Wie's (New) World Ranking

[iacas]

Given the recent news that the Rolex Women's World Rankings will be revised and that Michelle Wie will plummet to 7th (from 2nd), where would you place Michelle Wie in the world rankings if you could?

My answer: right where she was: second. I didn't agree that she should be second earlier this year (the proof is in the podcasts), but then again I didn't agree anyone named "Yuri Fudoh" should be fourth.

And that was before Michelle finished top-five in FOUR consecutive women's majors. Were a male pro to do that, their praises would be sung from here to eternity. The fact is that only five or six people beat Michelle in those tournaments. Strength of field, quality of performance, amount of pressure - she's played better than anyone.

Obviously, if she had the chance to play a full LPGA schedule, she'd be way up there. While I'm not willing to say she's the second best female golfer in the world right now (though she does make a compelling case), I do think she's well ahead of 7th, and her performance in the women's majors backs that up.

P.S. I'm going to write something up for the site on this soon.

[ragontona]

You know that I'm a Wie guy, but I don't know if I'd have her at second. I haven't seen the rankings, but I imagine that Sorenstam remains at #1. I suppose I'd have Karrie Webb at #2, and probably Ochoa at #3, with Wie at the four spot.

Through no fault of her own, I'd still have to hold the lack of events against her. Her finishes in the majors bears acknowledgement though -- thus giving her the four spot, which is still pretty darned respectable.

I think Webb's resurgence has her firmly as the second-best golfer in the world, right now. And Ochoa just seems to be on the first page every time I pay attention.

This all goes out the window though, if Wie manages to bounce back and win the British. No doubt, she's easily #2 then.

[Rafcin]

I think 3rd would make sense - at least Webb has 3 wins this season, where Michelle has 0. Top 10's are nice, but wins should be rewarded....

[iacas]

BTW, here's the article I mentioned .

[Xt1ncT]

To me it doesn't seem right that they divide by 35 tournaments as a minimum. IF you have to play a certain number of events to get ranked then that should be the divisor.

It smacks of unfairness to me - wins are important, but look how many more points a major gets in the mens rankings than the other tournaments.

Once she gets her full card and a couple of wins - that will surely come - she'll be where she derserves to be.

[iacas]

To me it doesn't seem right that they divide by 35 tournaments as a minimum. IF you have to play a certain number of events to get ranked then that should be the divisor.

The counter-argument to that is that someone (like Wie, perhaps) who can "pick and choose" to play the big tournaments can rack up a lot of points without winning or playing a consistent schedule.

Almost every full-time pro will play 35 events over two years. Even Annika plays that many, and she's got a very light schedule, typically. I should point out that I don't think any of this will affect Wie - it won't make her any less popular with sponsors or fans. The only thing dropping to seventh or so might do is ease the pressure and criticism she gets from her detractors.

[Xt1ncT]

I should point out that I don't think any of this will affect Wie - it won't make her any less popular with sponsors or fans. The only thing dropping to seventh or so might do is ease the pressure and criticism she gets from her detractors.

True, I also don't think to be world number one is necessarily the right goal. The goal should be to be as good as possible and to win as many tournaments as possible, that in turn takes care of the world ranking.

[Thrash13]

You know that I'm a Wie guy

I thought you were in the middle as far as Wie goes? Did all that Wie hatred a couple weeks back make you a bigger Wie fan? Interesting.

I haven't seen the rankings, but I imagine that Sorenstam remains at #1. I suppose I'd have Karrie Webb at #2, and probably Ochoa at #3, with Wie at the four spot.

This is exactly how I would have it as well. Wie would probably be #2

if she played in all the LPGA events, but we have no proof as to how she would actually finish in all those other tournaments. I'm going with what I know, and Webb and Ochoa have had great years in the win column. So they get my vote over Wie for now. Her 7th place ranking is a little out there though. I can't imagine six female golfers being ranked ahead of the teen phenom.

[ragontona]

I thought you were in the middle as far as Wie goes? Did all that Wie hatred a couple weeks back make you a bigger Wie fan? Interesting.

Oh yeah, definitely. I

was straddling the fence on the Wie thing a while back, but after defending her in post after post, I ultimately realized that there is no middle ground. So, I'm all for seeing her do well and fulfilling all that potential. She's scary talented. I mean, I believe she's carrying a 1-iron this week. How many players on the LPGA are rockin' a 1-iron?

[chopper jones]

they can change it as many times as they like and Wie will continue to rise back up to the top.

the best point of reference is the GolfWeek column from a while back where the head-to-head results were examined and the only player with a winning record over Wie was Sorenstam, and Grace Park had tied her. Wie definitely has a winning record against Park at this point (I'm a Park fan, she's been injured) and I'd be very interested to see how she's doing head-to-head against Sorenstam.

C

[iacas]

they can change it as many times as they like and Wie will continue to rise back up to the top.

Since Wie hasn't finished outside the top five this year, her record is better than Sorenstam's if you're just considering the # of people that have beat her. From my "

Sick of Wie Whiners " from a few weeks back comes this stat:

Consider this chart, showing the place both Michelle Wie and the not-even-up-for-discussion best women's golfer in the world, Annika Sorenstam, finished in each of the past four women's majors. In parentheses, the number of people that beat them, and at the end, the total.

Clearly Wie is 70% better than Sorenstam! (That's sarcasm, by the way...) But seriously, Wie's record

in the few events she's allowed to play has always been pretty spectacular, and beats even Sorenstam's. Whether or not Michelle would improve her record against Sorenstam by playing more regularly or would do the opposite is anyone's guess. Clearly with the new 35-event divisor, she couldn't help but to improve her world ranking.

[chopper jones]

take a look at Wie's won/loss record against all other LPGA Tour players...

...at one point Sorenstam had a winning record, G. Park had tied her.

I suspect that now only Sorenstam has a winning record against M. Wie (I'm a G. Park fan and understand that she has been injured).

they can tweak the polls all they want but M Wie will just continue to gravitate to the top...Michelle and Annika are hands down the two best players in the world.

C

PS...sorry for the duplicate, I did not think my original post on the topic had made it through.

[Konrad]

My answer: right where she was: second. I didn't agree that she should be second earlier this year (the proof is in the podcasts), but then again I didn't agree anyone named "Yuri Fudoh" should be fourth.

Uhhhh, no. I don't think that you can not win an event and be ranked second. It's very funny that she was ranked ahead of Rookie of the year and multiple winner Paula Creamer, way ahead of a very consistent performer Natalie Gulbis. Not to mention the gaggle of major winners she was ranked miles ahead of.

And that was before Michelle finished top-five in FOUR consecutive women's majors. Were a male pro to do that, their praises would be sung from here to eternity. The fact is that only five or six people beat Michelle in those tournaments.

Yeah, sure they'd be praised, but there would also be all sorts of critics asking why this person hadn't won a tournament. They'd simply talk about the bad decisions that the person had made, such as 3 putting the final green, missing a four footer for par the hole earlier, and such things that Michelle Wie did. The bottom line is that she makes bad choices coming down the to the end, and that's what has kept her from winning one of these majors.

Obviously, if she had the chance to play a full LPGA schedule, she'd be way up there.

Of course, that's impossible to predict. That's like saying if Tiger played the B.C Open, he'd win by 10 every time.

While I'm not willing to say she's the second best female golfer in the world right now (though she does make a compelling case)

No, she's not the second best in the world right now. She is probably second of third best in the majors this year. (A win should count for more than a T-4 in my thinking.) I mean, nobody really noticed that Phil Mickelson finished in the top 30 at the British Open, but people

will remember him slipping on the green jacket this year.

I do think she's well ahead of 7th, and her performance in the women's majors backs that up.

Performance in the majors should count for something, of course. I'm not disagreeing about that. What I'm saying is that, if you've never won an event, you don't belong in the top of the standings at any sport. It would be just flat out hilarious if a guy like David Toms, ranked in the top 10 in the mens world golf rankings, had never won. In fact, I tried to find someone who hadn't one a professional tournament on either the PGA or European tours who was on the first page of the world rankings. I didn't find one. So I looked on the second page. Nope. Third. Nope. Fourth. Nope.

I stopped looking. The bottom line is, Michelle Wie is an amazing talent. But one that hasn't won. And a talent that hasn't won doesn't deserve the second ranking, no matter where she finishes in the majors.

[Rafcin]

Uhhhh, no. I don't think that you can not win an event and be ranked second.

if you had 10 events, that player A won 9, player B was 2nd 10 times and player C was 3rd in 9 events, winning one - should player C be No. 2?

There is different weight for each tournament and this is a fact that you obviously have a problem with. Are you saying Corey Pavin win is as valuable as Mickleson's Masters victory? nah. Nobody said she should be second, but argument that she CAN'T be second w/o win is quite a stretch...

[chopper jones]

Uhhhh, no. I don't think that you can not win an event and be ranked second

C

[Konrad]

You would prefer that this be the case, but clearly you can be ranked second without winning an event, because Wie is/was ranked second

Go to the other part of my post. Why does a male golfer who hasn't won a professional event not even make the top 100, but a female, regardless of age, or finishes in tournaments, makes second? If you don't win during the year in the male rankings, you drop like a fly in the world rankings. But Michelle Wie drops five? And this is only because of a, in my view, overdue tweak.

Nobody you are referring to had ever won an LPGA tourney, much less a major, at age 16

Right. And neither has Michelle Wie.

MW's winning are rapidly approaching $1,000,000, I suspect she'll reach the $1,000,000 mark faster than any other LPGA pro in history regardless of age

That's cool. But like Tiger says "It's all about the W's"

[iacas]

Go to the other part of my post. Why does a male golfer who hasn't won a professional event not even make the top 100, but a female, regardless of age, or finishes in tournaments, makes second?

Look up someone named "Chris DiMarco" on the PGA Tour. Last win: 2002 Phoenix Open. Current OWGR: 13th. And it's only that low because he's had a horrible 2006. He was in the top ten most of last year.

And Michelle Wie - relatively - performed a lot better than Chris. C'mon, dude, her average finish in a major was like 4th for the previous four majors. She's never missed a cut.

If you don't win during the year in the male rankings, you drop like a fly in the world rankings. But Michelle Wie drops five? And this is only because of a, in my view, overdue tweak.

That's not true. Again, DiMarco was high for quite awhile. Els is still 7th. When did he last win? Adam Scott is 6th and he hasn't won in years (the 36-hole Nissan didn't count).

Just providing some facts...

[Konrad]

Look up someone named "Chris DiMarco" on the PGA Tour. Last win: 2002 Phoenix Open. Current OWGR: 13th. And it's only that low because he's had a horrible 2006. He was in the top ten most of last year.

But he won an international event: Qatar. And, by my math, 13th is about 11 spots away from second.

And Michelle Wie - relatively - performed a

Are we leaving out the Women's British Open? Oops. That drops down about 12 spots by the averages...

That's not true. Again, DiMarco was high for quite awhile. Els is still 7th. When did he last win? Adam Scott is 6th and he hasn't won in years (the 36-hole Nissan didn't count).

Right, but all of these people have won

multiple times, and Els has won a pair of majors. Adam Scott got points for that win though. Oh, and Ernie won 2 events back after his surgery. I forgot which event.