2011 BMW PGA Championship

[iacas]

Originally Posted by the19thhole

Actually they did announce this when he was #1, but anyway. Out of 15 #1's Westwood and Donald are the only 2 not to have won a major.

They might announce it that way at some tournaments. They're more likely to announce major titles. And I think the number is more than two... because I was specifically talking about players that had won a major before becoming #1.

Originally Posted by the19thhole

why should we make being #1 any less of an achievement.

I'm not trying to make it less of an achievement. I'm just suggesting that players would rather have a major title than a stint at #1.

Originally Posted by the19thhole

So if I'm correct in what you are saying then it's alright to live of the back of winning a major for the rest of your career, but not to say for xx number of weeks I was the best player in the world and if Donald or Westwood or whoever go on to be #1 for the next year for example, but don't win a major they have achieved less than some 1 hit wonder.

Golf (and tennis I suppose) is one of those sports were we put the winning of a major as the pinnacle of the sport and that is what makes the game magical, but we shouldn't put down what are 2 exceptionally good golfers because the are "another majorless #1".

I haven't put the players down. It's simply a point of trivia, as I said.

[newtogolf]

I like Donald and given I don't hit long off the tee's either I think it's great a guy that ranks towards the rear on driving distance can rank #1.  His short iron and wedge play is great to watch, he makes it look automatic everytime he swings.

The way the rankings are calculated they reward consistent play.  You can achieve #1 ranking without winning a tournament as long as you finish top 5 enough and Tiger Woods isn't playing the way he used to.  Winning a major means you went up against the best for four days under the microscope, dealt with the course, the pressures, and came out on top.

I think #1 ranking is a great accomplishment, but winning a Major puts you at a different level, a higher level.

[jamo]

I like Donald, and I'm glad he won. You could probably make a pretty good case that he has had the best 2011, so it's not a stretch to say he deserves the #1 ranking.

[the19thhole]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm not trying to make it less of an achievement. I'm just suggesting that players would rather have a major title than a stint at #1.

Totally agree with you (especially the one hit wonders) as there can be no greater a feeling than lifting the Claret Jug or pulling on the Green Jacket. I'm sure Immelman still tries his on. LOL.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I like Donald and given I don't hit long off the tee's either I think it's great a guy that ranks towards the rear on driving distance can rank #1.  His short iron and wedge play is great to watch, he makes it look automatic everytime he swings.

The way the rankings are calculated they reward consistent play.  You can achieve #1 ranking without winning a tournament as long as you finish top 5 enough and Tiger Woods isn't playing the way he used to.  Winning a major means you went up against the best for four days under the microscope, dealt with the course, the pressures, and came out on top.

I think #1 ranking is a great accomplishment, but winning a Major puts you at a different level, a higher level.

How else do you want the ranking system to work? It's already biased towards the majors and rightly so.

I'm the first to admit I don't like to see players ranking high just because they post top 5's or 10's all the time and for a long time this was Luke Donald, but he's starting to win more now as well. Paul Casey is a prime example good for top 10, but you never really think he is going to win.

Maybe winning a major for some puts you at a higher level because in actual fact you were already there and this only confirms it, but Lawrie, Campbell, Andy Who (North) and even Oosthuizen and Schwartzel, come on you can't be honest and say they are better (higher level) than Westwood and Donald just because they have won a major.

[Stretch]

Did you know, by agreement of the USGA and R&A;, all new #1s are immediately issued a flunky to help carry their brass balls around?*

(* The only case so far in which this service has been declined was when Tiger first took the ranking. Apparently his agent negotiated privately for three young ladies to perform the function instead.)

Serious bit of trivia. In the last year, Donald has 3 wins, 4 seconds and 4 thirds. He's been in the top 10 in 18 of his last 27 events.

[michaeljames92]

Yeah that's sick, smoking one big bad bangor of a cigar.

From what I hear from former tour players from the European and Australasian Tour of the past, it is a massive piss up and stories like Woods' and all those women were quite common. A reputable source told me Greg Norman apparently was a prick and used to be with different women all the time. I imagine its changed quite a bit though, with the media keeping an eye on the main guys and fitness being so important these days...

Originally Posted by Stretch

Did you know, by agreement of the USGA and R&A;, all new #1s are immediately issued a flunky to help carry their brass balls around?*

(* The only case so far in which this service has been declined was when Tiger first took the ranking. Apparently his agent negotiated privately for three young ladies to perform the function instead.)

