 1 - there is a second line with the number of weeks they have been at number 1. For Koepka I have also added ", as of September 22, 2019", since he is the current number one. For those who have reached 2 to 10, I have added a second line eg (as of September 22, 2019) but only for those who reached their highest position in the last 5 years. Currently all 107 golfers are there but we may wish to remove the line from some golfers (eg Tom Watson). Three golfers have a * after their rankings (including Watson) as per List of male golfers who have been in the world top 10 "* The available data for 1986 is incomplete and this number may be incorrect. The number given is the player's highest known position." For others we may feel it gives a false impression since the peak of their career was before 1986. I have added a reference after the date to the OWGR data for that week (since it is in List of male golfers who have been in the world top 10) where available, but this can go if people think its excessive. Have also added a couple of hypertext links: "ranking" links to OWGR while the "1" for those who got to number 1 links to List of world number one male golfers.
Anyway, all just examples and open to any questions and comments, and to any mistakes you find. (I have a (hopefully complete) list of those who got to 11 or 12 and may add those later) Nigej ( talk) 07:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Nigej. Good work! I like what you have done and don't have many problems with it. I do have some questions/points though...
- Should we have the last week these players were at number #1 too? With players like Fred Couples or Nick Price the current information is enough I think (date of first week at #1 and number of weeks at #1). But with players like Norman and Woods I think we could also put the last date they were at #1? It might give a better sense of their dominance.
- For other golfers should we also put the first and last date they reached their peak? For example, Ronan Rafferty reached peak #16 for one week in 1990 and matched that peak for exactly one week two years later. I would suggest putting both weeks their and it gives a more accurate sense of his quality of play.
- I agree with the points about Watson and Nicklaus. I think having their "peaks" at something like #4 and #17 are definitely misleading. Perhaps we could place their McCormack peak ranking next to their peak OWGR ranking? And perhaps do that with others that earned both a McCormack and OWGR ranking?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 23:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
It seems that we have refined the issue to a few points:
1. Is this proposed field relevant? Having originally made this proposal I obviously feel so but not everyone agrees. It would be good to hear from everyone involved.
2. How viable is this proposed automated process for updating a golfer's "Peak OWGR" on Wikipedia from OWGR's website? My apologies if this has been answered but if a clear and concise answer could be provided below that would be great.
3. Assuming it is viable there is one more major issue. Most retired golfers from the 1980s and 1990s do not have an OWGR peak on the OWGR's website (unless they have randomly played an OWGR event recently). This will be more difficult to add. How should we proceed?
Also regarding what I feel to be minor issues:
- I agree with Nigej that we only need one week for the golfer's "peak OWGR." My apologies if I complicated things before.
- I don't think we need to focus on women's and amateur rankings right now. We have enough to discuss.
- Perhaps we should start with golfers who have peaked in the Top 50. This might make it easier.
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
I know Nijeg responded below and it looks like we're moving forward. However I wanted to give a response to IP: 51.6.155.94 about the main issues he brought up.
You mentioned that the MOS:IBX rules must be adhered to. I checked all the #11-50 golfers mentioned by Nijeg. 27/40 entries have their highest (at some point) OWGR ranking somewhere in the text, usually after their latest win. So while ignored a decent amount, it is nonetheless usually mentioned.
You mentioned how highest OWGR is rarely mentioned by the media other than a "sidenote" after a victory. While it is usually only mentioned after a player wins it doesn't strike me as irrelevant. Cameron Champ won yesterday on the PGA Tour. An article here https://progolfweekly.com/winners-circle-cameron-champ-claims-victory-at-the-safeway-open/ and here https://www.golfchannel.com/news/cameron-champ-jumps-100-spots-career-high-official-world-golf-ranking. The second one notes that this is his highest ranking ever. And Champ's highest OWGR is the subject of the entire second article. Also, a player usually doesn't receive a lot of media attention at all except when they win. Should the entire Wikipedia entry therefore only focus on their wins?
You also mentioned how this is adding irrelevant information to the infobox. The golfer's infobox usually includes family information (spouse, children) that is not included for other sports. It also includes all of their best performances at major championships, usually which are anonymous top 25s that receive no media attention whatsoever. Meanwhile, the "professional wins" category is overly capacious and includes just about everything; Padraig Harrington's 31 "professional wins" includes his 2 Open Championships and 6 Irish PGAs. The "highest OWGR" category seems much more valid than a lot of what's already there.
In general I feel like it is a good barometer to determine how good a player can be over the course of their career. I feel like there is nothing quite like it. The PGA Tour's Money List (and now FedExCup) and European Tour's Order of Merit (and now Race to Dubai) are nice but do not fully capture how good a player can be. The FedEXCup and Race to Dubai standings can be misleading because they give exponentially higher points at the end of the season. The Money List and Order of Merit are better in my opinion in determining year long consistency but have their shortcomings. Both of these metrics are only a year long (and used to be significantly shorter in the 1980s and part of the 1990s) and only compare the golfer to his peers on that tour. The OWGR is 2 years long and compares the golfer against everyone. That is also important because Wikipedia, unlike the PGA Tour or European Tour's website, it an encyclopedia that is inclusive and includes entries for all top golfers across the world. In general I just don't think there is anything else like it out there. It is the most parsimonious way of distilling loads of information (top tens, wins, money list, etc.).
Finally I think I don't think it is, in general, misleading. There are some examples (e.g. Camillo Villegas, Notah Begay) who reach the top 10 or top 25 in a particular 2 year window but then are barely in the top 100 again. Perhaps a "Highest Average Ranking" over the course of one's career would be better for players like that but nothing like that exists. Other than maybe Villegas or Begay are there other examples of highest OWGR that you find misleading?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Notwithstanding an objection from an IP user, there seems to be agreement to at least give this idea a go. The merit of the proposed approach is that, if at some point it is decided that it is not working, the field can be removed by blanking the "highest ranking" file (as a temporary measure) or removing the field from the infobox golfer (as a more permanent measure).
The first stage is to change the {{ Infobox golfer}} template to that at {{ Infobox golfer/sandbox}}. The main change is to add:
| label21 = '''Highest [[OWGR|ranking]]''' | data21 = {{Infobox golfer/highest ranking|{{#ifexpr: {{str find0|{{{name}}}|<}}<0 | {{{name}}} | {{str left|{{{name}}}|{{str find0|{{{name}}}|<}}}} }}}}
Some later fields have been renumbered to make room for this field (21). The new line is at the bottom of the "Career" section. There will be a search of the file Template:Infobox golfer/highest ranking. Lines in this file are of the form "|Golfers Name=Text". A search is made in the file, trying to find a match between the "name" field in the infobox and a "Golfers Name" in the file. If a match is found then "Text" is returned and this text is the right hand side of the field. If no match is found there will be no line produced. There is one complication: sometimes the "name" field contains additional text, eg for Lee Westwood it is "Lee Westwood<br><small>{{post-nominals|GBR|OBE}}</small>". Text from the first "<" is stripped away, leaving "Lee Westwood".
Infobox:Golfer is a protected template, so I will have to make a request for the change to be made in the talk page of the infobox. This can take a day or two. At this stage we don't have to worry about the form of the "text" field. We can firm this up later. We just need to be happy with where the new line is and with the left hand side, which is fixed ('''Highest [[OWGR|ranking]]''').
