"If we just prepared it on the points won so far this year Woods would not be in the top 50"

The European Tour's statistics expert Ian Barker defended the World Ranking after Butch Harmon criticized the elevation of Lee Westwood to the top spot.

"If we just prepared it on the points won so far this year Woods would not be in the top 50 and Martin Kaymer would be comfortably the world number one," Barker, the European Tour's director of information services, told Reuters.

"Anyway, Butch may well have his wish on Sunday because Martin will go to number one if he comes second in Valderrama."

Comments

[Rev Run]

If, if, if... If we prepared over the last week the #1 thumper would be #1. Let's see how long Westwood can keep the ranking (I think not long) and if he will ever gt it back once he loses it (I think not). Kaymer sure is getting a lot of love these days. I would love to have seen how the playoff would have turned out if all the rightful participants, had participated. Is that RC singles match a sign?

[d.b.cooper]

I can't believe the Brits have become so pitiful in their standards that some of them actually believe Lee Westwood is the bonafide, fair and square #1 golfer in the world.

Nice man, excellent golfer, but #1 in the world?

Uh, no.

What a sad, pathetic joke. I kind of feel a bit sad for Westwood for being thrown into the middle of this.

Change or pitch this ridiculous rating system immediately.

[Amen Coroner]

Rankins scmhankings...

[Rev Run]

d.b., I agree. What's that old saying -- res ipsa loquitur....

[Blair]

Sorry guys but words and phrases like "pitiful" and "sad, pathetic joke" are incredibly melodramatic and second-guessing the result of a fantasy USPGA playoff is irrelevant. There is no dominant player in the world just now and cogent arguments could be made for and against Westwood, Woods, Mickelson, Kaymer, Furyk, Stricker, Poulter etc. Apologies, I threw the last name just to annoy everyone that little bit more. Westwood has about as much right to wear the No.1 badge as anyone else, for this week at least. Defining an algorithm to accurately reflect and rank the best players in the world will always be potentially contentious but I haven't heard too many complaints about the world rankings for the previous 281 weeks. They must have worked okay then, I guess.

[Alex H]

Alright - here's my take...and I feel it may be an unpopular one.

I think the ranking system works perfectly fine and got it exactly right. The world ranking doesn't identify who happens to be the best player this very week - the tournament of the week will take care of that. It's designed to tell us who has been the best player over the last two years, with added emphasis (i.e. weighting) on more recent results. You could make a valid argument for Westwood, Mickelson, Kaymer, or Tiger to sit on top of the rankings - and voila, it's the four of them who are tightly bunched in the top 4 spots. Westwood just so happens to be a notch above - we all realize that may change any week now.

By the way, looking at the cumulative score of all majors this year (realizing that Westwood missed the PGA), Mickelson, Woods, Westwood, and Kaymer have the lowest combined scores in relation to Par. Seems like the rankings got it right.

And lastly - why does everybody say they're complicated to understand? Every journalist and their mother with a calculator appears to be able to figure out what will happen to the rankings given a scenario for the upcoming week - can't be that complicated. I find the calculations sensible and transparent. Complex? Filing a US tax return involves more advanced math than the world rankings.

[peachtree]

@Alex Amen to your comments.
I also find no problem in understanding the rankings. The real test will be borne out over time, since all 4 are very close in points. Whomever can sustain over time wins or seconds will hold the #1 ranking goiing forward

[Wisconsin Reader]

Alex H. . . I think you have it exactly correct. . . Plus, I enjoy seeing the word "voila" used on this site. . . The last time I spoke it was a month ago when my grilled brats turned out just right.

[Ky Laffoon's Ghost]

Who's the number one MLB team at the moment, and how did they get there?

[GolfFan]

Do we really care who is #1? Really?

#1 is the last guy kicking your butt.

[themerk]

lets see how the careers end up for anyone that has held the OWGR No.1 spot in the last 5 years, Since that is pretty much Tiger, Vijay and now Westwood here is all you need to know:

Tiger - 14 Majors, 3 Jr. Ams, 3 US Ams, 2 FedEx Cups; 100+ Worldwide wins; $90M+ career earnings
Vijay - 3 Majors, 1 Fedex Cup; 50+ Worldwide wins; $62M+ earnings
Westwood - 0 Majors; 30+ Worldwide wins; $7M+ career earnings

Obviously Westwood hasnt been at it as long as Tiger or Vijay but at the end of the day Tiger still has scoreboard on the field.

[cold topped]

themerk,

When did the number 1 ranking dovetail into a comparison of careers? The ranking is trying to reflect the best playing record over the last 2 years. Not the guy with the best career record. Westwood's career is probably never going to match Tiger's (might not even match Vijay's). But they're two different things.

In Tennis, Federer has a better record than Nadal. But I don't think there'd be any argument that Nadal is number 1 on the last 2 year's form.

The OWGR is simply a ranking (albeit slightly flawed) of current form.


CT

[easy 3 putt]

"Tiger - 14 Majors, 3 Jr. Ams, 3 US Ams, 2 FedEx Cups; 100+ Worldwide wins; $90M+ career earnings
Vijay - 3 Majors, 1 Fedex Cup; 50+ Worldwide wins; $62M+ earnings
Westwood - 0 Majors; 30+ Worldwide wins; $7M+ career earnings"

the merk: where did you find these career stats?

from what I've found westwood made alone more than 20.5mn euros = 28.7mn dollars on the european tour.

and re: tiger's 100+ worldwide wins: wikipedia lists 97. please get stats right when using them as a back up argument.

maybe you could also add # of publicly known cheatings to your above list - either in a tournament or to one's wife.

[hogan]

Let's see, Tiger's no longer #1 so let's change the rating system so that he is.

[john]

How about a requirement of a minimum number of tournaments entered during the rolling 2 year time frame. Like other golf stats, if you do not meet the minimums, your not even eligible to be ranked.

[Dexter Morgan]

Can't you goddamn Yanks just get over the fact that one of you ain't Number One anymore?

[d.b.cooper]

Relax, don't get your panties all in a bunch, Dex.

There is no problem with a non-American being ranked the number one golfer....

as long as it is legitimate.