Serious bit of trivia. In the last year, Donald has 3 wins, 4 seconds and 4 thirds. He's been in the top 10 in 18 of his last 27 events.

[RichF]

Quote:

No, not irrelevant. It's an interesting point. The majority of players who have ascended to #1 have done so after winning a major. It's an interesting bit of trivia. You'd do well to not assume what I'm trying to say, especially when it's in a little near-throwaway postscript.

I suspect that if you polled the professionals, you'd be virtually alone in choosing a stint at #1 over wining a major. Lee has said as much... I understand your point - and remember the 13 or 14 number is small largely because Tiger was #1 for so long - but I still don't think that players would rather be #1 than win a major.

Uh, the latter two - by far - if we're talking about golf. One is the Champion Golfer of the Year and one won perhaps the coolest major, has access to the Champions Locker Room for the rest of his life, can play in every major for the next 5 years, and has a green jacket. Plus the'll forever be introduced as "2010 Open Championship Winner" or "2011 Masters Champion." People don't announce "World #1 Lee Westwood" on the first tee.

David Duval had years when he didn't qualify for the Masters. Charl won't ever have to worry about that.

But we have to assume here ( or just agree to disagree ) - we havent spoken to Westwood, Donald, Kaymer or any other player about how they feel about such levels attained? We don't know, for example, what Westwood's opinion is of his current ranking outside of we read in a magazine? Has he actually gone on record saying along the lines of: "Yeah, you know, #1 is good and all...but I'd rather have a Major" ?

( if he has, then Im not aware, in which case you can completely disregard the remaionder of this post!)

We don't know what his goals are when he enters certain events or how he feels after winning or 2nd, 3rd, lower-place finishes, etc
In effect, we have to assume what Lee Westwood's mindset is and what Tiger Woods' mindset is, how they're different and the effect that it has upon their chances of winning: why Woods wins Majors and Westwood doesn't.

As for the Major or #1 ranking - Im still going for the latter: You can say that you were officially the best player in the world at a particular point in time and for a particular period in history. Another analogy is that if I were I a tennis-pro, I'd rather have Marcelo Rio's #1 spot twice in the same year than say, Richard Krajicek's one Wimbledon title.
Krajicek's achievement meant that you've trumped everyone who's ever competed in that event over 6 matches. The former makes you the best for a lengthy period of time during that year.

As far as golf goes, the official rankings have been around for almost 25 years and only 15 players have achieved the No. 1 position in all that time. To be, or to have been a No. 1 puts you in illustrious company and singles you out as one of the game's very best players.
You can't necessarily say that with a Major to your name. You may well have won in fine style, and the win may be part of an illustrious career that marks you down as one of the game's greats. Or, you may just have shot the lowest score in the field that particular week whilst achieving not a lot else of any great note in a couple of decades or more of golf.

I think, over the last 10-15 years, far too many people have jumped on Tiger Woods 'Majors-are-the-only-importance' mindset.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by RichF

But we have to assume here (or just agree to disagree) - we havent spoken to Westwood, Donald, Kaymer or any other player about how they feel about such levels attained? We don't know, for example, what Westwood's opinion is of his current ranking outside of we read in a magazine? Has he actually gone on record saying along the lines of: "Yeah, you know, #1 is good and all...but I'd rather have a Major" ?

(if he has, then Im not aware, in which case you can completely disregard the remaionder of this post!)

He's said those very things. He's also said things like "getting to #1 was a goal of mine, and so now I'd like to achieve my goal of winning a major." That paraphrased quote gives no indication as to which he values more, so I count that as slightly negating the "I want to win a major more." He wasn't seriously in contention to get to #1 while majors were still being played in 2010, so I don't know if he was asked whether he'd rather win a major or be #1 back in 2008 or 2009 or so.

Either way, I believe (and that belief is based on conversations with players and reporters) that the vast majority of players would rather win a major than have a stint at #1.

Originally Posted by RichF

As for the Major or #1 ranking - Im still going for the latter: You can say that you were officially the best player in the world at a particular point in time and for a particular period in history. Another analogy is that if I were I a tennis-pro, I'd rather have Marcelo Rio's #1 spot twice in the same year than say, Richard Krajicek's one Wimbledon title.

