World's #1: what's the payoff?

[joekelly]

No doubt #1 is great prestige, bragging rights,  maybe even better endorsements (my hotel better than your hotel), etc. Of course the knowledge that your name will go down in history as the world's best golfer, for your time, must be incredibly satisfying.  Only Vande Velde goes down in history as best  #2.  But are there other benefits to #1? Like a cash payment each week for being on top, or gift prizes by various sponsors,  eg.long weekends at famous spa/hotel resort, etc. When the big male lion gets to the top of the heap,  he gets all the girl lions over to his camp, so maybe that is the payout: your genes spread wide.  Hmm? How would that work?

If you have real knowledge to share, that's good. But rank speculation also fine.

[brocks]

Rank speculation, but most endorsements for golfers at that level probably have performance incentives. And it would certainly attract new endorsements. But I think by far the biggest reward is knowing you've done it. There have been several dozen major winners since 1986, but only 16 World number ones. It's apparently part of the code to say it's not important, but they are lying. I imagine it would be like climbing Mt. Everest for a mountain climber --- there may be more technically difficult climbs, but you impress more people with Everest. Somebody asked Nick Faldo (who was #1 for almost two years) about it a year or two ago, and since he was no longer competing, he could afford to be honest. He said that, like everybody else, he told the press that it wasn't that important to him, but in fact he was consumed by achieving #1, to the point that he would tailor his schedule according to the best chances for the most points. And on another occasion, he told about the time his young son was writing a paper for school, and was supposed to say something about his parents, so he asked Nick what he had done that was special. Faldo was a six-time major winner, but for whatever reason, he said he had been #1 in the world for a couple years. His son said, "You mean the wide world?" and Nick said yes, and his son was more impressed than he had ever seen him. He choked up while telling the story.

[LuciusWooding]

If you don't have a desperate need to be #1, you aren't on tour. If there's anyone out there who's talented enough to ever reach #1 but is coasting and just in it for the money, I feel sorry for them. And no player ever got bumped out of #1 and then simply tipped their cap and bowed out. They always take the rank seriously, or they wouldn't be playing professionally. Most golfers would probably rather win a major than spend time at #1 if they had to choose; the ranking system setup itself isn't that meaningful but the #1 spot and what it represents is an important goal. Being #1 convincingly is a big deal. Money is too easy to come by for tour pros; some will be motivated strongly by it but most don't consider it that important vs. winning.

If every player didn't desire to be the best in the world, there wouldn't be any point in the competition.

[k-troop]

I'm sure it means a whole heckuvalot to Nike.  I'll bet they have an entire line just ready to roll out when Tiger makes it to #1 again.

[newtogolf]

Being #1 is at the very least a personal accomplishment I'd think most pro's would set as a goal to achieve.  I view it in similar scope to #1 HR hitter in baseball, #1 QB in US football.  It doesn't mean they are the best ever, but at that moment in time, the statistics place them as the top player in their sport.  I'm sure it helps their endorsement deals as the equipment suppliers get to say their equipment is used by #1 golfer in world for however long they last at the top.

[brocks]

Most golfers would probably rather win a major than spend time at #1 if they had to choose;

I wonder if that's true. It's certainly true for players who have already been #1, like Luke Donald or Lee Westwood. Another stint at #1 wouldn't be nearly as important to them as winning a major. And I'm sure Tiger would gladly sign an agreement that he would miss every cut, except for winning five majors, in the next ten years. But for somebody who has multiple majors, like Phil, and hasn't been #1, I'm inclined to believe he would rather be #1 for a while than win a fifth major. There's not a hell of a lot of difference in the prestige of winning five majors rather than four, unless the fifth completes a career slam, or is the one you always wanted, e.g. the Masters for a native Georgian, or the British Open for a Brit. None of that would apply to Phil. What would apply is that he's been a winner on the PGA tour for over 20 years, and he's never been #1 in anything that takes more than four days to do --- not only has he not been #1 in the WGR, he's never won a money title, or a Vardon Trophy, or a FedEx Cup, or a Player of the Year. I realize that Tiger made it hard to do, but still, several other players have done it in the Tiger era, so it's a big gap in his resume that he hasn't won any of those awards, and the likes of Lehman, Haas, and Furyk have. I think it would give him much more satisfaction to win enough non-majors in a year to become World #1, than to be hot for a week and win one more major. For a guy who's won neither, it's a tough call. A major gives you instant credibility, and being #1 without a major doesn't have the same short-term punch, but that's mostly because of the hype. I think it's very difficult to argue that it's easier to become #1 than to win a major, since someone completely out of the blue, like a Ben Curtis, can have a hot week and win a major, while becoming #1 takes sustained excellence. And instant credibility is not permanent credibility. A major win is fantastic, but if you don't back it up, you're a Rich Beem or a Michael Campbell, i.e. a fluke. I've never heard anybody say that Luke Donald getting to #1 was a fluke, because he did it over a period of time, not in four days. And when you consider guys like David Duval, it seems to me that he's referred to more often as a former #1, than as a major winner. Even multiple major winners, like John Daly and Andy North, seemed destined to have a lower spot on the all-time list than some guys without majors, because they didn't do much else. So I guess it depends on the person, and his circumstances.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by brocks

And instant credibility is not permanent credibility. A major win is fantastic, but if you don't back it up, you're a Rich Beem or a Michael Campbell, i.e. a fluke. I've never heard anybody say that Luke Donald getting to #1 was a fluke, because he did it over a period of time, not in four days. And when you consider guys like David Duval, it seems to me that he's referred to more often as a former #1, than as a major winner. Even multiple major winners, like John Daly and Andy North, seemed destined to have a lower spot on the all-time list than some guys without majors, because they didn't do much else.

