World Golf Rankings need to be overhauled

[robertspages]

This thing is so stupid. It should be based strictly upon how many tournaments you win, with a little extra weight for the majors. The strength of field thing is a joke. If you win a PGA tour event, it should count the same as any other regular PGA Tour event. Why penalize players who play the tour more. If anything, points should be taken away from players that conserve and play less tournaments.

The system is like silly voodoo, it needs to be simplified and explained. Also, the vote for PGA Tour player of the year should be a point system, not a popularity contest.

[Thrash13]

I definitely agree with you 110% on this one. It took Tiger so long to lose the top spot, but it only took him 4 or 5 tournaments to regain it. That was just really crazy to me.

First off, I think they should go by the year anyway, just like any other sport. They start off the year with preseason rankings and so forth. I think they should do the same with golf, and then just move on from there. That way we know who is the best player each and every week.

But that is just me. Something definitely needs to be done about how they are now.

[iacas]

This thing is so stupid. It should be based strictly upon how many tournaments you win, with a little extra weight for the majors.

So Vijay Singh, who wins a bunch of lame-field tournaments (i.e. Honda Classics) and a few big ones, and misses cuts, should be ranked higher than Tiger Woods? No, I don't buy it.

Taken to the extreme, a golfer who finishes second every week would lose out to a guy who wins one tournament? Five? And misses the cut every other week? No, c'mon.

The strength of field thing is a joke.

They do the same thing in just about every other college sport, accounting for the "strength" of the "opposition." They even do it in the NFL if there's a tie.

If you win a PGA tour event, it should count the same as any other regular PGA Tour event. Why penalize players who play the tour more. If anything, points should be taken away from players that conserve and play less tournaments.

They don't penalize players who play more.

The system is like silly voodoo, it needs to be simplified and explained. Also, the vote for PGA Tour player of the year should be a point system, not a popularity contest.

The system is not that hard to understand. The college system - votes? - is much harder to explain. Just look at the seeding for March Madness. It's a mess, and nobody knows how best to fix it.

The World Golf Rankings are pretty simple math. The Player of the Year stuff is non-sequitur, but the system seems to work just fine. When has a non-deserving player won?

I definitely agree with you 110% on this one. It took Tiger so long to lose the top spot, but it only took him 4 or 5 tournaments to regain it. That was just really crazy to me.

Tiger had, at one point, an

eight-point lead. It takes awhile to lose that lead. Vijay's lead was only ever about 1 point. And while Vijay was finishing first in tournaments, Tiger - struggling game and all - was finishing second, third, or fourth. The guy was fifth on the money list last year - it's not like he played horrible golf. He did by his standards, but against the rest of the PGA Tour, he did not. And he hasn't missed a cut in how many tournaments? Vijay can't say the same. Vijay played in 29 events last year. He had 18 top 10s. Tiger played in 19 events yet had 14 top 10s. 74% of the time, Tiger was top-10 while Vijay - even with his nine victories, only managed to get into the top 10 62% of the time.

First off, I think they should go by the year anyway, just like any other sport. They start off the year with preseason rankings and so forth. I think they should do the same with golf, and then just move on from there. That way we know who is the best player each and every week.

There's no pre-season. The World Golf Rankings are, wait for it...

World rankings. Just because the PGA Tour takes a month and a half off doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't playing golf. If you want to know who the best player is each and every week, I suggest you look at the leader board.

[Thrash13]

On your last point, you just crossed yourself up. You told me if I wanted to know who the best player in the world is each week, I should look at the leaderboard!

Well, last year when I looked at the leaderboard, I saw Vijay's name at the top of it. Yet, he didn't become the #1 player in the world until late in the year. So that makes no sense at all.

I understand Tiger had a good year last year, but nobody even came close to Vijay and his 9 wins. And I'm not even a Vijay fan by any means.

Just from hearing things around the golf world, there are many many more analysts who thinks the world golf rankings need to be changed. You are definitely in the minority on this issue IMO, but that is just me.

And you can say there is no offseason, but you know as well as I do that there is one in most of November and December. Yeah, there is golf, but all the tours have already decided their annual money winners and players of the year by then. So there is basically a 10 month full time scheduled season, and then there are a bunch of celebrity stuff and other things around the world.