And again, I think you're in the minority with that. I've heard of Richard Krajicek, but I never heard of Rios. I see he hasn't won a major, either.

I know what they signify. But there's a reason Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, and other golfers say they want to peak four times a year - they value the major championships. If the #1 spot was valued so much players would chase OWGR points.

Originally Posted by RichF

As far as golf goes, the official rankings have been around for almost 25 years and only 15 players have achieved the No. 1 position in all that time. To be, or to have been a No. 1 puts you in illustrious company and singles you out as one of the game's very best players.

Only 15 players have done so because Tiger Woods and Greg Norman account for 73% of the weeks atop the list. Nicklaus would have spent about 620 weeks atop the list as well if the rankings had existed back then.

I guarantee you that Tom Lehman values his major championship victory more than his one week atop the OWGR.

Originally Posted by RichF

I think, over the last 10-15 years, far too many people have jumped on Tiger Woods 'Majors-are-the-only-importance' mindset.

It started with Nicklaus. And before that, heck, Hogan felt that way. And Bobby Jones before that. It's not a recent occurrence.

[MEfree]

Hard to argue that the list of #1s isn't more exclusive than the list of major winners since the "Official" World Golf Rankings were first published in 1986, but winning a major may be a better feeling in that it is done on the golf course in the heat of battle (although for Luke, he knew the Official #1 Ranking would come with a big head to head win with a strong field, so that had to be a pretty great feeling as well).

The fact the the OWGR has a subjective element diminishes it in my mind, especially considering that the say they are weighting the events and then computing a players "average", but in fact do not correctly compute a weighted average.  The fact that Winning a Major gives you 5 years of exempt status and $1 M+ also gives it bigger importance in the medium term than the #1 rank.

I wish I could experience either- Hats off to those that have!

OWGR #1s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Ranking

Weeks	Player	Country	Order	Majors
623	Tiger Woods	United States	9	14
331	Greg Norman	Australia	3	2
98	Nick Faldo	England	4	6
61	Seve Ballesteros	Spain	2	5
50	Ian Woosnam	Wales	5	1
44	Nick Price	Zimbabwe	7	3
32	Vijay Singh	Fiji	12	3
22	Lee Westwood	England	13	0
16	Fred Couples	United States	6	1
15	David Duval	United States	11	1
9	Ernie Els	South Africa	10	3
8	Martin Kaymer	Germany	14	1
3	Bernhard Langer	Germany	1	2
1	Tom Lehman	United States	8	1
1	Luke Donald	England	15	0

Major Winners since OWGR first published http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men%27s_major_championships_winning_golfers