So I guess it depends on the person, and his circumstances.

Yeah, I feel so bad for those poor guys who can't do anything except win majors...

The way I see it, winning a major is something that can't be taken away from you. You stand over the final putt and have the pressure to win it, fluke or not. You still played straight up against the best players in the world and beat them that week. Being world #1 is governed by an arcane system and it's not like that. You can become world #1 by coming in 3rd if the #1 comes in 6th. So even though you got beaten by 2 guys you're the best? Or there's the players who avoid playing in certain events so they don't lose position in the rankings; or they could get beaten badly and still be enough ahead to retain #1. Being #1 should be your goal, but most players wouldn't settle for the criteria the OWGR use to define it. They want to be the best in the world by their own criteria. They also want to beat their peers in the big moments; Norman will be forever remembered for being owned by seemingly lesser players in majors. He was a great player and spent 331 weeks at #1. But he only had 2 majors. Think he's a bit bitter about that, or is he happy being ranked #1 for a while?

In football, you'd rather win the superbowl than go 18-1 like the Pats in '07. You can't say the Pats weren't a phenomenal team while the Giants had trouble in the regular season, but in the big game the Giants won. So who had all the glory?

[uttexas]

The way OWGR determines #1 seems artificial. Tiger had amassed so many OWGR points that he held the #1 spot until November 2010. Tiger 2010 zero wins, zero top 3 finishes, ranked #68 on tour money list; but remained #1 OWGR until November. Most recently: This weekend, Luke Donald loses the #1 spot (makes the cut at the Heritage finishing T37) while Rory stays on vacation and "earns" the #1 OWGR postition. Personally, if I had to choose one: I'd go British Open win>US Open>Masters>PGA Championship>Dubai World Tour Championship>the Players>money list #1>Vardon Trophy (Jack, due to # rounds played, never won it) > OWGR#1>WGC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mayakoba Golf Cassic

[MEfree]

I know that Luke Donald certainly celebrated when he became #1.  As others have mentioned, there have been fewer #1 than major winners and no "one shot wonders" among the World #1s.  For non-golf fans, I imagine that it is easier to understand the excellence of someone who is or has been #1 as opposed to them being announced as a winner of the PGA (or some other tourny a non-golf fan has never heard of).

Originally Posted by uttexas

The way OWGR determines #1 seems artificial. Tiger had amassed so many OWGR points that he held the #1 spot until November 2010. Tiger 2010 zero wins, zero top 3 finishes, ranked #68 on tour money list; but remained #1 OWGR until November.

Most recently: This weekend, Luke Donald loses the #1 spot (makes the cut at the Heritage finishing T37) while Rory stays on vacation and "earns" the #1 OWGR postition.

Personally, if I had to choose one: I'd go British Open win>US Open>Masters>PGA Championship>Dubai World Tour Championship>the Players>money list #1>Vardon Trophy (Jack, due to # rounds played, never won it) > OWGR#1>WGC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mayakoba Golf Cassic

the OWGR are based on 2 years, so it is certainly possible that the current rankings (and current #1) does not reflect who is actually playing the best at the moment.  Heck, it could be argued that Carl Peterson has been the best golfer the last 3 weeks (solo 2nd week before the Masters and a win the week after, but no Masters invite as he was outside the top 50 at the time...now #35), but nobody is going to say he is the current #1.  The OWGR is not perfect (and suffers from a mathematical error IMO), but overall it does a pretty good job of identifying who the best players are.

My guess is that with the $10 M first prize, many players who put the Fed Ex Cup up there on that list.

[newtogolf]

Part of the reason there are fewer #1's is because Tiger held it for so long.  We'll see over the next five year period if it remains a fairly exclusive club or if the #1 rotates between whoever is in the top 10 depending on how they finish.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I know that Luke Donald certainly celebrated when he became #1.  As others have mentioned, there have been fewer #1 than major winners and no "one shot wonders" among the World #1s.  For non-golf fans, I imagine that it is easier to understand the excellence of someone who is or has been #1 as opposed to them being announced as a winner of the PGA (or some other tourny a non-golf fan has never heard of).

the OWGR are based on 2 years, so it is certainly possible that the current rankings (and current #1) does not reflect who is actually playing the best at the moment.  Heck, it could be argued that Carl Peterson has been the best golfer the last 3 weeks (solo 2nd week before the Masters and a win the week after, but no Masters invite as he was outside the top 50 at the time...now #35), but nobody is going to say he is the current #1.  The OWGR is not perfect (and suffers from a mathematical error IMO), but overall it does a pretty good job of identifying who the best players are.

