Lee Westwood - World number 1

[1par2win]

I'm not sure I understand the point of a world wide ranking system. The PGA Tour has their season money list. The European Tour has their order of merit. Not sure what the Asian tours use but I'll bet it's something similar. What exactly does a player get for being #1 in this system? Do they command larger appearance fees? Prestige? I'm not trashing the system but this seems to be such a big deal in the professional golf world but I would think being ranked at the top of your particular tour would be more important.

But then again I saw a picture of Westwood with a map of the world behind him and a globe in front and giving the number 1 sign and he looks pretty happy. Maybe that's what it's all about.

[photoballmarker]

I think it is really good for golf that Westwood became the Number 1 player in the world right at the end of the season.

1. The international players being #1 will build some excitement in the US and Europe.

2. Having a bunch of players battling for #1 will spark interest.

3. Tiger needs some short term goals to get back to being the great players we all know he is. Getting the #1 ranking back is a very good one.

4. Phil as always the bridesmaid and never the bride.

[Stretch]

I'm not sure I understand the point of a world wide ranking system. The PGA Tour has their season money list. The European Tour has their order of merit. Not sure what the Asian tours use but I'll bet it's something similar. What exactly does a player get for being #1 in this system?

He gets to negotiate a fat raise from his sponsors, who get to say their gear is being used by the best golfer in the world.*

* Yes it's an arbitrary label, but so is any weighted ranking system.

[ET-Taylor]

Here's a fact supporting the idea that Woods is - at least mathematically - STILL the world's #1:

If it was that way then Tom Watson would have been number 1 by heaps of points because he would have lots of points and a divisor of about 3 or 4

[iacas]

If it was that way then Tom Watson would have been number 1 by heaps of points because he would have lots of points and a divisor of about 3 or 4

http://www.owgr.com/players/bio.sps?...TotalPts=39.16 If you divided by six he'd still only be at 6.5-ish. Immediately after the 2009 Open? I don't know - obviously the calendar years get cut off, but it's conceivable he'd have had 30 points. But, frankly, I don't know if I'd have a problem with that. Guy plays in two majors with the regular PGA Tour players and wins one of 'em? He's pretty high up there. As we've seen, his points would drop quickly to his current 6.5-ish level. Besides, maybe the real problem is that while Nationwide Tour players earn OWGR points, Champions Tour players do not. Maybe they should, in which case Watson would be much lower on the scale (as common sense would tell you). Bear in mind Watson doing that (getting to 30) would be a statistical anomaly (despite the fact that Tiger's been nearly that high before), but that's the perfect way to describe what Watson did by nearly winning a Major Championship. So it may be the exception that proves the rule. If Tiger played four events per year and won two of them, and they happened to be majors, would he be the world #1 in your eyes even if he wasn't mathematically because his eight appearances would be divided by 40? (I think that, even mathematically, he'd be ranked #1, unless someone else also won some of the other majors AND finished really high in some of the other tournaments he played.)

[Yukari]

This is what is wrong with the "Lemmings" mentality. People put way too much importance on someone elsel's arbitrary ranking system.
I couldn't give a rats a$$ what WGR says. I think Tiger is still #1 until someone can beat him on a regular basis when Tiger's isn't having all the personal issues. He had a bad year due to what was between the ears. In my book Phil will never be #1 because he is so erratic.

All this argument about WGR's #1 is pointless. First you assume the validity of the ranking system and then you turn around and criticize the ranking system. Personally, I don't care for the ranking system. I like to think independently or who others say is #1 and make my own opinion.

Now I will get off my self-righteousness soap box.

[sean_miller]

This is what is wrong with the "Lemmings" mentality. People put way too much importance on someone elsel's arbitrary ranking system.

How is anything you just said being self-righteous?

[mjtoal]

This is what is wrong with the "Lemmings" mentality. People put way too much importance on someone elsel's arbitrary ranking system.

The problem wasn't between his ears.

[Jell0b0y]

Is Lee the best? That's to be debated but in my eye's he is the #1 player in the world due to the fact that he got their by the rules of the ranking system. Wether they are a right or not Tiger helded onto it for so long by the same mathematics.

I am not sure how long he will hold it because there are a lot of great players bunched up at the top and any of them can have a hot run and take it over. My guess s Tiger will have it back by mid next year but if Kaymer stays on his run it could be interesting. I think it will make a very interesting 2011

[Yukari]

The problem wasn't between his ears.