14

ESP ! ESP

Ballesteros, Seve Seve Ballesteros

1979–1988

2

0

3

0

5

27

USA ! USA

Nelson, Larry Larry Nelson

1981–1987

0

1

0

2

44

USA ! USA

Crenshaw, BenBen Crenshaw

1984–1995

2

0

0

0

2

44

SCO ! SCO

Lyle, SandySandy Lyle

1985–1988

1

0

1

0

2

44

GER ! GER

Langer, BernhardBernhard Langer

1985–1993

2

0

0

0

2

77

USA ! USA

Tway, BobBob Tway

1986

0

0

0

1

1

44

AUS ! AUS

Norman, GregGreg Norman

1986–1993

0

0

2

0

2

77

USA ! USA

Mize, LarryLarry Mize

1987

1

0

0

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Simpson, ScottScott Simpson

1987

0

1

0

0

1

12

ENG ! ENG

Faldo, NickNick Faldo

1987–1996

3

0

3

0

6

77

USA ! USA

Sluman, JeffJeff Sluman

1988

0

0

0

1

1

44

USA ! USA

Strange, CurtisCurtis Strange

1988–1989

0

2

0

0

2

77

USA ! USA

Calcavecchia, MarkMark Calcavecchia

1989

0

0

1

0

1

27

USA ! USA

Stewart, PaynePayne Stewart

1989–1999

0

2

0

1

3

77

AUS ! AUS

Grady, WayneWayne Grady

1990

0

0

0

1

1

77

WAL ! WAL

Woosnam, IanIan Woosnam

1991

1

0

0

0

1

77

AUS ! AUS

Baker-Finch, IanIan Baker-Finch

1991

0

0

1

0

1

44

USA ! USA

Daly, JohnJohn Daly

1991–1995

0

0

1

1

2

77

USA ! USA

Couples, FredFred Couples

1992

1

0

0

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Kite, TomTom Kite

1992

0

1

0

0

1

27

ZIM ! ZIM

Price, NickNick Price

1992–1994

0

0

1

2

3

77

USA ! USA

Azinger, PaulPaul Azinger

1993

0

0

0

1

1

44

USA ! USA

Janzen, LeeLee Janzen

1993–1998

0

2

0

0

2

44

ESP ! ESP

Olazábal, José MaríaJosé María Olazábal

1994–1999

2

0

0

0

2

27

RSA ! RSA

Els, ErnieErnie Els

1994–2002

0

2

1

0

3

77

USA ! USA

Pavin, CoreyCorey Pavin

1995

0

1

0

0

1

77

AUS ! AUS

Elkington, SteveSteve Elkington

1995

0

0

0

1

1

77

USA ! USA

Jones, SteveSteve Jones

1996

0

1

0

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Lehman, TomTom Lehman

1996

0

0

1

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Brooks, MarkMark Brooks

1996

0

0

0

1

1

77

USA ! USA

Leonard, JustinJustin Leonard

1997

0

0

1

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Love III, DavisDavis Love III

1997

0

0

0

1

1

2

USA ! USA

Woods, TigerTiger Woods

1997–2008

4

3

3

4

14

44

USA ! USA

O'Meara, MarkMark O'Meara

1998

1

0

1

0

2

27

FJI ! FJI

Singh, VijayVijay Singh

1998–2004

1

0

0

2

3

77

SCO ! SCO

Lawrie, PaulPaul Lawrie

1999

0

0

1

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Duval, DavidDavid Duval

2001

0

0

1

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Toms, DavidDavid Toms

2001

0

0

0

1

1

44

RSA ! RSA

Goosen, RetiefRetief Goosen

2001–2004

0

2

0

0

2

77

USA ! USA

Beem, RichRich Beem

2002

0

0

0

1

1

77

CAN ! CAN

Weir, MikeMike Weir

2003

1

0

0

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Furyk, JimJim Furyk

2003

0

1

0

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Curtis, BenBen Curtis

2003

0

0

1

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Micheel, ShaunShaun Micheel

2003

0

0

0

1

1

77

USA ! USA

Hamilton, ToddTodd Hamilton

2004

0

0

1

0

1

19

USA ! USA

Mickelson, PhilPhil Mickelson

2004–2010

3

0

0

1

4

77

NZL ! NZL

Campbell, MichaelMichael Campbell

2005

0

1

0

0

1

77

AUS ! AUS

Ogilvy, GeoffGeoff Ogilvy

2006

0

1

0

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Johnson, ZachZach Johnson

2007

1

0

0

0

1

44

ARG ! ARG

Cabrera, ÁngelÁngel Cabrera

2007-2009

1

1

0

0

2

27

IRL ! IRL

Harrington, PádraigPádraig Harrington

2007–2008

0

0

2

1

3

77

RSA ! RSA

Immelman, TrevorTrevor Immelman

2008

1

0

0

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Glover, LucasLucas Glover

2009

0

1

0

0

1

77

USA ! USA

Cink, StewartStewart Cink

2009

0

0

1

0

1

77

South Korea ! KOR

Yong-eun, YangYang Yong-eun

2009

0

0

0

1

1

77

NIR ! NIR

McDowell, GraemeGraeme McDowell

2010

0

1

0

0

1

77

South Africa ! RSA

Oosthuizen, LouisLouis Oosthuizen

2010

0

0

1

0

1

77

GER ! GER

Kaymer, MartinMartin Kaymer

2010

0

0

0

1

1

77

RSA ! RSA

Schwartzel, CharlCharl Schwartzel

2011

1

0

0

0

1

 

 

Originally Posted by Acropo 

 

Well, he's the first since Lee Westwood won the Ballantine's Championship at the beginning of May this year...all of four weeks!

Lee became No. 1 when he won the Indonesian Open, IIRC.

true, my bad...I was thinking how the media was making a big deal of no #1s winning while #1 earlier in the year.

