Number 1

[deasy55]

I think people don't realise that the World Rankings aren't supposed to show the best player of 'the last few months'. They show the best player over the last 2 years which IMO is a better indication of who is the best player in the world.

[Zeph]

Discussion caused by the "number one" ranking

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by deasy55

I think people don't realise that the World Rankings aren't supposed to show the best player of 'the last few months'. They show the best player over the last 2 years which IMO is a better indication of who is the best player in the world.

I'd rather see it go to an annual award.  Everyone starts at at zero beginning of season.  Use a points system where wins count substantially more than top 10, major wins count as win plus a bonus.  At the end of the season 1 golfer is awarded a #1 trophy and cash prize as that years #1 golfer in the world.

[mck]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'd rather see it go to an annual award.  Everyone starts at at zero beginning of season.  Use a points system where wins count substantially more than top 10, major wins count as win plus a bonus.  At the end of the season 1 golfer is awarded a #1 trophy and cash prize as that years #1 golfer in the world.

sounds a lot like the FedEx Cup

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by mck

sounds a lot like the FedEx Cup

It does, but my understanding is the FedEx Cup is for the PGA Tour only.  I'd like to see it be world wide.

[B-Con]

I know that wins are looked upon as the currency of greatness in golf, but the bottom line is that placing one shot back of the leader in a tournament means that you played basically as good as he did. For anyone within three strokes of the leader that averages out to less than one stroke per day poorer play for the tournament -- almost the same quality of play. Obviously the best score is the winner, but who's to say they're far better than the guy one or two strokes back? Everything in golf is about consistency, not flashes of brilliance. If someone plays a round of golf and shoots even par every hole, and someone else shoots the same but with four birdies and 4 double bogeys, who's the better player? It's all about consistency. Someone who places top 10 in five tournaments shouldn't be dismissed for for someone else who wins twice and misses three cuts. For those who claim it's "too easy" to be ranked #1, who would you prefer be #1? Someone with a couple more wins but a lot fewer top-10s and perhaps more missed cuts? It's easy to point at someone and say that they're "not good enough", but can you find someone with a more impressive record for the past two years? Without going into the specific records of the past couple #1-holders, I value consistent top 10-performances more than actual wins. Wins, especially when they're by one or two strokes, sometimes just come down to a lucky chip in or holed approach shot. Statistically they will happen every so often, that one just happened at the right time. The neighborhood of the score (eg, plus or minus a couple strokes) shot is an indication of the skill displayed, but the exact score is a little arbitrary. It shouldn't be the defining characteristic of the player's ability.

[BruceMGF]

Originally Posted by B-Con

I know that wins are looked upon as the currency of greatness in golf, but the bottom line is that placing one shot back of the leader in a tournament means that you played basically as good as he did. For anyone within three strokes of the leader that averages out to less than one stroke per day poorer play for the tournament -- almost the same quality of play. Obviously the best score is the winner, but who's to say they're far better than the guy one or two strokes back?

Everything in golf is about consistency, not flashes of brilliance. If someone plays a round of golf and shoots even par every hole, and someone else shoots the same but with four birdies and 4 double bogeys, who's the better player? It's all about consistency. Someone who places top 10 in five tournaments shouldn't be dismissed for for someone else who wins twice and misses three cuts.

For those who claim it's "too easy" to be ranked #1, who would you prefer be #1? Someone with a couple more wins but a lot fewer top-10s and perhaps more missed cuts? It's easy to point at someone and say that they're "not good enough", but can you find someone with a more impressive record for the past two years?

Without going into the specific records of the past couple #1-holders, I value consistent top 10-performances more than actual wins. Wins, especially when they're by one or two strokes, sometimes just come down to a lucky chip in or holed approach shot. Statistically they will happen every so often, that one just happened at the right time. The neighborhood of the score (eg, plus or minus a couple strokes) shot is an indication of the skill displayed, but the exact score is a little arbitrary. It shouldn't be the defining characteristic of the player's ability.