My guess is that with the $10 M first prize, many players who put the Fed Ex Cup up there on that list.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Part of the reason there are fewer #1's is because Tiger held it for so long.  We'll see over the next five year period if it remains a fairly exclusive club or if the #1 rotates between whoever is in the top 10 depending on how they finish.

I think that is a good point...there were certainly more #2s during Tiger`s reign, but without reviewing the list, I suspect they were all really good players who have had solid careers (or at least multi-year periods of high finishes).  Conversely, some major winners have not had all that impressive careers.

Just looked at the year end rankings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Ranking#Year_end_world_top_10_players_and_ranking_point_tallies and I would say that the "weakest" non-major winner in the top 5 for the last 25 years might be Sergio or Adam Scott, both well ahead of Sean Micheel, Rich Beem or MIchael Cambell on my all time list.

Not sure if this was already mentioned, but I would guess that the appearance fee (allowed at some non-PGA tournaments and off course clinics, etc.) would go up with a higher ranking.  In terms of OWGR strength of field calculations (which I think could be improved), a #1 is worth the same as #5 + #6 and is worth 45 guys between 100-200.

[Golfingdad]

I don't really think that being #1 is any pro's primary goal, no matter what they say.  It's a secondary goal for them.  I think most of them would set their goals something like below WITHOUT World #1 (in whatever order they choose):

Originally Posted by uttexas

Personally, if I had to choose one: I'd go British Open win>US Open>Masters>PGA Championship>Dubai World Tour Championship>the Players>money list #1>Vardon Trophy (Jack, due to # rounds played, never won it) > OWGR#1>WGC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mayakoba Golf Cassic

You accomplish those primary goals, majors, money title, Fedex Cup, etc, and the World #1 will probably follow.

I do agree, however, with the poster above who suggested that guys like Phil Mickelson might have it more as a Primary goal now that several of his other goals (I imagine) have already been accomplished.  But, by and large,  I think most pros' goals are like uttexas suggests.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't really think that being #1 is any pro's primary goal, no matter what they say.  It's a secondary goal for them.  I think most of them would set their goals something like below WITHOUT World #1 (in whatever order they choose):

You accomplish those primary goals, majors, money title, Fedex Cup, etc, and the World #1 will probably follow.

I do agree, however, with the poster above who suggested that guys like Phil Mickelson might have it more as a Primary goal now that several of his other goals (I imagine) have already been accomplished.  But, by and large,  I think most pros' goals are like uttexas suggests.

My guess is that it is only the elite players who have the primary goal of winning a major, money title, #1, etc.  I imagine that more PGA pros have their primary goal of winning 1 event per year, ___# of top 10s or securing their spot in the top 125 than winning a major.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MEfree

My guess is that it is only the elite players who have the primary goal of winning a major, money title, #1, etc.  I imagine that more PGA pros have their primary goal of winning 1 event per year, ___# of top 10s or securing their spot in the top 125 than winning a major.

Yes, I would imagine that is true too.  If I made the tour, my first goal certainly wouldn't be to win the grand slam and world #1 right away, that would be a tad unrealistic.  I would set incremental goals; make a cut, top 25, top 10, win a tournament, win multiple tournaments, win a major, win $xxxxxxxx, win more majors, etc, etc.

World #1, to me, is something more like being ranked #1 in college football or basketball.  It's nice, but if you don't win that last game of the season, then who really cares?

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

World #1, to me, is something more like being ranked #1 in college football or basketball.  It's nice, but if you don't win that last game of the season, then who really cares?

but what is the "last" game/event?

[GaijinGolfer]

Just knowing that youre the best golfer in the world at that given time should be all the payoff that is neccesary.  That lack of respect and attention that Luke Donald has gotten might make you question really how important being world #1 is though.

Bubba Watson has gotten much more respect and attention for winning The Masters than Donald ever got for being world #1.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MEfree

but what is the "last" game/event?

It's true that golf doesn't have one "Super bowl" type event.  But there are a lot that are close, 4 Majors, Players, WGC's, Fedex Cup, Road to Dubai, whatever.  But they are all accomplishments that come with a trophy and money, whereas the ranking is just a ranking.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

It's true that golf doesn't have one "Super bowl" type event.  But there are a lot that are close, 4 Majors, Players, WGC's, Fedex Cup, Road to Dubai, whatever.  But they are all accomplishments that come with a trophy and money, whereas the ranking is just a ranking.

Agreed, but virtually all #1s have done well in (and won) some of the events that you have mentioned, but many players have won those events and not been close to #1.

Lee Westwood and Luke Donald are the only #1s to have never won majors.  Donald won the WGC Match Play and Euro Players last year as well as the Race to Dubai/Order of Merit (and both $ titles).  He was also the best performer in the Fed Ex Cup Playoffs for all 4 events.  Westwood has 33 world-wide victories including the 2010 Dubai World Championship.  While it is theoretically possible for a player to get to #1 without winning anything, this has never been the case.  While both of those guys have to want to win a major really badly, I doubt either of them would trade careers with Rich Beem, Shawn Micheel, Michael Cambell, Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton, Steve Jones, etc.