Number 1

Does anyone else have the feeling that Westwood and Kaymer are sort of, well, *interim* number ones?

Kaymer going to Augusta, missing the cut by five, shrugging his shoulders and saying "not my kind of course" just isn't very number oneish.

I suppose we're all spoiled by Tiger's long domination, but the two Nicks and Vijay and Greg Norman seemed more like real number ones in their time.  It doesn't have to be Tiger-like uber-domination, but who will be the next *real* number one?  Someone who's there every week, wins a major or two *after* becoming number one.  Doesn't miss cuts regularly, or in majors.

Who?  Kaymer isn't looking like a stayer.  Rory took a big step back.  Could Phil still do it (and for how long)?  Schwartzel's the man of the moment but then so was Kaymer.  Heck, Tiger could get back on top almost by default if he wins a few.

It's hard to say. There are a dozen or so guys who coud reach number one in the next couple of years because they're all so close in points. If Augusta National didn't fit Kaymer's eye like it did Schwarzel's that's not a concern. But how many other courses and situations don't fit his eye? To be number one for an extended period he'd better do amazing on the courses that do fit, and find a way to gut out a decent finish on the others.

The current rankings, I think, just further highlight how incredible Tiger's run there was.  Any one of those guys in the top 10 right now are occasionally - if not somewhat frequently - irrelevant in a given tournament.  Sure, they go on streaks - Kaymer looked flawless for a little while, Westwood was competing week after week for a bit, Mickelson torches the field two weeks ago....

Tiger was NEVER irrelevant.  If he missed a cut, it was a national event.  You'd see clips of Tiger wildly throwing a drive into the corporate tent, but yet he'd be on the first page of the leaderboard come Sunday afternoon.  He battled week in, week out, on every type of course, in all weather conditions, not just for one year, or two...season after season.

I thought Sunday was awesome, Schwartzel played out of his mind on the back, and though I would have loved to see Tiger hole two more putts and really put the screws to him, Charl can say he 'won' that tournament, not that he just outlasted other guys who fell back.  However, I'm not crowning anyone the new/next great player.  Even though Tiger didn't win, I think his competition-nerves got a good workout, and wake up, this week, and I wonder if we just may be about to enter another era of, it's Tiger around the top each week, and a rotating group of maybe 15-20 challengers.  Maybe 1, 2 or 3 of those challengers appear with some regularity, but until they do it all year long, and then next year, and then the year after that, "Number 1" won't have much meaning, as far as I'm concerned.

For me this solidifies my opinion in the debate "would you rather reach number one or win a major?". Kaymer has done both, but do we really believe Westwood when he claims to value his stint at the top (mostly during the off season - woot!) as much as a major, considering how many times he came close? (like at the 2009 British Open or the 2010 Masters) Maybe he is truthful since it was Tiger who he passed, but for the next bunch of guys that could trade spots monthly, it's got to be kind of hollow.

What else can he say, he's never won a major.  It will be interesting to see if he changes his opinion if / when he wins a major.  Tiger owned the #1 slot for quite a long time, that in itself is an accomplishment.  Being in a rotation of guys that swap in and out of #1 is something to be proud of but overall isn't as impressive as what Tiger did or winning a major.

IMO when guys are swapping in and out of number 1 it probably loses it's magic feel that it got from Tiger holding it forever. My guess is guys who don't have a major want a major, guys who have won a major and have been inside the top 15 world rankings want to be number 1. Either way if you were ranked number 1 for a week or won a major neither can ever be taken from you.

I think Martin Kaymer will be one of the best players for a while, but whether or not he will have extended stays at number one I think has more to do with the other people in the equation.

i think the #1 spot in golf, when compared to other sports, is diminished because you don't actually have to win anything to be considered the number one golfer. aside from the result of a few equations, what does that mean anyways? it means you are a great golfer, but not necessarily the greatest. i don't even take the ranking system seriously.

Where did you come up with this idea?

Martin Kaymer recent wins:

2009 Open de France
2009 Barclays Scottish Open
2010 Abu Dhabi Golf Championship
2010 PGA Championship
2010 KLM Open
2010 Alfred Dunhill Links Championship
2011 Abu Dhabi HSBC Golf Championship

Lee Westwood recent wins:

2009 Portugal Masters
2009 Dubai World Championship

2010 St. Jude Classic

Luke Donald recent wins:

2010 Madrid Master
2011 WGC-Accenture Match Play Championship

What you don't see on stats like that is of course the general performance of a player, they get points from finishing in the top 10 too. I have yet to see a suggestion from anyone for a new system that would work. If you want the best player to be one that wins 4+ every year and is always in contention, you'll have to wait until Tiger regains his form. Nobody is close to Tiger's performance. Phil got a lot of wins, but he's still no way near the consistency Tiger had.