The fact remains there are (a few) players who win a lot and some (many more) who don't.  Sure you can play well and not win.  Jack Nicklaus not only won more majors than anyone, he had more seconds than anyone.  And thirds too (I think).  Probably the same guy every time.

But, as I pointed out, not just Westwood and Kaymer, but Tiger himself hasn't won since late 2009.  No number one (at the time) player has won any tournament in about a year and a half.  What the heck?  That's just weird.

I'm not sure what these rankings are even supposed to mean.  In tennis they're used for seeding, but match-play events in golf are rare and don't tend to follow form nearly as well as tennis (which isn't as form-following as it used to be).

It apparently (now) doesn't mean that the number one guy is even reasonably expected to be a factor in the current week's tournament.    Miss the cut in a  major by five strokes?  A minor storyline now - Jack and Arnie's ceremonial drives mean more, apparently.

It didn't used to be this way - even without talking about Tiger.  Vijay won three tournaments in his 30-some weeks as number one - and still lost it back (to Tiger or Els, I forget now).  In the Faldo-Norman controversy in 1989-1990 Faldo won 10 tournaments and Norman 14 - but Faldo won three majors and Norman was #1, so the argument went that the point system was wrong.  But it wasn't an argument about top 10s.   You just expected one or both of these guys to be a factor every tournament.  If they weren't, it was news.  Not just "oh well, Augusta doesn't suit Kaymer."

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by B-Con

I know that wins are looked upon as the currency of greatness in golf, but the bottom line is that placing one shot back of the leader in a tournament means that you played basically as good as he did. For anyone within three strokes of the leader that averages out to less than one stroke per day poorer play for the tournament -- almost the same quality of play. Obviously the best score is the winner, but who's to say they're far better than the guy one or two strokes back?

Everything in golf is about consistency, not flashes of brilliance. If someone plays a round of golf and shoots even par every hole, and someone else shoots the same but with four birdies and 4 double bogeys, who's the better player? It's all about consistency. Someone who places top 10 in five tournaments shouldn't be dismissed for for someone else who wins twice and misses three cuts.

For those who claim it's "too easy" to be ranked #1, who would you prefer be #1? Someone with a couple more wins but a lot fewer top-10s and perhaps more missed cuts? It's easy to point at someone and say that they're "not good enough", but can you find someone with a more impressive record for the past two years?

Without going into the specific records of the past couple #1-holders, I value consistent top 10-performances more than actual wins. Wins, especially when they're by one or two strokes, sometimes just come down to a lucky chip in or holed approach shot. Statistically they will happen every so often, that one just happened at the right time. The neighborhood of the score (eg, plus or minus a couple strokes) shot is an indication of the skill displayed, but the exact score is a little arbitrary. It shouldn't be the defining characteristic of the player's ability.

In your example it's easy. The guy with 18 pars is better (by 4 strokes) than the guy with 10 pars, 4 birdies, and 4 double bogeys.

[allin]

It seems that many of the individual sports have this same criticisim.  Not only tennis as mentioned, but skiing,  track and field, auto racing, any sport that gives credit for anything but wins faces this issue.  The only way to avoid it is to give credit for wins only.  In the example earlier in the thread, the example of a golfer finishing second repeatdly with a higher rating that a golfer who wins tournament is possible, but as long as winnig is weighted properly it should be exceedingly difficult.  As far as the original issue who is number one, I would not be suprised if it fluctuates quite a bit for a long time.  In the period between Greg Norman and Tiger  there were several different number one golfers I believe.  Given the number of talented young players staying number one for more than a couple years will be difficult.  Eventually someone will separate themselves for a longer run, but it would not suprise me it there is a 5-8 year period of short term number one rated golfe fo

[B-Con]

In your example it's easy. The guy with 18 pars is better (by 4 strokes) than the guy with 10 pars, 4 birdies, and 4 double bogeys.

