Why should the WGCs [World Golf Championships] get bonus points? Don players in the WGCs get an unfair advantage since the fields are smaller and there is no cut?
First, WGC participants don’t get a huge unfair advantage — the smallest WGC field is the WGC-Accenture Match Play Championship, at 64 players. First-round losers at Accenture all get 86 points, because they’re all tied for 33rd. The last-place finisher at the WGC-American Express Championship last year would have gotten 52.5 points, not so different than the 50 points the 70th-place finisher would get at a “regular” event. It’s true they don’t have to make a cut, but if they wish to get any significant points, they still need a very good finish against a very strong field. Second, do WGCs deserve a bonus? After the majors and the players, the WGCs have by far the best fields. Looking at OWGR, the WGCs all had 46 or more of the top-50 players in 2005. The next best tournament had 34. [The WGCs] get more of the top 30 on the money list than any “regular” Tour event, typically by a wide margin.
Related Questions
- Why spread a hunter’s current points across all categories, when that results in an unfair advantage for hunters with a significant number of points?
- It sounds as if Station Cash may give some players an unfair advantage. How is SOE preventing this?
- Why should the Players get bonus points equivalent to the four majors?