I'm assuming "Stage 2" will involve (1) defining any restrictions - seems to be some agreement to restrict ourselves (at this stage) to those who've reached the top 50, and (2) firming up on the form of the "text" field. Nigej ( talk) 19:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
NB. In label21 I have changed the "OWGR" to "Official World Golf Ranking" since OWGR is a redirect. Nigej ( talk) 05:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
We are live on this now. As of this instant only the data for Shaun Micheel exists but I plan to add more soon, once I've done some checking. Check out Template talk:Infobox golfer#Edit request 1 October 2019 for the discussion about this, which focused on whether we should be using wikidata for this sort of stuff. The field currently uses Highest [[OWGR|ranking]] but I'm happy to make a further edit request in the next few days once we've decided what we want - should be straightworward. Nigej ( talk) 05:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm planning on adding some text at the top of Template:Infobox golfer/highest ranking to the effect that we are in an interim phase where we are considering the merits and practicality of the highest ranking field and that we are currently restricting ourselves to those who've reached the top 50 of the OWGR. I'm expecting us to add most of these fairly quickly (see User:Nigej/sandbox for a first stab at the list of players). I'm thinking that we can review where we are in the new year when we've seen how the weekly update goes and how much effort is required. We also need to firm up on the format of the text in the highest ranking field. Nigej ( talk) 05:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I have added a short section to Template:Infobox golfer/doc direcitng interested parties to Template:Infobox golfer/highest ranking where I have added some firm instructions. I have reinstated the earliest list: complete list of those who have reached at least 12 + major winners since 1986 (hopefully complete).
Seems to me that we have (at least) two issues to resolve:
1. Form of the text. I have made a stab at this. Points to consider (i) I have put a link like this [[List of world number one male golfers|1]] for number 1s (ii) For number 1s there is a second line showing the number of weeks they have been number 1 (iii) For the current number 1, Brooks Koepka, I have added "(29 weeks, as of September 29, 2019), but I haven't included the "as of" date for any other number 1s (iv) For non-number 1s I have added "(as of September 29, 2019)" (or 29 September 2019) only for those golfers who reached their highest ranking since the start of 2015 (see eg Bubba Watson) but not for anyone who reached their highest ranking before that date (see eg Henrik Stenson). My logic being that the "as of" date is useless for older golfers (certainly for Payne Stewart). Is 5 years a suitable cutoff for this "as of" date? (v) the final date they were at the ranking or the number of weeks they were there are not included (except number of week 1 for number 1s) (vi) I'm thinking we should perhaps use {{ date}} in the text, especially for the "as of" date. {{date|29 September 2019|MDY}} produces September 29, 2019 and would make the weekly updating easier since there'd only be 1 style, not 2 (vii) data for 1986 is not complete and we have some golfers whose peak ranking is unclear. I have commented out 3 of these for now that reached the top 10, eg Calvin Peete. The same issue will happen for some golfers where we know they reached the top 50 but can't absolutely say what their peak ranking was (eg Denis Watson who reached at least 29 http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/doc/content/archive/1986/owgr30f1986.pdf). We have 3 options for these situations: leave the peak ranking out, include the peak ranking we know (with some sort of disclaimer), include a more vague statement like "Top 10" or "Top 50". Of course many of these golfers were at their peak before the rankings started (eg Jack Nicklaus.
2. As a longer term issue, we need to review the commitment to update the data, the effort required and indeed the accuracy. I suggest that we look againat this aspect in the new year, when the system has been going for a few months. At that stage we can also consider how to proceed in terms of the women golfers. Nigej ( talk) 08:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The references provided for the infobox data only verify what the ranking was on the date given; they do not verify the more important piece of information - that the ranking given is the highest ever attained. For the vast majority, the only reliable source available will generally be the OWGR profile page, and even then only when they have a profile page which gives that information - for most older/former/retired players it does not. I have only checked a very small sample (less than 10) but most do not have valid references for the highest ranking; see Billy Mayfair, Steve Elkington, Justin Leonard, Loren Roberts. It would be WP:OR if someone is collating & determining the highest rankings from historical weekly rankings. I've not spent a whole lot of time searching, but I haven't found any reliable source (there is golfrankingstats, but I have reservations about that) to verify most of even these 4 examples. 