More Rankings Comedy: Woods Just Needs To Make Appearance In Next Three Weeks To Retain Top Spot

Lawrence Donegan explains why Martin Kaymer hasn't moved to No. 1.

Kaymer has now won the last three tournaments in which he has played, a run of success that started at the US PGA Championship in August. Throw in Europe's dramatic Ryder Cup victory at Celtic Manor last weekend, to which he contributed 2½ points, and no wonder there are some people who would argue that "to hell with what the world rankings say, the German is the best player in the world right now".

James Corrigan on the chances of Kaymer vaulting to the top spot, as well as how Tiger could retain the No. 1 position by simply teeing it up somewhere.

Kaymer is not playing in this week's Portugal Masters but will attempt a four-timer in Spain next week. That would tee him up nicely for his own shot at becoming No 1 at the WGC HSBC Champions in Shanghai. He may even find Westwood waiting there to defend his new status. The Englishman confirmed he would be pulling out of Portugal and, because of the vagaries of the ranking system, that ensures that in three weeks' time he will be toppling Woods off the perch he has held for more than five years.

"I'm not allowing myself to think about it until it happens," Westwood said. "But yes, it is something I've always dreamed of."

The only way it will not happen is if Woods decides to play in the next three weeks, which is on the extremely doubtful side of unlikely. If, and when, he doesn't, it will leave Britain to boast the world's top-rated player for the first time since Nick Faldo in 1994. It may not be achieved in the manner in which Westwood wanted but, as he said: "I'll take it anyway."

Comments

[BenSeattle]

Can we finally agree once and for all that the Official World Golf Rankings are a JOKE? Created by the one and only Mark McCormack's IMG back in 1986, the formula that includes a TWO-YEAR "rolling" period simply fails to identifiy the hottest golfer of the day. Kaymer has won three straight, Westwood has played the best golf over 2010 but somehow, some way, T. Woods -- in the midst of his WORST SEASON EVER -- remains ranked at the top.

Perhaps I shouldn't get so steamed because unlike professional tennis where rankings actually serve a purpose when it comes to seeding players in a tournament, the OWGR is simply a worthless stat created for the sole aim of discussion in the media. Seriously, does anybody here ever get with their buddies for a round on Saturday morning and talk about the RANKINGS? I didn't thnk so. We talk about players, about tournaments and about equipment; never about Who's Ranked Where.

Perhaps if you're a player being named "number one" for a few weeks is a nice deal (at least according to Westwood) but in golf it's not high finishes or even the money earned........ it's all about WHAT TOURNAMENTS have you won? It's the only "ranking" that really counts. Sorry, OWGR.

[digsouth]

Come on Tiger. Show up At the Justin Timberlake and protect your rankful place in the, I mean....rightful place in the 'rank'.

Justin knows some girls.

[Tom]

Tiger needs to show up and also finish fairly high (top 20 at a guess). Corrigan seems to have taken that second part for granted, the way we all used to.

[Ky Laffoon's Ghost]

And in other news, Bud Wilkinson, Bear Bryant, and John McKay are favorites for National Coach of the Year in 2010.

[thusgone]

does kaymer's rc performance count toward his owgr ranking?

[Taylor Anderson]

Any ranking system which relies on subjectivity is always going to be argued and found to be flawed. Who cares who is number one on some list? It's meaningless.

Let me guess - the writers want to vote on it because they ALWAYS get it right.

Did Westwood seriously say that getting to number one would be, "fulfilling the dream of a professional lifetime"? Is that what pro golfers who can't win a major say? Seriously - what is Westwood's crowning or signature win? The 2003 Dunhill or the 2010 FedEx St. Jude Classic? I like Westwood, but come on - even Tiger's "horrific" year, he did just about the same as Westwood did in the majors. Two top fives.

[digsouth]

TaylorA

~~~"fulfilling the dream of a professional lifetime"~~~~

~~~ Is that what pro golfers who can't win a major say? ~~~

Umm, wannabe math majors have deams too.

[easy 3 putt]

I think the system's 2 year accounting of points has its pros and cons:

pro: no pro who is enjoying a spectacular summer with, let's say, 2 wins and some top 10s, will ever become number 1 of the owgr. I quite like the idea that some consistency throughout the seasons pays off.

cons: see tiger woods.

re: the meaning of the no 1 spot to the players: I believe the players definetly take some satisfaction out of their rankings. plus: think about eligibility for majors and wgc's. plus: I believe a lot of players or their respective management negotiated some cool pay-offs if certain milestones, i.e. owgr position, will be reached.

so, how should a fair and balanced owgr look like?

[carnaptious and camsteerie]

I probably shouldn't be commenting on this because I'm simply not nerdy enough to be bothered with it so this is probably rubbish but perhaps halving the value of the previous year's points might produce a more genuinely current number one?

The game needs to have a world ranking system. Otherwise, how would one decide who gets into what? This is why the R&A latched onto this system in the first place. Not being nepotistic as per the septics, they wanted to be able to produce a global field for their global event.

[Taylor Anderson]

c&c is right to the extent that a list is probably needed in order to have automatic qualifiers for some tournament. (Without the benefit of a "world tour"...) Is the current problem with the OGWR specifically with who is number one, or is it with the entire list? If it's just over who is number one, but the list in general is acceptable for ranking, say, the top 200 in the world, then does it really need to be blown up over one meaningless place holder? Is there a lot of debate between who is 6 and 7? Or 6 and 15?

