Lee Westwood - World number 1

[TourSpoon]

The changing of the guard is a good thing for golf. I think Westwood's reign will be shortlived, especially if Kaymer keeps up his level of play.

For the record, Nick Faldo was one of my favorite players ever and one of the best. I watched him play in Miami at the Doral. The first thing I noticed was how big he was, but had such a controlled swing.

[Stretch]

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.

Oosthuizen's results since the Open hardly support this contention: 1st, 4th, 9th, cut, cut, 4th.

[Zeph]

Like I said though, Lee has earned it mathematically.

An equation that is a result of his performance the last couple of years. You don't get the number one spot because the math happens to work out that way, you get it because you've played well.

[max power]

The reward for winning a major is exactly that-you're a major winner. I'd hazard a guess that most players would rather have a major victory (or another major victory) than be ranked #1. Regardless, it's not the only thing that determines who is playing the best golf, though winning one gives you more points than anything else. Tiger's lead over everyone because of his 2009 play has expired, it makes perfect sense. For quite a bit of time now you'd have been better off putting your money on Lee than Tiger. If/when Tiger plays better, he'll get #1 back. System works pretty well actually.

[Chas]

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.

^^^^^LOL^^^^^^

Not very bleedin' likely, if this forum is anything to go by! .. [only kidding there boss ......] Golf is a game that's far bigger than any player, or generation of players. All the great players know that, including you-know-who. You gots to respect the game, if nothing else. Personally I like to see hard graft and consistency rewarded as well as brilliance and risk-taking. There's more than one way to become Top Dog on the track.

[aidano]

The rankings were set up in the way they were for exactly this scenario - where a guy who's been playing really good consistent golf for a long time gets to the top. Which tournaments he's won has nothing to do with it.

[Shanks A Million]

Ah, doesn't mean much. Tiger will still be #1 in most people's eyes. He's earned enough slack for a long time. He's got 10 more majors than the next active player. He's got about 40 more wins. He's won 1 of every 3 events he's entered. Show me another guy who can do that, and you've got your new world #1.

[max power]

Ah, doesn't mean much. Tiger will still be #1 in most people's eyes. He's earned enough slack for a long time. He's got 10 more majors than the next active player. He's got about 40 more wins. He's won 1 of every 3 events he's entered. Show me another guy who can do that, and you've got your new world #1.

Obviously if Tiger keeps up the form that made him #1 for about 98% of his career he'll remain #1. If he doesn't then he won't. It's not a tally of your career achievements, or Tiger would have taken over #1 from Watson or Nicklaus.

[Zeph]

Ah, doesn't mean much. Tiger will still be #1 in most people's eyes. He's earned enough slack for a long time. He's got 10 more majors than the next active player. He's got about 40 more wins. He's won 1 of every 3 events he's entered. Show me another guy who can do that, and you've got your new world #1.

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

It is a list of the current best players, not a hall of fame.

[iacas]

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

Source: http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,2027666,00.html?cid=feed-tours_news--2027666#ixzz142ZPlIQJ
Woods has played only 30 tournaments in the last two years because of his knee surgery and personal turmoil. If not for the minimum divisor of 40 tournaments, his lead over Westwood in the world ranking this week would be 2.83 points instead of 0.06.

In other words, there's no way Lee passes Woods if you divide Woods' points earned per the events he actually played in. Only because Woods didn't play a lot of events (and rack up more points) like Lee did he get overtaken.

[mjtoal]

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

Too bad. The rules are the rules. Poor Tiger - "personal turmoil". If I remember correctly, he could have (and should have) come back to the game sooner and missed fewer events, except he was busy in fake rehab.

[iacas]

Too bad. The rules are the rules. Poor Tiger - "personal turmoil".

I said nothing that warrants that kind of response.

I'm simply pointing out that if your barometer is "who played better" then there's a case to be made for Tiger still as #1 - he earned several more OWGR points per event than Lee.

[mjtoal]

I said nothing that warrants that kind of response.

I understand your point, that the divisor is hurting TW's points average, which is a fair point, and I wasn't getting at you. My point, quoting the statement made, not by you, in the sentence attached to the link to the article, is that the reason for him not playing 40 events is not some external misfortune, but is down to him, and is, in any case, largely BS.

There is a reason for the minimum divisor, which is to prevent cherry picking only the best events with the highest points, thus inflating the average, or choosing only events at courses which suit a player.

[sean_miller]

I understand your point, that the divisor is hurting TW's points average, which is a fair point, and I wasn't getting at you. My point, quoting the statement made, not by you, in the sentence attached to the link to the article, is that the reason for him not playing 40 events is not some external misfortune, but is down to him, and is, in any case, largely BS.

They still do that. They play events where they feel comfortable, play well, and earn well.

[Valleygolfer]

I have no earthly idea how the #1 status is derived however I do think that there should be some limits to the points you receive from lesser star studded events or take points from a set amount of tournaments. Both times the number one was over taken, it was done by some one playing an extra ordinary amount of events as well as premier events....I swear Vijay was on TV more than the Enron coverage at that time.... I know that the pga has this set up so the players will play more events but the players also have families to be with and to have one person who is much better than the average pro go around and collect points at lesser attended tournaments to over take the number one spot defeats it's merit IMHO.

I am not quite sure how many events Lee was at but it seemed like he was everywhere..

Of course since I am not knowledgeable in the selection......I may be way off base....

[sean_miller]

Of course since I am not knowledgeable in the selection......I may be way off base....

More points per event, in more total events, would be frowned upon how?

[mjtoal]

They still do that. They play events where they feel comfortable, play well, and earn well.

Sure, I know that. That effect is what would be called a "bias" in a medical trial - an effect which serves to affect the result in a certain way. But the minimum divisor forces someone to be less selective than if it wasn't in force.

[Valleygolfer]

More points per event, in more total events, would be frowned upon how?

It isn't and is good for PGA but beating the "easier" pros and getting the same points or compiling points that way is what I am talking about.