ROFL!!! Touche. Good one.

[bigoak]

How can you say he played better when he didn't play. If he picks the ones he wants to play in and skips others then he is not number 1 except in his own little world. Kaymer looks better to me. I cannot conceptualize how someone is always runner up in the majors is the best golfer. If you want to be number 1 then you have to win. I say that there is no one deserving of being titles number 1 until someone can establish that they are the best. In the day Wodds was clearly number 1 but apparently the Sun has set on the day. Because he was doesn't make it he is. Is is now not then. Using your logic if Woods had died in a car accident he still could be the world's best golfer.

I said nothing that warrants that kind of response.

[Valleygolfer]

How can you say he played better when he didn't play. If he picks the ones he wants to play in and skips others then he is not number 1 except in his own little world. Kaymer looks better to me. I cannot conceptualize how someone is always runner up in the majors is the best golfer. If you want to be number 1 then you have to win. I say that there is no one deserving of being titles number 1 until someone can establish that they are the best. In the day Wodds was clearly number 1 but apparently the Sun has set on the day. Because he was doesn't make it he is. Is is now not then. Using your logic if Woods had died in a car accident he still could be the world's best golfer.

He would be, he would just also be dead. He is stating that Woods compiled more points in less or comparable touraments rather than that of Westwood. Which goes back to my previous statement of only allow "x" amount of scores towards your world ranking, like taking the top 15 or so.

He didn't say it was not fair that Lee was number one. At least that is what I think he said...

[iacas]

He would be, he would just also be dead. He is stating that Woods compiled more points in less or comparable touraments rather than that of Westwood. Which goes back to my previous statement of only allow "x" amount of scores towards your world ranking, like taking the top 15 or so.

That sums it up reasonably well. I also think taking your best 20 point totals might be good, and as older events go down in value newer events with reasonably high finishes will count more, which would tip the scales a bit more to favor recent play.

How can you say he played better when he didn't play.

I didn't say that. I said Tiger played better - clearly, as the numbers bear it out - in the events in which he did play.

If he picks the ones he wants to play in and skips others then he is not number 1 except in his own little world.

And, y'know, mathematically...???

Kaymer looks better to me.

Is that in your own little world?

I cannot conceptualize how someone is always runner up in the majors is the best golfer. If you want to be number 1 then you have to win.

Not that I envisioned arguing in favor of Lee, but mathematically, no, you don't. You clearly don't have to win.

Using your logic if Woods had died in a car accident he still could be the world's best golfer.

Mathematically, yep. Woods took off the second half of 2008 and the first part of 2009 and STILL retained his spot atop the rankings. Same deal. It was just math then and it's still just math.

I'm not using any bizarre "logic" here - I'm simply pointing out that a case can be made that TW is still a better player.

[Zach Attack]

Dan Marino was considered for a long time to be the best quarterback in the NFL and is arguably one of the top 10 quarterbacks of all time, but he never won a Super Bowl. I know football is a team sport, however I do think it is a bit relevant

[iacas]

Dan Marino was considered for a long time to be the best quarterback in the NFL and is arguably one of the top 10 quarterbacks of all time, but he never won a Super Bowl. I know football is a team sport, however I do think it is a bit relevant

I don't for the reason you gave.

[Shanks A Million]

So Nicklaus should also be on the OWGR still, because nobody except Tiger is even close to his results?

No, Nicklaus isn't active. Tiger is still playing, and his accomplishments have been recent. He won his last major just 2 years ago. He won 6 tournaments last year. That's current.

[RichF]

Anyways, if you look at their respective best results in the last 2 years, Kaymer's is actually better.
Kaymer
2009: 2T, 4T, W, W, 2T
2010: W, 4, 3, W*, W, W

Westwood
2009: 3T, 2, 3T, W, W
2010: 3, 2, W, 2, 2

Westwood only takes the #1 sport mathematically because of his consistent higher-placing in the Majors: T3, T3, 2, 2 against Kaymer's T8, T6, T7, 1

[sean_miller]

Dan Marino was considered for a long time to be the best quarterback in the NFL and is arguably one of the top 10 quarterbacks of all time, but he never won a Super Bowl. I know football is a team sport, however I do think it is a bit relevant

Some of that is coaching and management's ability to put together a championship team. Is Ben Roethlisberger better than Dan Marino? Than Peyton Manning?