51.6.155.94 ( talk) 21:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Is anything being done to remedy this problem? 51.6.155.7 ( talk) 10:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Tewapack and I have had a binge and added 399 golfers to the Template:Infobox golfer/highest ranking that all reached the OWGR top 50. A number are commented out: Tom Watson (golfer), Andy Bean, Calvin Peete, John Mahaffey, David Ishii, Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino, Hubert Green, Masahiro Kuramoto, Dan Pohl, Howard Clark (golfer), Graham Marsh, Jim Thorpe (golfer), David Graham (golfer), Don Pooley, Denis Watson, Tateo Ozaki, Naomichi Ozaki, Roger Maltbie, Chen Tze-chung, Doug Tewell, Gordon J. Brand, José María Cañizares, Gary Koch. These are golfers from the 1980s. Either the player was near their peak in 1986 (where the available data is incomplete) or they were past their best and giving a peak ranking is confusing (eg Jack Nicklaus and Tom watson who were number 1s in Mark McCormack's world golf rankings). The list (currently at User:Nigej/sandbox) is almost certainly not complete. It was generated mostly from end of year top 50s. Probably some who were only briefly in the top 50 will have been missed. Let me know if you find anyone missing (or add them yourself). Still only partly checked, so some work required there. Nigej ( talk) 09:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like almost all golfers who have turned pro since 1986 and have a Wikipedia profile to have their highest ranking included on their template. I think we have established that the highest ranking in general is valuable. I believe it is valuable for those outside of the top 50 too. It has been mentioned that we should not include a peak ranking for golfers at a peak ranking of #645 or #1807 because it is trivial. I believe this is true. However golfers like that don't have Wikipedia pages. Only golfers who have had a decent amount of success (usually at least top 200 in the world at some point) have Wikipedia pages. Therefore almost all of those golfers should have highest ranking noted on their template.
I said "almost" earlier though; there are some caveats. I'm not sure if amateurs who have just turned professional should have a highest ranking because it will be misleadingly low (e.g. Victor Hovland). It will be a pain to constantly update. Also, the "straddlers" (golfers who played after 1986 but peaked or may have peaked before 1986): I believe that all golfers who had a McCormack ranking at some point should have that peak ranking on their template. I also believe that golfers who had both a McCormack and OWGR ranking should have both peak rankings on their template.
Now if we want to go about this there are some questions. Is there a systemic way to do this? Can we easily populate highest OWGR for these golfers outside the top 50 from the ranking graph? Also, there are many retired, non-active golfers whose highest ranking is not listed on their OWGR page. Should these rankings be added manually?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 22:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
To Nigej, Tewapack, Jopal22 Ok, so we've already added the highest ranking of several hundred golfers (maybe around 500?) so it looks like we just have 1,300 relevant ones left. I think this can be done. Even if it needs to be done piecemeal I think it is manageable. I can guarantee I will add at least several hundred of these rankings. With dozens of golf editors and a limitless amount of time I see no reason why this cannot be accomplished. What do you think?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 22:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Nigej how have things progressed with adding numbers 50-100? I do not see them added yet. Oogglywoogly ( talk) 22:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
51.6.161.113: I am sympathetic to some of your reservations but largely agree with Nigej that you are being overly pessimistic. Below are my responses:
- You seem to be worried that Nigej may abruptly stop updating Peak OWGR. I don't see it. He is an incredibly reliable editor and is perhaps the best golf editor we've ever had. He has 57,000 edits (yes 57,000) and has created hundreds of pages over the past 13 years. I just don't think he is going to abandon the project abruptly.
- Now of course he can't do it forever and maintaining a datafile is a lot of work. I agree it is more difficult than updating text. When he stops, however, I think there is a good chance that someone else will take over as there are a lot of technically competent people on wikipedia. Also, while it is impossible to know for sure if someone will take over the standard your have created (certainly about the future) is equally impossible.
- If someone doesn't take over we just do it piecemeal. I don't think this is a big problem because, as Jopal22 mentioned, it has an "As of" date so the Peak OWGR may be out of date but not necessarily inaccurate. Meanwhile, most big jumps in Peak OWGR come with a win. Golfers' Wikipedia page is always updated after a win which does includes a decent amount of effort (adding to - or even creating - the win table, adding to "Professional Wins" in the template, editing text). Changing the peak OWGR and "as of date" does not require much more effort.
