If you would like to know if your tournaments are included in our rankings, please get in touch! If you would like to submit your tournament to be included in our rankings, please get in touch! Our ranking system works by creating links from players moving across tours and countries. Each time one player competes against a new set of players, it helps us improve the accuracy and scope of our rankings. This process is automated to ensure that each tournament must meet a threshold of links in order to be included in our rankings. Unfortunately, a few tournaments that are currently included in the OWGR are not included in our rankings (I see you Chiang Mai Open!). However, as more tournaments are submitted to us, the more links between tournaments we can create. This will hopefully mean that previously rejected tournaments and tours, can eventually be accepted into our rankings. On the flip-side, by not stipulating that we will only accept tournaments from specified tours* (it is not time for the LIV golf debate.... yet!), we can massively increase the scope of the rankings to include thousands more golfers. This means our uncut ranking system includes over 13,000 male golfers and 4,000 female golfers in comparison to 8,000 and 1,500 respectively with the official rankings (at the time of writing). Furthermore, our "Shots to 1" ranking system does not bottom-out like the points-based official rankings system. For example, the OWGR has over 5,000 golfers tied as the 2799th best male golfer in the world (at the time of writing). This is simply because their average points is zero. Our ranking system shows how many shots per round separate the 2799th and 2800th best male player in the world. For what it's worth, it is 0.00022 shots! Perhaps more interestingly though, the 7799th best male golfer in the world is 3.26 shots behind the 2999th. That is approximately the same different between the world number 1 and the world number 500. This strokes based-system is not without it flaws though. One thing the points-based system does far better than a strokes based system is prioritising winning over finishing 2nd. When broken down at tournament-level, our strokes-based system will rank the winner of the tournament the same as the player that finished 2nd in the same tournament if it was won in a playoff.  We do this simply because the one shot that may not even separate 1st and 2nd in regulation play is a tiny proportion of all the other shots which contribute to our rankings. Furthermore, a player missing the cut may be ranked better than a player who made the cut but performed poorly post-cut. We do not exclude this from our rankings simply because we think than using as much data as possible will create the best possible ranking system, especially when it will exclude about a third of all data on the PGA and European Tours. That one shot that does separate making a playoff or not does suggest that not all shots are created equal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFfCpvT_MV8 We can argue day and night about whether that one important shot in the past is predictive about it happening again in the future. However, we accept that the job of the rankings is not to create a precise prediction of future performance. It is mainly to reward past performances and therefore we accept that 1st is a lot better than 2nd, certainly in comparison to the one shot that may separate 127th and 128th on the leaderboard! We are working on an alternative ranking to take these differences into account and will hopefully be releasing it within a few months. All tournaments we receive from organisers will be entered into our database where we will then calculate whether the players in each tournament, have played enough in other tournaments to create the links we need. Our rankings are not comprised of simple scoring averages. They are adjusted for the quality of the players competing in each tournament, in a similar vein to the strokes-gained metric pioneered by Mark Broadie. If there are not enough links between the tournaments that we currently have in our database, and the tournaments you would like to submit, we cannot accurately integrate them into our rankings. However, if it is possible, we would be more than happy to create a separated strokes based ranking of only the tournaments you have submitted. At a later date, we will hopefully find more data to eventually integrate them into our main rankings.   *unfortunately with the exclusion of many matchplay, pairs and points-based events (such as stableford). But we're working on it!

Welcome to Uncut Golf Rankings! We are, as far as we aware, the only website which freely publishes rankings for both men's and women's golf in one place. Our aim is simple, to include as many tournaments in these rankings as possible. If the tournament results are online, we will try to add them (if we haven't already). The OWGR and Rolex Rankings are, quite rightly, bound by only being able to include tournaments from authorised organisations and tours. We believe there’s a lot more information out there that helps to create a fuller (uncut!) ranking system. For example, event qualifiers, minor tours, amateur events and regional tours. These events may not impact the rankings of the top 50 players in the world. However, many of the current top 50 players played in these events at some point in their career. We think we are also the first website to freely publish strokes-gained style rankings for worldwide women's golf. The LPGA publish strokes-gained stats but only for their own events. Our rankings comprise all the women's events in the Rolex Rankings as well as any other data we can find. Our rankings work on a simple principle - that players moving across tours, can create links between all elite level professional and amateur golf. We have automated this process to ensure that only tournaments with enough links are used to comprise our rankings. It is a work in progress and the progress of the work is never ending. The only way to link millions of rounds of golf is through a player's name. This undoubtedly leads to problems with multiple players sharing the same name. In a similar vein, small differences in names need to be accounted for (I see you S.S.P./S S P/SSP./Shiv Shankar Prasad/SSP Chowrasia/Chawrasia!). We have multiple tools to spot these problems but we will never get to 100% accuracy. If you spot any mismatches, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Both of our rankings also include amateur events. The official WAGR do an excellent job of ranking amateur golfers separately from the professional game but we thought it would be interesting to see whether there are enough links between elite level golf events to include them. We're happy to report that a high proportion of these events are included in our rankings. Getting the full tournament results so we can create more links between tournaments has proven the main obstacle though. If you would like to know if your organisations amateur events are included in the rankings, please do get in touch. Even better, please send any golf leaderboards and we will upload them to our rankings. Our ambition is to continue to expand the breadth of the rankings. We are wary of mismatching too many shared names because, as we include more leaderboards, the bigger the mismatch will become. However, we don't think we are at that stage yet. So please, send us any results you have! We are at the very early stages designing and improving our rankings. We currently mimic the the methodology used by the OWGR and Rolex Rankings but apply it to a strokes-based ranking system rather than a points based system. Therefore, these rankings will not be the best possible indicator of a player's ability. For that, we highly recommend Datagolf. The purpose of a ranking system, oddly enough, is not necessarily to show who is currently the best player in the world. Rather, it is partly to reward good play (by climbing the rankings) in order to get exemptions into future events. Admittedly, a predictive rankings system and a reactive rankings system will create highly correlated output. We currently class our rankings as a reactive system. That is previous performances are recorded and presented in a simple manner. In a predicitve system, the calculation becomes a lot more complicated. We may publish those rankings in the future but, well, you know, baby steps! With the number of mixed events in elite golf, we are probably going to try and create a combined men's and women's rankings first. We have many other experimental ideas but if there's anything you would like us to investigate, by all means get in touch.