But hey, this is just my opinion and robertspages opinion, so at least I am not the only one that thinks this way. And besides what are we without our opinions?

I would definitely like to hear more people's opinions on this subject from this board..


EDIT: Oh and one more thing, I don't care what tourneys Vijay was winning. Every week in the PGA, the winner has to have his game in shape. Tiger wasn't in the field for some of those wins, but there were top 10 guys in the fields. So don't discount what he did just because El Tigre wasn't around.

[iacas]

On your last point, you just crossed yourself up. You told me if I wanted to know who the best player in the world is each week, I should look at the leaderboard!

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I said:

If you want to know who the best player is each and every week, I suggest you look at the leader board.

Week-to-week isn't how we determine any ranking system. In the NFL, it's "any given Sunday" and the same holds true on the PGA Tour. Is Joe Ogilvy a better golfer than Padraig Harrington or Vijay Singh? No. But he very easily could have been for one week.

I didn't cross anything up. Simply reading what I wrote should clear that up for ya.

I understand Tiger had a good year last year, but nobody even came close to Vijay and his 9 wins. And I'm not even a Vijay fan by any means.

And guess what? Vijay catapulted to the top, finally overcoming the

massive lead Tiger had built. So...

Just from hearing things around the golf world, there are many many more analysts who thinks the world golf rankings need to be changed. You are definitely in the minority on this issue IMO, but that is just me.

Oh, c'mon. That doesn't mean you're right. I don't even agree with you that "there are many more analysts." You can't claim victory by making things up!

And you can say there is no offseason, but you know as well as I do that there is one in most of November and December. Yeah, there is golf, but all the tours have already decided their annual money winners and players of the year by then. So there is basically a 10 month full time scheduled season, and then there are a bunch of celebrity stuff and other things around the world.

Ummm, bull. Y'see, there's this whole other hemisphere, and they play golf too. Sometimes in November and December.

EDIT: Oh and one more thing, I don't care what tourneys Vijay was winning. Every week in the PGA, the winner has to have his game in shape. Tiger wasn't in the field for some of those wins, but there were top 10 guys in the fields. So don't discount what he did just because El Tigre wasn't around.

He has to have his game in shape far less so at the Honda Classic, where the third-round leaders choked their way to a 73 including a duffed pitching wedge that went 50 yards and a triple-bogey, than he does at tougher tournaments with stronger fields.

Tiger Woods consistently plays better than Vijay Singh, and he sits atop the rankings for that reason. Your assertions that it's "tough to understand" are simply inaccurate. Spend 15 minutes and you too can figure out how they work. C'mon, "everyone else agrees with me" is never gonna win you an argument.

[Thrash13]

I am definitely not saying I'm right and you are wrong. But I have heard many anaylysts on the golf channel and other networks state the same things I stated. And they may not be right either, but I am definitely not alone on the subject, that is for sure.

The rankings honestly aren't a very big deal to me, but I was just agreeing with what the first guy said in this topic. I do hear things and I do look at the rankings, but they are definitely not worth arguing over IMO.

I am definitely not quite as defensive as you are about them, I'll just put it that way. I just watch the golf for the golf. Whoever wins is the winner and whoever don't win isn't the winner. So there, that's good enough for me.

[iacas]

I am definitely not saying I'm right and you are wrong. But I have heard many anaylysts on the golf channel and other networks state the same things I stated. And they may not be right either, but I am definitely not alone on the subject, that is for sure.

Nor am I alone. But c'mon, you're the one who saw fit to mention "others agree with me" to support your case.

I am definitely not quite as defensive as you are about them, I'll just put it that way. I just watch the golf for the golf. Whoever wins is the winner and whoever don't win isn't the winner. So there, that's good enough for me.

Now I'm defensive because I don't care for bad arguments? C'mon, buddy, cut the crap. If you want to have a debate or discussion, then participate. If you don't, don't.

[Thrash13]

You are alone so far in this topic.

And this forum does need some good debate, it never hurts. I just wanted to say that I enjoy debate like this. And I have already stated my opinions, and it is very obvious we don't agree on the subject. But without disagreements, it would be boring anyway.

