19th Hole: The Readers Take Over

It concerns the lack of any consistent and logical rating system for the professional golfer. Even under our capitalistic system, money-winning seems to me more suitable for racehorses as a measure of ability than for skilled and disciplined athletes. As the prize scale goes up and up, a certain gaudy vulgarity begins to intrude.

I have the feeling that a fair formula can be devised which, paradoxically, uses prize money as the base, yet will serve to de-emphasize the increasingly shrill jingle-jangle of the cash registers. As a novelist I would hate to be rated on the basis of my earnings each year, loudly announced. I imagine that there is an equivalent queasiness among the gypsy brethren of the PGA.

Let us limit the rating system to PGA sponsored tournaments. Let us consider, in each year, the total available prize monies in all such sponsored tournaments as 100%. I assume that the old records in the archives are accurate and available, and I suspect that the right year to start would be 1921, the fourth year of the PGA Tournament, the first year that Hagen won it.

Let us say that in order to be given a rating in any given year a professional—as with the computation of baseball batting averages—must enter a certain percentage of PGA sponsored tournaments.

Now, obviously, a pertinent factor, other than total prize monies available, is the number of professionals accredited to the tour each year. Unless that factor is added, some of the giants of the past will have yearly and lifetime ratings which could never be approached. Take an example to sec how it works. I am inventing these figures: let us assume that in 1923, 25 accredited professionals competed for a total of $60,000 spread over 10 PGA sponsored tournaments. Taking $60,000 as 100%, a base would be 4% of the total available.

Let us assume that in 1968 we have 500 accredited professionals and $5 million spread over 40 sponsored tournaments. Taking $5 million as 100% we have a base of .2%.

Both the 4% and the .2%, representing $2,400 and $10,000 respectively are what we could expect from an absolutely even division of all prize monies among all contestants. So, to put them in parity, we give both the 4% of 1923 and the .2% of 1968 a value of 100.

Thus, the man who won $12,000 in the 1923 season would have a season rating of 500. The man who wins $50,000 in 1968 will have a season rating of 500.

Naturally, the historical data will have to be run through a computer to see if additional adjustments are required, due to some giant of the past making a record no one can touch. It is possible that due to the current practice of a "prize" for making the cut, the annual computation of total prize monies should be restricted to the prizes as listed for the top 20 in each tournament.

The simple beauty of this would be that the point value of the top slots in each tournament can be computed in advance. Let us imagine that Mr. Palmer is lining up a long putt for a bird and fourth-place money on the final green of the final tournament he will enter in year X.