You also have reservations about expanding to the top 200. My response is below:
- You have questioned whether the "top 200" is a valid concept. There are not a lot of references in the media to it but they do exist. For example, CBS Sports references how the top 200 barometer signifies that a golfer is still "relevant." Golf Digest has an article about Ho-Sung Choi; it references how finally reaching the top 200 was a big milestone in his career. This website notes how OWGR creates their Strength of Field category based on the top 200.
- Nigej noted that from 1987 - 2008 (i.e. the majority of OWGR's existence) the OWGR only ranked the top 200.
- Lastly, we are already halfway there. It seems a bit odd to stop at the top 100 when OWGR has historically measured the top 200 and only the top 200. Meanwhile, almost all post-1986 golfers on Wikipedia will have peaked within the top 200 so we are excluding very few.
Now I do admit there is more volatility from # 101-200 and many of those golfers will ultimately peak in the top 100. Maybe for active players perhaps we can just update the top 100 but for retired post-1986 golfers we can include their #101-200 peak. I personally don't really care if a young developmental tour player just peaked at #161 or whatever as it very likely doesn't represent his ultimate peak.
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 05:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
How should we move forward? Do we just add #101-200 for retired post-1986 golfers?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 22:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Ok.
I am suspicious if Roberto de Vicenzo actually won the Los Largartos Open in 1974. We know that Jacklin won the tournament in February 1974 because their is a primary source for it (Glasgow Herald). It does say on the PGA Tour's website that de Vincenzo won the tournament in 1974 (presumably much later in the year, like Nov or Dec). However I am unsure for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is because this is the only year that the event would have been held twice in the same year. The event was held for 11 straight years, it appears always in Feb or March, and then suddenly for the last edition they move it to the fall??? Meanwhile, we don't have a primary source for it; the only source we have is the PGA Tour's website. Usually the tour's website is pretty good but here I am suspicious. First off, it does not list any details of this victory under "1974 season," only next to one bullet point among a list of all of the hundreds of events he won. The other four Los Largartos events he has won have brief descriptions. I get the sense that the tour may have accidentally added a Los Largartos victory, perhaps getting confused amidst all of the events that he won (including all of the Los Largartos wins). There was also another event entitled the Los Largartos Grand Prix held around this time - maybe they are getting confused with that. Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 00:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywooogly
So, from existing WP articles, we have the following winners of the Argentine tournament:
Los Lagartos Grand Prix (Argentina) | |
---|---|
Year | Winner |
1974 | Roberto de Vicenzo |
1979 | Luis Carbonetti |
1984 | Jorge Soto |
1988 | José Cóceres |
1989 | Eduardo Romero |
1990 | Angel Franco |
51.6.161.113 ( talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes we have some of the victors but not most of them. And we don't have any reliable third party sources for the tournament - we need three or four. If you want to make a wiki page out of this that is up to you but I wouldn't advise it.
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 01:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Tewapack moved Desert Classic to The American Express because of the new sponsored name. Isn't standard practice to use an unsponsored name as long as one is available? It seems like we went through this last year with the Fort Worth Invitational. pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 19:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it back. pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 06:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if you have more information on this event. I was looking a to make a page about it.
I have a primary source for the 1974 event. Also it states on Simon Owen's wiki page that he won the event in 1978. Owen was a fairly well known player (finished runner-up at the British Open that year) but I cannot find any primary sources for his win or anything else on this event. Do you have anything?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
With much assistance from Nigej (thanks!), we have been compiling & cross referencing the early Sunshine Tour seasons from various sources (at User:Wjemather/Sunshine Tour#Seasons), it would appear that the final 3 Western Province Opens were as below. I can find no evidence for an edition being held in 1975, although our article states Allan Henning as the winner with a score of 288 (but typically, no sources!) – I'm thinking it could be a misreading of the scores in this source [2] (top of 3rd column).
