In the process of developing our Player Rankings we generated some other statistics. We created a table from the 2002 scores where all the scores for each round were adjusted such that the lowest score for that round was 70 and all other scores adjusted accordingly. We then tabulated the total number of rounds played, tournaments entered, prize money won and the number of rounds played at each score from 70 through 90. We also tabulated the percentage of 70-80 rounds  played at or below a score of 80 by each player. We then sorted this table by the score of 76. Successively adding the percentage for each player going down the list for a score of 70 and 71 gives us the  probability of a tie at that score if all the best 84 players were playing. 

Except for the Masters, all the tournaments attract  the same high quality of player. However, as can be seen by our quality chart, the Masters, for both qualifying and final rounds, is in a league all it's own. Wouldn't it be great to see all the tournaments have the same extra high quality of players every week as the Masters? 
In looking for the best players, it is interesting to note that when you look at the average score of the top 134 players the range is an adjusted 73 to 77.  It is also very interesting to note that when you analyze the same players by only averaging the middle 80% of their games, you get the same 73 to 77 range. 

Players entered Chart.

We have compiled some general statistics.
Some Conclusions:
1.  Due to lower prize money and fewer events there is a higher degree of participation by the ladies.
2. This results in their having closer competition.
3. The spread in the purse for those in the Fifty Plus Tour is atrocious.
4. The rest of the tours pay the last place money less that than that player would get under our recommended purse distribution of prize money.

See our comments and suggestions on "The CUT"

The Courses do affect player statistics.