[sean_miller]

Since several (i.e. many) people were suggesting Donald was playing the best golf in 2011, regardless of who held the title, it's nice to see him taking over top spot WITH A WIN!!

[Deryck Griffith]

I agree that most players may value a major over being #1.  However, being rated as the #1 player is quite the accomplishment and something VERY cool to think about when you go to bed at night. If it was me, I would be cool to tell my grand children that I was once the best golfer in the world.  Even if it was only for only 3, 2 or even 1 week.

From what I am seeing, you can win a major if you are hot during that weekend i.e. Charzl S but becoming #1 requires a consistency over a 2 year span.  The only recent #1 that won a major was Martin Kaymer and most were discrediting his #1 position when he got it.  Now that Lee and Luke have accomplished it, the same discrediting exists... it's a lose lose scenario.

We should all take the OWGR for what it is.  The measure of an individual golfers finishes over a 2 year span.  If you win a major but don't finish consistently in the top 25 of any other tournament you play, then you don't deserve #1 status "even with that 1 major."  Conversely, if you have a colleciton of wins, a wack of top 5s and top 10s, etc, being #1 player in the world makes sense if you consistently finish on the leaderboard every tournament.

The issue with Kaymer, Lee was that they don't seem to keep the #1 status for an extended period of time.  I think that says alot about the OWGR as they are barely there.  Hopefully, Luke can keep his #1 status for sometime and he will only be able to do so if he continues to win and play well at which time, we can all agree that he is #1.

Tiger as #1 was great because he won and won all the time and stayed there because of that.  The newest #1's have do the same or the constant juggling of the #1 status will continue, which, is another sign that the OWGR make sense.

[Acropo]

"...you are hot during that weekend i.e. Charzl S..." (Deryck Griffith)

That comment indicates that you are unaware of Schwartzl's career to date (so probably living in N America). He has been a winner and regular top-tenner on the European Tour for a few years, now, gradually getting better and better. He became known for winning in the early part of the year and primarily on his home turf - S Africa. That didn't alter the fact that he is a proven winner and shouldn't be underrated.

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by Acropo

"...you are hot during that weekend i.e. Charzl S..." (Deryck Griffith)

That comment indicates that you are unaware of Schwartzl's career to date (so probably living in N America). He has been a winner and regular top-tenner on the European Tour for a few years, now, gradually getting better and better. He became known for winning in the early part of the year and primarily on his home turf - S Africa. That didn't alter the fact that he is a proven winner and shouldn't be underrated.

First thing, I do live in beautiful North America in the country of Canada and am well aware of the world.  2, I wasn't saying specifically that Schwartzl didn't win prior to the Master's or "got" lucky.  Was Charl hot that weeknd, absolutely.  Did I say he hans't won before or isn't a good player, no.  Charzl has 7 European Tour wins dating back to 2004.  2 wins in 2010 and 2 (including the masters) so far this year and I thinki 5 on the sunshine tour? .... I am well aware of his career.

My point was based on how the OWGR complies consistency of play...wins, top 3s, top 5s, top 10s etc all against strength of the field....and for that, the OWGR's needs to be taken for what it is.

That's all I meant...

[Acropo]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

First thing, I do live in beautiful North America in the country of Canada and am well aware of the world.

....

That's all I meant...

Ah, well - I know Canadians do tend to have a broader perspective. Many of my cousins are Canadian.

As for the rest - OK. Neck wound back in!

[shades9323]

Originally Posted by michaeljames92

Yeah that's sick, smoking one big bad bangor of a cigar.

From what I hear from former tour players from the European and Australasian Tour of the past, it is a massive piss up and stories like Woods' and all those women were quite common. A reputable source told me Greg Norman apparently was a prick and used to be with different women all the time. I imagine its changed quite a bit though, with the media keeping an eye on the main guys and fitness being so important these days...

I highly doubt it has changed all that much.  Look how long Tiger got away with it. Other than Woods, the media doesn't care about any other professional golfer. What does fitness have to do with sleeping around?

[shades9323]

Close call between Donald and Schwartzel, but ultimately I would rather be in Schwartzel's shoes!

Originally Posted by RichF

Come on, tell the truth - who's shoes would you rather be in right now?

Luke Donald's? Or...Louis Oosthuizen's or Charl Schwartzel's???

Oosthuizen:

Schwartzel:

Donald: