Date Set For Westwood's Takeover Of No. 1 Spot Giving Further Credence To Fears World Ranking Is A Farce

...I mean, in need of tweaking!

From SI/golf.com's always fun weekly roundtable, especially when they sit inside watching golf telecasts so I don't have to:

Alan Shipnuck, senior writer, Sports Illustrated: Huge day of golf, here, there and everywhere. Let's start over there: According to the computer nerds at the Official World Golf Rankings, Lee Westwood is going to usurp Tiger Woods as No.1 on Oct. 31. But I'm not sure Westwood is even the best European right now. That would be Martin Kaymer, who today won the Dunhill Links, his third-straight victory dating to the PGA Championship. Who do ya like, Kaymer or Westy?

Jim Herre, managing editor, SI Golf Group: Kaymer, by a mile. He was a rock while winning the PGA Championship and again at the Ryder Cup. So solid over so many big putts-impressive.

Gary Van Sickle, senior writer, Sports Illustrated: It's funny that Kaymer was a load at the Ryder Cup, then turns around and wins-a major and three other wins. That said, I think Westwood beats him to No. 1. One question nobody has asked is: How far is Tiger going to fall down in the rankings eventually? Third? Fifth? Top 15? I don't know.

Shipnuck: I love Westwood's game, but at the majors he's never been able to make the key putt. Kaymer has already proven he can do it. That's a monumental difference.

Damon Hack, senior writer, Sports Illustrated: Give me the man with the major and the winning streak. It's gotta be Kaymer, with Westwood right behind.

Comments

[Samuel B.]

Waiting for #1.

[lloydcole]

Shipnuck: I love Westwood's game, but at the majors he's never been able to make the key putt. Kaymer has already proven he can do it. That's a monumental difference.

This is the correct logic, I think. And why the rankings could always (not will always) be wrong. See Norman vs Faldo. Is Westwood our new Norman? I do hope he doesn't believe he's number 1 if they give it to him...

[Hawkeye]

Since the Great White Cod won two majors, Westwood can't be the new Norman.

[Hawkeye]

By the way, if Kaymer plays and wins the next two weeks also, won't that be enough to reach #1? Maybe some math wiz can calculate that.

Another thing on the supposed flaws of the World Rankings: People have always found them during periods of transition and when the current #1 was going through a dry spell. I´n early ´91 the struggling Faldo and the hot Woosnam traded the top spot for something like three consecutive weeks, in ´97 it was absurd that a fading Norman was still #1 despite Woods´ breakthrough and it was similar in ´04 when Woods couldn't hit the planet and Singh was winning everything. Over the 25 years it's been official, though, I think the rankings have been able to identify the best player in the game about 95% of the time.

[john]

The current OWGR still lists TW as number 1 and claims it is based upon 40 events. Can anyone list exactly what 40 events TW has played since Oct '08?

[Tim in Hoylake]

40 events is the minimum divisor against the points earned. If you make it 44 events (over 2 years - not a lot really), and Tiger would have been at #3 most of the year. Ironic, that as Lee plays less, his ranking goes up. Rankings based on average points per appearance is the wrong approach.

[John R]

When David Duval became no. 1, he was asked how it felt. He said all he did was go fishing on the week he ascended to no. 1 so it didn't seem like much of an accomplishment.

Maybe both long term and short term rankings are needed. Even as golf fan the whole thing is irrelevant to me.

John

[Jim]

I find Van Sickle's observation that Kaymer didn't play well (choked?) at the Ryder Cup very important. To me that is a knock againt the guy. I like Kaymer a lot and he played extremely well at the PGA and finished it (Like Westwood has not yet). The KLM and the Dunhill fields are not exactly strong though so I discount his wins a bit (though they are played on very good to great courses). Right now it seems to me that Kaymer and Westwood are the best players in the world, which one is number 1? Tough call. If Kaymer would have played the Ryder Cup better I would say Kaymer........................ As I think about it more I will go with Kaymer but I wish he would have shown it at the Ryder Cup, his performance there says that maybe he is not as strong at the moment as I believe (mentally strong).

[Ron]

So play in Ryder Cup is important in picking number 1. Pray tell how Eldrick has remained number 1 given his ryder cup record which is very mediocre.

[Wisconsin Reader]

Come on you guys . . . Be more patient . . . By next June . . . After he has won both the Masters and the National Open . . . He will be firmly established at the top where he will remain for years to come . . . Rickie - Rickie - Rickie. . . USA -USA - USA . . . PUMA - PUMA - PUMA . . . Then, in 2015 . . . The Uihlein era will begin in earnest.

[Tighthead]

I think saying he was "a load" is a good thing - Kaymer was 2-1-1 but got smacked in singles

[Psycho]

I think Kaymer may only play once between now and D-Day but that if he wins he will become No 1. Unless, of course, Eldrick changes his plans and plays and wins between now and then as well.

[Jim]

My view on the Ryder Cup performance goes to ability to play additional formats and mental toughness. I think it is a factor along with the weekly events. To be number 1 means the best which should include being the best in all formats and being mentally tough. There is no doubnt Tiger is mentally tough though his Ryder Cup record to your point is a total disaapointment (at least the Team, singles he has done well). I am probably overweighting the Ryder Cup performance too much. When I think of Monty he is elevated in my opinion because of his Ryder Cup performance as it is a pressure that unlike any other it seems. I thought the play of Kaymer at the Ryder Cup was not up to his abilities and there was a reason for it (pressure maybe?). Westwood on the other hand played fairly well in spite of being out of competition for a rather extended period. They are both great players no doubt and I enjoy watching them play. Westwood will break through imo.

[digsouth]

Good , funny commentary this week.

On OGWR: I said they need tweaking: upon further review , they need to be dumped, and a current year only system initiated. Kaymer is clearly the best player at this time.

On Kerr: amazing putter when she gets it going. With that, I find the LPGA number 1 position to be compelling: the PGAT to be ridiculous.

The culling of players into events based upon the current system is silly. The design of the PGAT is like BMI or ASCAP: you have a hit record,and you skin off all the others who ger airplay: you get in bigger money events, you make more money for mediocre performance that week. It is easy to see why there is a group of players who cannot get out of the 100-200 on the money list: they top 10, but not in the right events, and someone comes in thirds and makes more than the winner of a "second tier" event.

I understand the need to 'qualify' for bigger events, but there must be a better way. Prior 4- 10 events persormance maybe?

On Fall series: Tim need to get these redheaded stepchildren out in the forefront, and give these events their due.



:

[Pete the Luddite]

Has anyone correlated the OWGR rankings to a rolling 2-year money list?

Say what you will about Lee, I suspect his bank account is better over the last 24-months than Kaymer.
IF you want to use OWGR or $$$, that's fine, but I think that the ability to definitely assign a No. 1 these days is rather rough. All depends on how broad a timeframe you want to use. IMO.

personally, I have as much feeling about it as Duval. :)

[Tom]

My back-of-the-envelope calculation says that Psycho is right-- Kaymer can take over OWG #1 if he plays once in the next 3 weeks and wins. He is not entered this week AFAIK.

In 4 weeks, the WGC-HSBC is going to feature 4 different players vying to be #1. That should be very interesting.

Although still first in average, Tiger is down to 4th place in total points. At one time he had lapped the field, and finally the field has caught up. For points earned in 2010, he is about 54th, and his average per tournament would probably rank him somewhere in the 20s. Is that where the 1-year-only advocates think he should be?

[digsouth]

Tom,

I'd say more around 68-70th, but......

[Mulligan]

In golf, you are only as good as your last round.

Everybody hates the current ranking system now that Tiger isn't the favorite.

Go figure..