Graeme Careful Not To Thank Tiger For Crashing His Car
But as Steve Elling points out, that's the real takeaway from Peter Hutcheon's story quoting U.S. Open champion Graeme McDowell on how his late entry into the Chevron World Challenge led to a great week, top 50 world ranking and entry into several key 2010 events.
McDowell said: “What happened at the end of last season, and getting the invite to the Tiger Woods golf tournament, was the real catalyst for everything that has happened for me this year.
“I walked off the golf course in China, with Rory and myself just having lost the World Cup by a shot to the Molinari boys.
“My manager, Conor Ridge, then suggested there was a shadow of a chance, what with the Tiger Woods story unfolding that week, that I might get an invite into the Chevron World Challenge.
“As it so happened I was flying home from China to Orlando through LA that week so I said of course I would get off the flight there and take my chance.
“I don’t how Conor managed to do it, but we got the nod on the invite and then I go and finish second.
“I moved from 55th to 38th in the world, it got me into Augusta and smoothed up the start of the season.Then after Wentworth I get into the US Open right on the bubble at Number 50.
“So if I had not been top 50 at the end of last year, I maybe would not have got off to the start I had this year.
“Maybe I wouldn’t have got myself into the US Open and things like the Ryder Cup.
“It was just one of those very fateful moments.”
At least McDowell is returning the favor by appearing this year in what is a star-studded field, as Bob Harig reports.
Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 09:16 AM
Reader Comments (18)
totally correct, As I said, wha's next , bonus points for long drive, closest to the pin?
It reinforces padding the top, and the uneven playing field, the lack of opportunity for all.
As a matter of fact, I think we Shackelfordians might well award him a special trophy. I'll throw in 5 bucks.
http://sculpturealley.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=21&products_id=178
You like to stir it up Geoff.........
That said TWs event does have more top players than many average weekly events on the PGA and/ Euro tour. It seems there are more top players in this event than Tiger generally gets in his ATT event.
The PGA Tour did not decide om its own if this the event gets ranking points. The group that administers the world ranking has criteria that events must meet to get ranking points. To get world ranking points the TW event had to expand the field from 12 to 18 players and the exemptions given out to the event must come from players ranked in the top 50 in the world. Before the TW foundation could give them to anybody when points were not awarded.
It actually took a few years before the people that run the rankings would agree to award this event points. Nationwide Tour events also award ranking points. This field is better than any Nationwide event as well. Sort of goes without saying.
Events with SMALLER fields have awarded and are currentrly awarding ranking points. The old World Match Play event on the Euro tour at Wentworth awarded ranking points even though the field was smaller than the earlier 12 player TW event.
The Nedbank Sun City event in South Afica each December has awarded world ranking points the past few years and they only have a 12 player field. Though they do have nearly as many big names as the TW event.
a US Open CONFIRM ratings points for Tiger's tournament?
Or is Graeme an unworthy US Open winner?
thanks for all the info. What is you opinion as to these limited field events geting points, and additionally, the mere elimination of most players, coupled with the higher points awarded, serves ,imho, to keep the bottom feeers from having the opportunity to climb the ladder.
do you think the points need to be tweaked to offer a more heavy weight to more recent events, be that the last 3, 6 or 12 months. Have you ever devised an alternative system?
I do have a friend and an aquaintance who really know the system well. Their vote is, one for tweaking it, and one says the TW '09 wins are an anomoly (no shit) and it is fine.
I , personally am for a floating year, with all events getting the same points, no extra strength of field , or major consideration, and use it as a 'qualifier' for events, and not as a 'best in the world' ranking system.
as to the 'real number one' a once a month top 25 vote by writers and players would serve as well as anything. No one believes the whole mess anyway....
fg.
We'll never know. Everything affects everything. Perhaps the person he usurped would have won the Open, given a different mindset from his keeping the ranking.
but I agree, severely limited fields like these bring huge points with them (high ranked players)
and further separate the top from middle
That said I do understand the rankings some and will touch on a couple of your points and some others.
IMO events with 8/12/16 players etc should not have points given or at least pro rate the points to reflect the short field. Sort of like how the winner of the old World Match play on the Euro Tour did not get all his winnings credited on the ET Order Of Merit. Only a certain percentage were credit as it was a short field playing in a high $$$ event. Same thing could be applied in short field events. The PGA Tour awards less FEC points for players that are in opposite field events. What not ranking points like that as well.
On the other hand while those playing in these events do get a built in advantage for eaning points there is a simple way for others to get there. Play better and/or win in the big events you are qualified for. Outside of the top 20 or so in the rankings the points are really bunched up. Couple of high finishes or a win and a high finish or two can send you up the rankings quickly. Ricky Fowler is a perfect example of this. While he has 3 2nd places finishes (IIRC) since last fall he also has a bunch of MC as a pro yet he is in the top 40 in rankings. Case of playing well in events that awarded good ranking points.
As long as there is going to be a world ranking it should not be over a two year rolling time frame. 12 months max. Now no matter what system one comes up with it will have inequities as there are six different tours involved that have players in the world rankings and earning points with different strength of fields. The rankings have already been tweaked a number of times over the years to in theory better reflect who the better players are. While TW is going to lose his number 1 the realty is if the OWGR did not have a minimum divisor of 40 Tiger would still be comfortably number 1. The points he has accured for his ranking have been earned in only 31 events. Really goes to show how far the gap was between him and the rest. If the rankings were done over 1 year it would give a better picture of the current order and you would have Kaymer, Westwood or Furyk as your number one.
Disagree however that all events should get the same points. Winning the Players is more difficult than winning the Frys.com and if there is going to be a ranking it needs to be weighted. Lets put it this way. Do you think Troy Matteson deserves to earn the same number points for his win at the Frys last year as Henrick Stenson did at the Players or YE Yang did at the PGA or that Ryo Ishikawa deserves the same number of points for winning in Japan as Graeme McDowell does for winning the US Open? It is harder to win some events and on some tours. Those players should be rewarded if there is going to be a ranking system.
No matter what winning trumps all as Martin Kaymer has been proving since the PGA and prior to this year what Tiger has done. As Woods has said many times winning takes care of everything. For the better part of the last 13 years no ranking system was needed to know who the best player was. Short of having a dominant player like Tiger (or VJ in 2004 into 2005) you can argue the point for 10 different guys for number 1 at any time. I liken it to having multiple undefeated teams at the end of the college fottball season and arguing over the BCS formula.
The best view of the ranking is that whoever won the most recent event on whatever tour that is your flavor of choice can be argued as number one for that snapshot in time. No more no less. It all goes away when everybody tees it up in the next event anyways.
But as RM says in his post the rankings are really the last thing the people in charge of the of the game should be concerned over.
Sorry to ramble on so long.
Man, you have tweaked my interest..... redheads are the best! I am all for that ratingsystem. So 'with redheads' is the last 2 words.....I'm guessing. or 'wild redheads'...... or......
I understand your concern for unweighted points for different events. i am looking at the 'points' only as a 'qualifier' or upcoming events, in that vein, it is all relative.
As to a ranking , like 'king of the world', well, i think that a top 25 picked by media, or players, or both......