Congratulations! You can either keep your current winnings or risk it all for what's behind curtain number 2. ;-)

[zeg]

Originally Posted by B-Con

For those who claim it's "too easy" to be ranked #1, who would you prefer be #1? Someone with a couple more wins but a lot fewer top-10s and perhaps more missed cuts? It's easy to point at someone and say that they're "not good enough", but can you find someone with a more impressive record for the past two years?

This is the key.  Somebody has to be #1, so if you say there's a problem with the ranking, then you have to provide a better solution, or at least a concrete example of who should be ranked higher.

If the guys who are #1 don't win, they won't keep it for long.  Being #1 means that you've had the best record (according to some weighting of results) in the past couple years.  As they say, "past performance is no guarantee of future results."  Can you point to someone who is winning consistently enough that we could put him in the #1 slot and then feel better about the rankings?

I think the problem right now isn't the metric, it's the golfers.  Partly it's that no one is dominating the way we grew accustomed to with Tiger, so it's harder to define an unambiguous #1.  Partly, it's that we're seeing a lot of new names as the new generation of golfers is ascending, and these guys haven't shaken out who is going to win consistently and who is going to be a footnote.  That means that you don't get the satistfaction of a familiar name being #1, leading to a bit of a knee-jerk "who is this guy and why is he #1" syndrome.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by zeg

I think the problem right now isn't the metric, it's the golfers.  Partly it's that no one is dominating the way we grew accustomed to with Tiger, so it's harder to define an unambiguous #1.  Partly, it's that we're seeing a lot of new names as the new generation of golfers is ascending, and these guys haven't shaken out who is going to win consistently and who is going to be a footnote.  That means that you don't get the satistfaction of a familiar name being #1, leading to a bit of a knee-jerk "who is this guy and why is he #1" syndrome.

Golf has a beginning of season, and end of season, IMO the rankings should be seasonal as well.  While Tiger is an extreme case, the fact he held onto #1 long after he stopped placing in the Top 10 is to me a problem.  The ranking system currently just continues week after week, year after year and isn't used within tournament structures so it makes it almost meaningless to be ranked #1.  I like how the FedEx Cup works, but would like to see it expanded world wide and have a playoff or award at the end of season.  The following season everyone starts at zero and competes again for the title of worlds best golfer.  I think it would mean more to everyone including the golfers.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Golf has a beginning of season, and end of season, IMO the rankings should be seasonal as well.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would a guy who has a couple of top ten finishes in January be ranked ahead of a guy who could literally win every tournament the year before?

[zeg]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Golf has a beginning of season, and end of season, IMO the rankings should be seasonal as well.  While Tiger is an extreme case, the fact he held onto #1 long after he stopped placing in the Top 10 is to me a problem.  The ranking system currently just continues week after week, year after year and isn't used within tournament structures so it makes it almost meaningless to be ranked #1.  I like how the FedEx Cup works, but would like to see it expanded world wide and have a playoff or award at the end of season.  The following season everyone starts at zero and competes again for the title of worlds best golfer.  I think it would mean more to everyone including the golfers.

Maybe expanding the FedEx cup to the world would be interesting, but it's a very different thing from the OWGR.  The FedEx standings are worthless until near the end of the season, there's virtually no reason to even pay attention to them during the first half of the season.  They say very little more than list who has won a tournament.

The OWGR, on the other hand, are a pretty good (imo) attempt to tell you who has been playing the best over reasonably recent golf.  Sure, Tiger held it long after he stopped winning, but I think it's fair to say that it took a lot of that time before anyone stopped being surprised that he didn't win.  It's rare for someone to be so dominant for so long, and for most of those two years, I think it's fair to say he was a favorite to win any tournament he entered, even after he hadn't won for quite a while.  That's part of why his "downfall" was so shocking.

So sure, you can shorten the memory of the rankings, but I'm not convinced that's a good thing.  I really don't think resetting them arbitrarily improves them, although like you suggest, a season-long "tournament" for the whole world might be interesting in its own right.  But, IMO, if you're going to do that, you have to expand the FedEx Cup, there's not room for two copies of it.

[f5joe]

Regarding Phil:

I really believe his arthritis is affecting much more than we'll ever know.  As an older guy, I can attest to this.  I wish him much success, regardless.

