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

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MEfree

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.

Everything you say is correct, and I agree that Westwood and Donald would not want to trade careers with the "one and done" major champions you mentioned.  I just think that winning WGC, Euro Players, money titles, 33 world-wide wins, and Dubai World Championship - along with winning every other tournament that they enter - are the goals they are shooting for, not just being #1.  Being #1 is just a nice by-product of all of the actual accomplishments.

Also, a better question to ask rather would be if you think Donald or Westwood would trade careers with Phil Mickelson if given the chance?  (Assuming their careers all ended today)

[brocks]

Also, a better question to ask rather would be if you think Donald or Westwood would trade careers with Phil Mickelson if given the chance?  (Assuming their careers all ended today)

Since Phil has four majors, 40 PGA wins, and something close to 60 million a year in endorsements, I don't think that's a better question at all. If you want to compare a short stint at #1 to winning one major, ask whether Westwood would trade with Michael Campbell. I have no idea what he would say, but I think I'd rather have Westwood's career.

[brocks]

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.

There's really no need to wait five years. Tiger first became #1 a little over 11 years after the WGR were established, and in those 11 years, there were 8 different players who were #1. I didn't bother to count, but I'm confident there were more than 8 different major winners during that time.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by brocks

Since Phil has four majors, 40 PGA wins, and something close to 60 million a year in endorsements, I don't think that's a better question at all.  If you want to compare a short stint at #1 to winning one major, ask whether Westwood would trade with Michael Campbell.

But that's not what I want to compare.  Long super successful career vs. one big win and NOTHING else?  The answer to that one seems too obvious.  The reason I want to compare Phil with Westwood is because in a simple algebraic equation, you can determine the importance of being number 1 versus winning majors.  (I like math)

40 PGA wins + tens of millions in winnings/endorsements + 4 majors  =  33 worldwide wins + tens of millions in winnings/endorsements + world #1 stint

The wins and money are close enough that they cancel each other out and you are left with majors or a time spent as #1 in the world.  I would suspect every player in the world would choose the majors (even if its only 1, not 4) every time.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by TitleistWI

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.

#1 is somewhat meaningless if the person holding it is not the consensus best player in the world who holds it for a while.  Which doesn't describe any of the  #1s since the last time Tiger held it.  It has become a statistical aberration.