I'm done for now in this topic, and I won't reply unless someone else brings up another point or if you bring up something else.

I just wanted to get it across that the rankings don't mean as much to me as they obviously do to some others. But I'll still state my opinions on it if I feel the need. And I am by no means a golf "know it all", so you could very well be right on the subject. But I could be right as well..

So no hard feelings from me, and I hope it is the same from you. But I do think this place could use some more debate.

[robertspages]

Tiger Woods consistently plays better than Vijay Singh, and he sits atop the rankings for that reason. Your assertions that it's "tough to understand" are simply inaccurate. Spend 15 minutes and you too can figure out how they work.

During what time frame? It certainly wasn't last year, during the entire year. This year, Tiger has only won one more tournament. He's played better, but not by much. Tiger is a media pet project. He's also a political project. He was touted to be the best golfer ever, yet he hasn't won a major since Rich Beem spanked his butt.

On the rankings, if they are so easy, explain them. I agree that the rankings should be started at the beginning of the year, from scratch. For you Tiger lovers, why does Pat Perez have to apologize for slamming a club? Tiger Woods is the biggest cry baby in the business. He slams clubs and curses anytime things don't go his way. Bottom line is that the World Rankings have been criticized for good reason. They are a joke. As for this stregth of field crap, I guess Vijay's win at the PGA and over Tiger head to head was a fluke. Also, did anyone know that Vijay's record in the majors was better than Tiger's in 2003. Yet, ole strength of field Woody won the player of the year. It's a joke. Look at Michelson's record since the beginning of 2004, it's way better than ole Woody, in the majors and accross the boards. This year, one lipout that falls and Lefty has one more win than Woody. Right now, they both have two wins. What we do know is that people are sick of the Tiger Woods promotion. He hasn't done crap in over two years in the biggest strength of field events. Els and Singh have all won majors and more tournaments than Woody over the last two years. All three have played better in the majors in the last two years.

[iacas]

During what time frame? It certainly wasn't last year, during the entire year. This year, Tiger has only won one more tournament.

Out of how many? C'mon... And "during what time frame?" Last year. I gave you the numbers. Tiger finished top-10 more consistently than Vijay Singh. Remember that 180-event cut streak Tiger has going (or whatever the number is)? The next closest to him is Ernie Els, I think, with something like 32.

He's played better, but not by much. Tiger is a media pet project. He's also a political project. He was touted to be the best golfer ever, yet he hasn't won a major since Rich Beem spanked his butt.

He's 29. I'm not a Tiger fanatic, and I look at numbers as much as anyone else. Tiger's clearly the best golfer of the past decade. And Jack Nicklaus had a pair of droughts, too: 10 and 12 major stretches without a victory. Tiger's well on his way to taking down 18 majors, statistically speaking.

On the rankings, if they are so easy, explain them. I agree that the rankings should be started at the beginning of the year, from scratch.

I don't have to explain them. Go spend 15 minutes (or 5) at

officialworldgolfranking.com to figure it out for yourself. And - for the last time - there is no "start" of the year. January 1 is right in the middle of some tour's seasons.

For you Tiger lovers, why does Pat Perez have to apologize for slamming a club? Tiger Woods is the biggest cry baby in the business. He slams clubs and curses anytime things don't go his way.

There's a big difference - particularly on television - between making obscene gestures and tossing a club against a bag. Tiger's on camera far more than anyone else, but the % of the time he displays "bad" behavior is probably just the same as most other pros, if not less.

And he never makes an obscene gesture. Comparing Pat Perez to Tiger Woods is laughable.

Bottom line is that the World Rankings have been criticized for good reason. They are a joke.

Yet you've failed to tell us why, beyond "Tiger is a crybaby."

As for this stregth of field crap, I guess Vijay's win at the PGA and over Tiger head to head was a fluke.

I never said all of his wins came in tournaments with weak fields. Just that some were. Tiger, on the other hand, rarely plays in tournaments with weak fields, and gets himself into the top ten far more frequently than Vijay.

Also, did anyone know that Vijay's record in the majors was better than Tiger's in 2003. Yet, ole strength of field Woody won the player of the year.

Right... that's the sole factor...

Tiger in '03: 18 events, 5 wins (28%), 12 top 10s (67%). Vijay in '03: 27 events, 4 wins (15%), 18 top 10s (67%). Looks to me as though Tiger had a better year. He won the Buick, the Match Play, Bay Hill, the Western Open, and the WGC-AmEx. Vijay won the Phoenix, Byron Nelson, John Deere, and Funai. Tiger played in only one of Vijay's four, and finished T2. Tiger won $371,000 per start to Vijay's $280,500.

It's a joke. Look at Michelson's record since the beginning of 2004, it's way better than ole Woody, in the majors and accross the boards.

So? Look at the many tournaments Mickelson did poorly in, when Tiger - struggling game and all - was finishing in the top 10. Phil made up a lot of ground on Tiger, you bet. But Retief Goosen was ranked ahead of Phil even this year. Phil was supposedly "hot as can be" this year, yet faced with Woods, went down.

What makes someone a better player? Five second-place finishes or one win, one T3, a pair of T37s, and an MC? I'll take the guy that finished second consistently. And so do the WGR. You really, really don't get too many points for finishing outside the top 10, and you don't get squat for missing cuts. Tiger consistently plays good golf. The world #1 shouldn't be streaky, and Tiger isn't. Vijay, Phil, and even Ernie: streaky. Missing out on a major by a stroke one week, T37 the next.

This year, one lipout that falls and Lefty has one more win than Woody.

Uhh, that would have tied them, and Tiger's record in playoffs is quite good. And if Mickelson had won in Doral, that's 3-1, not "one more win."

Right now, they both have two wins. What we do know is that people are sick of the Tiger Woods promotion.

Sez who? C'mon, man. If you're sick of it, if you have an axe to grind, that's one thing. But "people" are not sick of it. People love Tiger, the networks love Tiger, sponsors love Tiger. People tuned in

in record numbers to watch Tiger battle Phil at Doral. Doral had more viewers than each of last year's final two majors. "People" aren't sick of Tiger. You may be, but prattling on about how the WGR is goofy because you don't like Tiger seems like an awfully silly way to go about bringing down the ol' blood pressure, man.

He hasn't done crap in over two years in the biggest strength of field events. Els and Singh have all won majors and more tournaments than Woody over the last two years. All three have played better in the majors in the last two years.

And played crappy in other tournaments. C'mon, you're criticizing a system you don't even understand. All you've managed to say is that you

think Tiger Woods is overrated. If you have a beef with the WGR, look at how it's computed and suggest a change. Please don't prattle on with "people are sick of Tiger Woods." I've used #s. The WGR likes a consistent high finisher, and Tiger Woods consistently finishes higher than anyone else. Hence, World #1. It's really quite simple. Shortening the time period is a valid suggestion. It's been debated. So too has changing the point allotment to better reward wins. But leave the "I hate Tiger" stuff to the side, wouldja?

[robertspages]

Statistically speaking? What the heck? Your heavy arguing about 2003 gives you away. Let's talk about 2004, pal. Do you think Tiger played better than Vijay?

On the statistics, there is only one statistic that matters, and that's Woody has 8 majors and not 18!!!

Your argument about Tiger being on the camera all the time is an excuse for his pitiful conduct. His GD's have been the cause of many fines. My favorite was, after a shot from the wet rough in 2002, when he took his club in the British Open and started chopping the ground with a repetitive full axe motion on his way to an 81. Els has a little better score in the same conditions. The guy is a big cry baby when things don't go his way.

As for the Tiger "hating", you used that word, pal. I don't like Tiger, but I don't hate him. He's bad for the game because he used GD's and slams clubs whenever things dont' go right. Ratings are great for a lot of things that are not good, so that is irrelevant to what's good.

For you, Tiger lover, I'll be on your butt like a pit bull when Tiger doesn't even come close to the 18 majors or 80 plus record of Sam Snead. The guy has a swing predicated on power and has a thrashing tempo that will never keep him at the top of the game from much longer. Only time will tell, but I'll be on your Tiger loving butt when all the media forgets all the talk about how he was statisitcally on pace, used to be ahead of pace, to break the 18 major records.

Right now, nothing will be settled for this year until the Masters. Winning Sand Diego and Doral proves nothing. Nick O'Hern showed others that Tiger is a lot of hype if you play some golf. Long way to go this year.

As for Tiger playing only the tough events, that's because the guy tries to skip the other events so he is fresher for the big events. That's an argument that Vijay Singh is better, not worse. Tiger admitted he couldn't play a full schedule like that.

One thing that people disagree with you on, the world ranking system is a joke and needs to be changed. Tiger doesn't deserve to be #1 yet, not with the year he had in 2004. Michelson should be ranked over Woody, at this point. The things a joke that is promoted to promote this guy.

I'll tell you this, there are plenty of people who are sick of this Tigerganda. Many are too afraid to see so because it isn't politically correct. Singh is a guy who said he hasn't seen any racism in this country and he plays quiently without the show up fist pumps. Singh is hated by the low class and low moral media. Tiger is doted and coddled by the media. That should tell you something.

[iacas]

Statistically speaking? What the heck? Your heavy arguing about 2003 gives you away. Let's talk about 2004, pal. Do you think Tiger played better than Vijay?

In 2004? Uhh, yes. In 2003? Clearly not, and Vijay captured the #1 spot. Things worked out the way they were supposed to...

On the statistics, there is only one statistic that matters, and that's Woody has 8 majors and not 18!!!

Dude, you're all over the map here... what do majors - or Pat Perez - have to do with the World Golf Rankings?

Your argument about Tiger being on the camera all the time is an excuse for his pitiful conduct. His GD's have been the cause of many fines. My favorite was, after a shot from the wet rough in 2002, when he took his club in the British Open and started chopping the ground with a repetitive full axe motion on his way to an 81. Els has a little better score in the same conditions. The guy is a big cry baby when things don't go his way.

If you say so, man. I play golf. It's frustrating. I don't blame Tiger or anyone else for getting frustrated. But there's a line, and Pat Perez is way on one side, and Tiger on the other.

As for the Tiger "hating", you used that word, pal. I don't like Tiger, but I don't hate him. He's bad for the game because he used GD's and slams clubs whenever things dont' go right. Ratings are great for a lot of things that are not good, so that is irrelevant to what's good.

Tiger Woods is bad for the game of golf? OK, discussion over. You're clearly insane.

For you, Tiger lover, I'll be on your butt like a pit bull when Tiger doesn't even come close to the 18 majors or 80 plus record of Sam Snead.

OK, someone needs a nap or something...

The guy has a swing predicated on power and has a thrashing tempo that will never keep him at the top of the game from much longer. Only time will tell, but I'll be on your Tiger loving butt when all the media forgets all the talk about how he was statisitcally on pace, used to be ahead of pace, to break the 18 major records.

... or maybe just some prozac or something.

Right now, nothing will be settled for this year until the Masters. Winning Sand Diego and Doral proves nothing. Nick O'Hern showed others that Tiger is a lot of hype if you play some golf. Long way to go this year.

Right, cuz clearly Nick O'Hern is a better player than Tiger Woods. Dude, as they used to say in the 80s, "that's wack." Or maybe it was "whack," but clearly you're nutso.

As for Tiger playing only the tough events, that's because the guy tries to skip the other events so he is fresher for the big events. That's an argument that Vijay Singh is better, not worse. Tiger admitted he couldn't play a full schedule like that.

Uhh, because travel sucks.

One thing that people disagree with you on, the world ranking system is a joke and needs to be changed. Tiger doesn't deserve to be #1 yet, not with the year he had in 2004. Michelson should be ranked over Woody, at this point. The things a joke that is promoted to promote this guy.

Ummm, so far all of two people have disagreed with me. And one of them is you, which I really don't think helps your case, given what you've managed to spew forth in your latest post. Mickelson above Woods? Where's the proof? All your proof is "I hate Tiger, so he should be ranked lower." That ain't gonna win you an argument, buddy.

I'll tell you this, there are plenty of people who are sick of this Tigerganda. Many are too afraid to see so because it isn't politically correct. Singh is a guy who said he hasn't seen any racism in this country and he plays quiently without the show up fist pumps. Singh is hated by the low class and low moral media. Tiger is doted and coddled by the media. That should tell you something.

That tells me absolutely nothing, dude, except that you're friends with the deep end.

Stick to topic or start a new one - further Tiger bashing and off-topic posts in this thread are unwarranted.

[Thrash13]

Only 2 people have disagreed but nobody has agreed!

Tiger's attitude does suck some of the time, but I do agree with you on that one, I would probably say a few curse words too if I was playing for that much money and pride. Luckily, I stink it up usually, so I don't have to get all ticked off. But then again, the GD's are never good no matter who is saying them.

But seriously, I still disagree with you about keeping the rankings year round. I still think they should start them fresh every January 1st. Name 3 guys in the top 50 that are still playing competitively in November and December. I guarantee you can't come up with 3 because the top 50 is either made up of PGA tour guys or European tour guys. I didn't even look past the top 50, but I'm sure the %'s aren't very good for finding many Japanese tour players or any other tour players. It would be very easy to start the world rankings over every January 1st just like they do in other sports. Sure, some of the lower guys would be affected if they are still playing worldwide, but they obviously aren't ranked high enough to amount to anything.

Other than that, I'm just enjoying seeing someone else disagreeing instead of me taking all the heat. But seriously, you can't close a topic because someone is bashing Tiger, this is a message board. This place is for speaking opinions. I can understand the off topic stuff, and that is why I tried to stay on topic. But bashing is just going to happen. You don't expect everyone here to love every PGA guy do you?

[iacas]

But seriously, I still disagree with you about keeping the rankings year round. I still think they should start them fresh every January 1st. Name 3 guys in the top 50 that are still playing competitively in November and December.

Tiger Woods. Ernie Els. Retief Goosen. Phil Mickelson. Vijay Singh. They all play at various times. Tiger played in the Dunlop last year and the Target Challenge may get WGR points soon, too.

Asking for the "season" to start on January 1 is an extremely PGA Tour-centric approach. People in spots 51 through 200 care. And there are plenty of other guys in the top 50 who play in international events. Plenty. Probably 35 of them have at some point in the past few years played in November and December in tournaments that have WGR points available.

I guarantee you can't come up with 3 because the top 50 is either made up of PGA tour guys or European tour guys.

I just did.

I didn't even look past the top 50, but I'm sure the %'s aren't very good for finding many Japanese tour players or any other tour players. It would be very easy to start the world rankings over every January 1st just like they do in other sports. Sure, some of the lower guys would be affected if they are still playing worldwide, but they obviously aren't ranked high enough to amount to anything.

In other sports, there's a very precise beginning and end. It's not so in the golf world, unless your golf world consists solely and entirely of the PGA Tour.

Other than that, I'm just enjoying seeing someone else disagreeing instead of me taking all the heat. But seriously, you can't close a topic because someone is bashing Tiger, this is a message board.

Yes, I can. He's free to start another thread and bash Tiger all he wants, but this thread is talking about the WGR.

This place is for speaking opinions. I can understand the off topic stuff, and that is why I tried to stay on topic. But bashing is just going to happen. You don't expect everyone here to love every PGA guy do you?

I don't. I do ask that people stay on topic.

[iacas]

See? The WGR favors consistent high finishers. Tiger's T23 isn't consistently high, Vijay's second straight second is high and consistent. Thus, Vijay = New (once again) #1.

[robertspages]

On Topic, Scotty Doo, repeat after me:

Who is the #1 player in the world?

You need to hide out for a week or two;)

[iacas]

On Topic, Scotty Doo, repeat after me:

No, I don't, and if you think that, you've not really understood anything I've said.

[robertspages]

No, I don't, and if you think that, you've not really understood anything I've said.

I understand everything you said, and your latest comment comes after that fact. If Tiger doesn't break the Nicklaus majors and Snead's total PGA Tour wins, you'll be claiming you were misunderstood. But, the internet keeps a record of everything you write.

Just like Dan Rather, I love how the new media outlets are making the old media insiders take it up the backside. The media coronated Woods as the best ever, then backed off since he's been moved aside as the top ranked player. He's a ratings pleaser and the media will still coddle and dote over him to no end. But, in the end, if he ends up going south and stinks it up during his 30's and 40's, the media will get it up the back side.