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Discussion caused by the "number one" ranking

There is an end of season ranking. The OWGR posts the top 10 at the end of the calendar year (see Zeph's link in post #20, in case someone reponds to this multiquote debacle and the quotes).

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Golf has a beginning of season, and end of season, IMO the rankings should be seasonal as well.  While Tiger is an extreme case, the fact he held onto #1 long after he stopped placing in the Top 10 is to me a problem.  The ranking system currently just continues week after week, year after year and isn't used within tournament structures so it makes it almost meaningless to be ranked #1.  I like how the FedEx Cup works, but would like to see it expanded world wide and have a playoff or award at the end of season.  The following season everyone starts at zero and competes again for the title of worlds best golfer.  I think it would mean more to everyone including the golfers.

The FedEx cup is a very poor way to determine who the best golfer is. It's a great way to determine who finished well in 3 consecutive tournaments (on courses that may or may not "fit the eye" of all the top players), then who went on to either win or finish high in the fourth event.  If a playoff event like this is to be used to determine the best player, they FedEx could/should be used as just one measuring stick. There are a lot of factors to consider when determining who is "the best player" when there are simultaneous events where not all the top players are entered. Sure it's better to win a second tier even than finishing second or third in that event, but a few top 3s in the full field events is considered better than one win in a second tier event and a bunch of missed cuts in the better events. Just fodder for discussion.

Quote:

That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would a guy who has a couple of top ten finishes in January be ranked ahead of a guy who could literally win every tournament the year before?

The end of year OWGR is posted (see Zeph's link to Wikipedia), but since they don't start everyone at zero, just giving someone a little medal and some ink for being ranked #1 at the end of the season seems appropriate. Tiger would have a nice collection.

Quote:

Regarding Phil:

I really believe his arthritis is affecting much more than we'll ever know.  As an older guy, I can attest to this.  I wish him much success, regardless.

Take a look at the top 10 year end rankings since 1996. There was one year in the past 15 where Phil was not ranked in the top 10. We can all agree that Tiger was the best player for much of the time period, but for all the new golf fans may wonder why the networks are so obsessed with Phil lately, they need to realize how good he's been for so long. Playing in Tiger's shadow can't be easy, but Phil keeps chugging along. Hopefully getting treatment for his arthritis flattens out his highs and lows. Old Bob Murhphy was able to win some Champions Tour events once he got his in check.

[franky21]

I really don't see any of these guys being number one.Westwood got it while nursing an injury and Tiger being out of golf. Kaymer won a major but other then that he is doing 30 on a 55 mph road. Phil is just hear and there. I really think it is Tiger's to loose. He hasn't won in a bit but he redid his entire swing including release points in his chipping and putting. He is now looking confident and swinging good. So what i am trying to say that Tiger will for sure get it back because none of these guys can win on a regular basis to keep Tiger out of reaching distance. Let's face it do rank in the top five all you have to do is place well. Graeme was never in any of our minds he won a major and the chevron and he is now 6th in the world.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by franky21

I really don't see any of these guys being number one.Westwood got it while nursing an injury and Tiger being out of golf. Kaymer won a major but other then that he is doing 30 on a 55 mph road. Phil is just hear and there. I really think it is Tiger's to loose. He hasn't won in a bit but he redid his entire swing including release points in his chipping and putting. He is now looking confident and swinging good. So what i am trying to say that Tiger will for sure get it back because none of these guys can win on a regular basis to keep Tiger out of reaching distance. Let's face it do rank in the top five all you have to do is place well. Graeme was never in any of our minds he won a major and the chevron and he is now 6th in the world.

I think the one thing all the "current #1 in the OWGR" doubters can agree on is that based on his play in the past 18 months, Tiger Woods certainly does not deserve to be ranked #1. Who does? That's the interesting part, isn't it? By the US Open it may be Tiger, and then again Tiger might not even be in the top 10 by then. It has me watching the rankings, and I sure couldn't say that for the past dozen or so years.