Should the winner one week jump up to the top spot, regardless if he missed the three next cuts? Truth is that Tiger has made us oblivious to how difficult it is to be consistently good in golf. Now we don't have him, so everyone else gets a shot at the top spot. It goes to show that the top level in golf is very balanced. Anyone can win each week. I don't see that as a problem though.

As for anyone to fill Tiger's spot, I don't see that happening for some time. Tiger is extreme, he's one of the two best golfers through the history of golf . We can't expect someone else to pop up right away. Another point is that there are a larger number of good players that can win today, the competition is harder.

if i joined the pga tour and went on a tear placing top 5 but never winning for a whole season, i could be considered the number one player on tour. in no other sport can you continually lose and be considered the best of that sport.

when vijay took the #1 spot from tiger I was amazed by that. the golf world was amazed, at least, that's what I felt when that happened.

IMO....it is different now. the feeling that being #1 now doesn't feel like an accomplishment. if tiger was at the top of his game and still was dominating and someone took the #1 spot away from him, then it would be a big deal. like vijay. he was playing some great golf when he took #1 away.

I don't know if we will ever see another tiger in golf other than himself if he gets his swagger back. he was just to good for those years he dominated. like sonicblue said, tiger was never irrelevant. I felt like he always had a chance to win it on sunday. I remember when he missed a cut for the first time in lord knows how many tournaments and it was a huge deal. that was all the sports world could talk about.

Neither Kaymer nor Westwood have won a tournament while holding the #1 spot.

It's not just Tiger.  Look at Vijay when he was number one.  He won a couple more tournaments within a month, and another a few months later (after the off-season).  Look at Nick Price or Greg Norman.  They won tournaments and contended in many more.

Tennis!! you could go to the semis in every tournament throughout the year and never win any of the 4 major tourney's and place at the #1 ranking. ana ivanovic, caroline wozniacki and jelena jankovic are the ones that come to my mind as former number 1's who have yet to win a major. caroline has been #1 for over a year now and she has not won a major yet. she gets to the semis and loses.

Kaymer won in January 2011 and became runner up at the WGC Accenture Match play in February, which is when he became ranked as #1. Not even two months has passed since he got the first spot, and you expect he should've won already?

Westwood became #1 in November 2010, so he was at the top for four months until Kaymer overtook him. He didn't play a whole lot of tournaments during his time at the top, being off-season

Should they change the points system? Give more to the winner or less to the runner up? I think it's fair the way it is. The difference between winning and being runner up is often only a single shot, which means the difference in quality of play is not that big. It is only reasonable that there will be a lot of juggling in the top of the OWGR when nobody is as dominating as some players have been.

The case is simply that nobody is playing well enough to keep the top spot for a longer period of time, which includes winning a tournament.

Rory in a few years. Just needs to concentrate on his mental game

He could be incredible if pointed in the right direction

Agree with almost all of this except the point about Schwartzel outlasting the other guys.  I give him props for closing with 4 straight birdies.  IMHO, that is a solid 'win'.

That said, anyone can get hot the one week the Tour winners play at Augusta.  There are plenty of largely irrelevant Masters Winners on the list of champions.   Brewer, Mize, Goalby, etc. - all could personify what Schwartzel is.....or isn't.  Too soon to tell.

The point system is very arguable, and was argued a lot pre-Tiger when, for example, Greg Norman was ranked ahead of Faldo despite Faldo winning three majors (Norman had won more tournaments) in 1989-1990.  The discussion faded during Tiger's reign because he was the top guy no matter what you wanted to measure - wins, majors, top tens, scoring average, cuts made ...

When you think about it, Tiger hasn't won since the fall of 2009 (pun intended) which means that no golfer has won a tournament while holding the number one spot since then.   Or even jumped into number one with a win.  Uh, what are these rankings about again?

Should Martin Laird be number one because he's won two tournaments this year?

The OWGR runs over a long time, much like the FIFA ranking in football. I think it gives a better impression of who the best golfer is by using results a couple of years back in time.