[Tom]

Actually, among those who have done the most arguing over OWGR, "who is no. 1" was for a long time the least contentious issue. Clearly it was Tiger. Now that isn't clear, and other issues remain. OWGR incorporates a number of arbitrary decisions, all of which can be second-guessed. One of the big ones is how many points any particular tournament should get. Change that and you change the rankings all up and down the top 200, and maybe it would be Furyk in the hunt for no.1 instead of Westwood. There is a perception that many PGAT events get less points than they deserve compared to ET events. IMO that is a consequence of Tiger and Phil just not playing very many of them. If the top players of PGAT don't think a given PGAT tournament is important, why should OWGR? But it's an arbitrary formula and others disagree with it.

[Bar Fedora]

Ben Seattle, who would be ranked #1 in the What Tournaments Have You Won System? Over what period of time would this system be based on? 10 events? 20 events? 40 events? Other?

[Bar Fedora]

Out of curiosity I looked into Tiger's last 35 events.

10 wins (BMW, Bridgestone, Buick, AT&T, Memorial, Bay Hill, US Open, Match Play, Buick, Bay Hill)

9 of 10 cuts in majors (1 win, 2nd twice, 4th twice, 6th twice, 20's twice)

22 top-10...28 top-20.

3 missed cuts.

[digsouth]

Tom,

When points were awarded for TW'S invited player Chevron event, that pretty much whored what little credibility the system had , in my eyes.

The point value per event is a joke when a silly season event is included. Maybe they could have bonus points for long drive or closest to the pin.

[BenSeattle]

This was asked:

<< Ben Seattle, who would be ranked #1 in the What Tournaments Have You Won System? Over what period of time would this system be based on? 10 events? 20 events? 40 events? Other? >>

You're kind of missing my point. The answer is: who cares? Without a ranking system, flawed or otherwise, golfers would be judged on their Tournaments Won -- NOT how many "points" they accrue along the way to their 3rd or 12th or 29th place finish. Think back: when Louis O. surprised everyone with his standout performance in The (British) Open, did ANYONE talk about his World Ranking? Nope, it was all about his VICTORY.... the only thing that counts.

As for needing a system to determine Who Gets To Play Where... the respective European and USA money lists would do just fine.

Maybe it's just me. I've become soooo tired of Golf Channel interviewers (talking to YOU , Steve Sands) introducing Eldrick with "Here with world number one Tiger Woods" EVERY TIME. (Like, oh so THAT'S who's standing next to you.............)

[McHacker]

I'm not really sure that I see the problem with the OWGR associated with Westwood getting to No. 1 based on sitting for injuries. The ranking is based on an average with declining value to older events, after all. Were there finishes in events that gave Westwood inflated points? Probably. Is anyone going to care about Westwood having been No. 1 for a couple of weeks if Tiger or Kaymer take the spot in China? Doubtful. I am not a fan of the current system, but I don't understand how the current scenario exposes a huge flaw in the rankings.

[F. X. Flinn]

It's not like Tiger tanked the entire 2010 season. If he had been missing cuts from the get go this season he'd have lost the #1 ranking months ago. If he had won a major, he'd probably be comfortably in first and there'd be no discussion. And let's not forget that Tiger had a huge lead on everyone in the rankings a year ago, huge. I believe the world rankings probably work just fine when there is no elephant in the room, i.e., nobody who is spectacularly better than everyone else. Like all systems, exceptions bring out the flaws, and there's no denying Tiger is an exception.

[JJ]

I one believes that ranking matters (I find it interesting but kind of "so what?") then the issue is very much the same as the one that was fought 50 years ago over handicap systems. Which do we weight more, "current ability" or "basic ability"? And how do we alter the input data to do this?

The "Pope of Slope" website is full of interesting stuff on this history: (http://www.popeofslope.com/history/history.html)

The USGA may believe they have settled the handicap system, but I am sure that many (including me after today's round) will disagree.

I doubt that all will ever agree on a ranking system, unless they or their favorite is on top.

[Bar Fedora]

"I doubt that all will ever agree on a ranking system, unless they or their favorite is on top."

Well said JJ...

[Ckurlish]

The ranking system is a dud.
And Tiger doesn't give a hoot about being #1.
If he did he would have played more.
Now...Phil wants it so bad that he chokes every time he even gets near.

[WhoDatCA]

Stop looking at the ranking position and look at the points averages when judging the OWGR. If there's a problem put it where it belongs -- blame the lame golfers for lack of performance. Check out the top of the rankings at the second week of October over the past seven years and you'll see that Tiger hasn't really been caught as much as he's free-fallen back to the pack:

Oct. 10, 2010 - 1) Tiger Woods, 8.68 avg. 2) Lee Westwood, 8.36 avg.
Oct. 11, 2009 - 1) Tiger Woods, 16.168 avg. 2) Phil Mickelson, 8.039 avg.
Oct. 12, 2008 - 1) Tiger Woods, 15.367 avg. 2) Phil Mickelson, 8.761 avg.
Oct. 14, 2007 - 1) Tiger Woods, 23.60 avg. 2) Phil Mickelson, 9.54 avg.
Oct. 8, 2006 - 1) Tiger Woods, 23.46 avg. 2) Jim Furyk, 8.77 avg.
Oct. 9, 2005 - 1) Tiger Woods, 18.19 avg. 2) Vijay Singh, 11.94 avg.
Oct. 10, 2004 - 1) Vijay Singh, 13.76 avg. 2) Ernie Els, 11.92 avg. 3) Tiger Woods, 11.45 avg.

[WhoDatCA]

Who cares who now is ranked #1 when compared to the greatness we've witnessed over the last decade EVERYONE is at best Number Two.