Number 1

[franky21]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

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.

I really think he will get it back but as of know he doesn't deserve it which is why he doesn't have it. I really can't make a agruement on one guy cause no one really is playing consistent enough for me to put my money on them. It does make it very interesting knowing anyone can take it if they win and i to have really been watching the rankings. I never used to even look cause there was no need but i do think it is good for golf to see if Tiger can get back to his dominating ways against the new wave of young players.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

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.

I agree Sean, and that was partially my point.  The fact Tiger remained ranked at #1 for so long after he stopped playing and played poorly shows there's a flaw in the way it works.  I'm not sure the FedEx playoff is the best solution, maybe no playoffs, but there has to be a better way to reflect who's currently playing the best golf worldwide than what we have today.

[Harmonious]

To me, it's no big deal who is ranked #1 in any given week.  Just like the BCS polls, they are subjective, based on how one programs the computer.  Put the top ten ranked players into any tournament, and there is no way you could predict who would win that week. It makes for fun discussions, but doesn't really mean anything.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

To me, it's no big deal who is ranked #1 in any given week.  Just like the BCS polls, they are subjective, based on how one programs the computer.  Put the top ten ranked players into any tournament, and there is no way you could predict who would win that week. It makes for fun discussions, but doesn't really mean anything.

That goes back to the point made about Westwood, which is how a pro golfer could consider being the #1 on the OWGR more important than winning a Major.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

To me, it's no big deal who is ranked #1 in any given week.  Just like the BCS polls, they are subjective, based on how one programs the computer.  Put the top ten ranked players into any tournament, and there is no way you could predict who would win that week. It makes for fun discussions, but doesn't really mean anything.

(emphasis mine)

Be careful: the golf rankings are decidedly NOT subjective.  There is a simple, well-defined formula that quantitatively determines the rankings.  There is no subjectivity in it the way there is in the BCS poll.  Designing the ranking formula involves some subjectivity, but it's not fair to call the rankings themselves subjective.

The fact is that any ranking system you devise will depend on choices you make, there is no unique way to determine best.  How long can #1 go without winning before he loses #1 ranking?  No one can answer that in a way that will satisfy everyone under any set of events.

In fact, I think the reason people complain about the rankings is because they disagree with their own subjective conception of who is (or, more often, isn't) the best.

[BruceMGF]

Originally Posted by zeg

The fact is that any ranking system you devise will depend on choices you make, there is no unique way to determine best.  How long can #1 go without winning before he loses #1 ranking?  No one can answer that in a way that will satisfy everyone under any set of events.

In fact, I think the reason people complain about the rankings is because they disagree with their own subjective conception of who is (or, more often, isn't) the best.

Well, I started the thread, and I really don't have a name to put forth as someone who ought to be #1.  Obviously there's no clear-cut choice at the moment.

What I observe is that the ones who have held it recently have been distinctly unimpressive once they've attained it.  It's not just a matter of not winning, but not even much contending.  Or even making the cut, last week.

But getting back to actually winning:  no player then holding the #1 ranking has won a tournament in a year and a half.  That's just mind-boggling to me.  Has it ever happened in any individual sport?  Tennis?  LPGA?  Bowling?

As to what might be changed - maybe a graduated lessening of the important of results?  Results from two months ago might count 95% of the recent

month, and three months earlier a bit less?  Westwood jumped into #1 not so much because of anything he'd done but because some good results of Tiger's were two years old and fell off the rankings.  That's happened in tennis too (thought I think there it's a year).

[golf1234]

It is just not fair to compare the current number one player of the future number one player with Tiger.  It is so hard to dominate in golf and that's why Tiger is so special.  Before last year, Tiger was the heavy favor to win any tournament or major.  Now with Tiger is still trying to find his form, all of the majors are wide open and nobody is going to be the heavy favor to win.  I think Martin Kaymer is one of the best players in the world, but don't expect him to be nearly as consistent Tiger was.  I think a lot of players could replace Kaymer in the near future if they play well rest of the season.  Luke Donald is playing well, Phil could get hot any time, Tiger is playing better and could get back to number one very quickly, and McDowell is capable of beating anyone.

[allin]

You really only know who was number one after it is all over.  Since it is based on past performance at any given time the player ranked number one may not be the best player.  It is a record of past performance, not a predictor of current future performance.  This point was made earlier in the thread in a couple of different ways so I am being redundant.  Critics of the ratings focus on this deficiency as if it made the ratings  process faulty.  It just reflects the current situation where no golfer is really dominant.

[deasy55]

Westwood definitely deserves the #1 spot at the moment. 2 wins in a row

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by allin

You really only know who was number one after it is all over.  Since it is based on past performance at any given time the player ranked number one may not be the best player.  It is a record of past performance, not a predictor of current future performance.  This point was made earlier in the thread in a couple of different ways so I am being redundant.  Critics of the ratings focus on this deficiency as if it made the ratings  process faulty.  It just reflects the current situation where no golfer is really dominant.

I agree it is designed to evaluate past performance, but there is some correlation between past and future performance and the public wants the top guys to do well even if it is difficult to maintain a hot hand in golf.  Tiger's dominance for so long just shows that his B game was as good as most guys A game.  If he gets his A or B+ game back for an extended period, he will likely regain the #1 spot.  As it stands now, there are a group of guys who can get to #1 if they play their A game for a while, but look very ordinary when not on top of things.

When is it "over"?  Are you saying each week or some other period.

This may not be your point, but I don't think they make any special modifications at year end to have the rankings reflect who played best that year- the most recent 13 weeks count the most with a gradual step down each week of the 2 YEAR period.  When awarding a year end #1, I think it would make sense to only look at that years performance and get rid of the time weighting.  For the rolling rankings that they do throughout the year, the 2 year period seems to make sense to me (although arguments could be made for a shorter or longer period while still giving the most recent play more weight).

Overall, I think most of the criteria they use make a lot of sense BUT THERE IS CURRENTLY A MATHEMATICAL FLAW IN THEIR ALGORITHM THAT ENDS UP PENALIZING PLAYERS FOR HAVING PLAYED MORE THAN THEIR PEERS DURING THE OLDER PARTS OF THE TWO YEAR PERIOD EVEN IF THEY PLAYED RELATIVELY WELL.  THIS CAN AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED ASAP!

[sonicblue]

I specifically said that he did "win" it and that he did NOT "just outlast" the other guys.  We agree on that point, too. :D

Originally Posted by NEOHMark

Agree with almost all of this except the point about Schwartzel outlasting the other guys.  I give him props for closing with 4 straight birdies.  IMHO, that is a solid 'win'.