Season | Date | Venue | Winner | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|
1975/76 | 24 Jan 1976 | King David |
![]() |
282 |
1974/75 | 30 Nov 1974 | Rondebosch |
![]() |
280 |
1973/74 | 12 Jan 1974 | Mowbray |
![]() |
277 |
Does anybody know any different? 51.6.161.113 ( talk) 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 21:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
People may have comments on this or be interested in it. /info/en/?search=Draft_talk:Ben_Silverman_(golfer)
-- 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D06:C657:E7B:7CFE ( talk) 09:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
See WT:GOLF#Highest OWGR in template to get up-to-date on the issue. I promised a review of the issues in the new year, which is now.
The system has been running for about three months with the list currently restricted to those who have ever reached the top 100. Some who have reached this, have their entries commented out (for reasons see earlier discussion). The list is complete (as far as I can tell): 745 golfers. The following table summarises the weekly changes since moving to the top-100:
Week | Number 1 | New highs | New entries | Risers |
---|---|---|---|---|
44 | Koepka | Ancer, Conners, Kim, Fitzpatrick, Waring, MacIntyre, Imahira, Scheffler, Perez | 24 | |
45 | Koepka | Imahira, van Rooyen, Perez, Kitayama, MacIntyre, Waring, Hébert | Schwab | 15 |
46 | Koepka | Im, van Rooyen, MacIntyre | Kinhult | 22 |
47 | Koepka | Wiesberger, Imahira, Perez, Lewis, Lorenzo-Vera, MacIntyre, Scheffler, Morikawa, Waring, Kinhult, Bezuidenhout | 24 | |
48 | Koepka | Perez, Norris, Kinhult, Bezuidenhout | 14 | |
49 | Koepka | Imahira, Perez, van Rooyen, Norris, Kim, Kinhult | Hwang | 25 |
50 | Koepka | Janewattananond, Norris, Hwang | 19 | |
51 | Koepka | Imahira, Janewattananond, Perez, Kim, MacIntyre, Morikawa, Bezuidenhout, Hwang | 20 | |
52 | Koepka | Norris, Kim, Morikawa, Scheffler, Schwab, Hwang | 19 | |
1 | Koepka | Imahira, van Rooyen, Morikawa, Kinhult | Wolff, Muñoz | 25 |
2 | Koepka | Janewattananond, Morikawa | Griffin | 21 |
3 | Koepka | Fitzpatrick, Ancer, Perez, van Rooyen, Scheffler, Norris, Waring, Muñoz | 27 |
Koepka, as world number 1, has his number of weeks increased by 1 each week. As you can see an average of 25 or so need checking each week and an average of 6 need updating. A new golfer enters the list every two weeks or so.
From my perspective the system seems to working relatively smoothly but I'd be pleased to receive any comments on the system as currently implemented. Nigej ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I have generated a list of those who've reached the top 200 but never the top 100. These are in User:Nigej/sandbox (might be a bit out of date). About 530 of these, not exactly household names. Whereas we have articles for all of those who've got to the top 100 there about 50 of these with no current article. The list is not complete because I have only checked every 10th week or so, but is likely to include nearly all those who got near the top 100. Obviously the weekly updating would be roughly twice as much effort. Any thoughts? Nigej ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone here think that the Players Championship should have a companion "List of" page, the same that each of the major pages have? Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Same deal here as de Vicenzo's last "win" at Los Largartos. Gary Player allegedly won this event in 1976 but we have no primary source. The only source - like de Vicenzo's case - is the PGA Tour's website. And this time it's only a press release, not even the player's page. Like the Los Largartos situation, it seems like the PGA Tour got confused among all of Player's victories at this event (and perhaps, like de Vicenzo, all of his wins in general). Further weakening the source's credibility, the press release appears to get the name of the event wrong in multiple examples.
The other sources we use for the General Motors Open are the Glasgow Herald and the Age. I intended to look through the November and December 1976 issues of these papers. Unfortunately the late 1976 issues of the Glasgow Herald are not available on Google News. However the Age is accessible and I could not find any information on this alleged event. (Incidentally I did find an article on Player winning the South African Open during this era). We should probably delete this. Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly