Lee Westwood - World number 1

[Tiger Spuds]

From tomorrow, Lee Westwood will inherit the World number 1 spot from Tiger Woods. Martin Kaymer had a chance to be number one, but a poor showing in Spain this weekend put paid to those chances. What I want to know is if people think Westwood deserves the number one spot. Bear in mind the ranking system takes into account points accumulated over the previous 2 years. While Lee has won plenty of tournaments and placed highly in a lot more, he hasn't won a Major, making him the first Major - less player in the history of the World Golf ranking to hold the number one spot. Personally I'm not sure that's right. I appreciate that he's been very consistent, but being crowned as the best player in the world of golf without having a Major win under your belt seems like an oxymoron to me. How can you be the best if you haven't won one of the 4 biggest tournaments in the game? Maybe I'm being too harsh, what's your opinion on the matter?

[Leftygolfer]

I see your argument but I see no one else as being more deserving. There isn't anyone who has been more consistant this year. My memory isn't great but it seemed like he was right there in every major with a chance. That is playing some pretty impressive golf. Sure, Phil won the masters but then he just forgot how to play well for the rest of the year. Regardless I think it will be short lived. I believe Tiger is going to come back with something to prove and get back to 2001 form.

[Yukari]

What do you mean "inherit"? He didn't inherit anything. He took over #1position.

[Chas]

This is the End of the World as we know it ....... and it's about time IMO. The way this is calculated needs to be rethought. Someone playing as poorly as TW has been for a year or so should not have kept the #1 position for so long (but that's for another thread I suppose).

WELL DONE LEE (as of tomorrow)!

[iacas]

Personally, I think it's a bit silly to have a "world #1" who has never won a major, but he's played good golf and mathematically it's his.

The best player in the world is not necessarily the same thing as the guy ranked #1. There were stretches when Phil played better than Tiger in the past but Tiger had such a huge lead he couldn't overtake him. Lee's played better than Tiger in 2010, but if you include 2009 I'd say he didn't, and Tiger has a reason for his play in 2010 (which both matters and doesn't matter, depending on how you view "#1").

[enis750]

i like Westwood....consistency has earned him his spot, major or no major (but is kinda weird....)
all in all, great job to Lee
too bad we wont see him in any american events next year...maybe he will re-think this now??

[mjtoal]

A player could become number 1 if they finished second on every event they played, and never won one of them. Such are the quirks of rankings. The fact that Lee has never won a major is a reflection of the way the breaks go and the strength in depth of events that have so many possible winners. He is certainly good enough to have done so, and is a better player than Louis Oosthuizen or YE Yang.

[Kazuhiro]

But, golf is alot more than just Majors, there's 4 majors a season, yet there's what 42 PGA Tour events/43 Euro Tour events - and Westwood bee the most consistent over all of them, double over 2 years. Golf isn't just about the Majors any more, and winning a Major is not a measure of being a really good player - look at Oosthuizen, he struggles to make the cut most weeks, yet he's won a major.

Well done Lee.

[jamo]

If you think that Lee Westwood is the best player in the game of golf today, errrr.... good luck with that. I'd take a bunch of guys over him (Tiger, Phil, Stricker, Kaymer), but I guess he's "earned" it mathematically.

[mjtoal]

If you think that Lee Westwood is the best player in the game of golf today, errrr.... good luck with that. I'd take a bunch of guys over him (Tiger, Phil, Stricker, Kaymer), but I guess he's "earned" it mathematically.

Err, how many majors has Stricker won. Or even contended in?

[jamo]

Err, how many majors has Stricker won. Or even contended in?

I never said anything about majors. Lee hasn't won any either. But Stricker has won more tournaments the last two years, and that's even counting the Euro Tour which Stricker never plays on. In fact, in the last two years all of the guys that I mentioned have won more tournaments (American PGA Tour and Euro Tour) than Lee Westwood. In fact, in the Ryder Cup only Phil (among the guys I mentioned) had less points than Lee Westwood. Like I said though, Lee has earned it mathematically.

[Chas]

Let me ask some of youse guys a question. Let's suppose that Tiger continues to have seasons like that in 2010 (perish the thought, and assume also that theyyear is over and done ....). At what point would you consider that he was no longer Numero Uno? Assume also that everyone else keeps playing the way they did in 2010, up to now anyway. Who would the new #1 be then? It's a thought experiment.

Just trying to figure out what type of sunset clause you have in mind, if any.

[Tiger Spuds]

It was pointed out to me today via PM (thanks!) that David Duval and Greg Norman both got to number 1 in the World without winning Majors. I'd completely forgotten about both. I still think a non Major winner at number 1 is a bit strange. If anyone should be number 1 now, it's Kaymer. But then again, as a ranking system, the WGR is overated in importance. Even the best players in the World can go through longish periods of playing relatively badly, Tiger right now is an example. I'm sure most people would say that he remained number 1 far longer than his play suggests he should have. I think a ranking system like that just doesn't really work for Golf.

[kafka01]

Winning a major or not when becoming #1 - Norman during his career was #1 for 331 weeks (i dont know actually if this is consecutive or overall) but still it shows that these rankings have some kind of validity, or?

The same thing goes with always placing #2 in tournaments and becoming World #1 (as a theoretical example). If you are able to be so consistent, why shouldnt you be #1, compared to all the guys who maybe win once or twice a season but then fall into oblivion for the rest of the season or even for the decade... Everybody gets his shot at winning on the PGA Tour from time to time or running into a hot streak (Kenny Perry *cough*) - but that shouldnt qualify them for #1. And if Westwood won´t keep up his consistency and winning from time to time he soon was a #1.

[James_Black]

westwood is a great golfer.
He's come second in a load of majors, but hasn't been able to finish the job. Yet.

he's won 20 european tour events.
he won the european order of merit in 2000 and 2009(race to dubai).

Phil had his chances and blew them.

[kafka01]

Phil had his chances and blew them.

I agree - he had so many good chances to take over and he blew them all - big time! He is the least deserving of the bunch!

[tm22721]

This is a disaster for golf and the golfing industry. On the upside, maybe this sport will return to its roots as a pastime of gentlemen.

[Taggsy]

Why dispute the statistics? No one becomes number one due to public opinion.

Next you guys will be telling me that Nick Faldo, winner of 6 Majors, wasn't one of the greatest players of all time..... because you don't like him.