Why The Outrage Over Tiger Possibly Retaking Top Ranking?

Even before his opening round 65 at the Chevron World Challenge, there was quite a bit of Twitter outrage at the possibility Tiger could win his event and retake the top spot in the official world golf ranking. And I don't understand it.

There have been plenty of posts about the silliness of an 18-player silly season event counting in the world ranking chase. Yet how it impacts the top spot is essentially meaningless compared to the impact on who gets in the following year's events. As has been well documented this week, Graeme McDowell benefited from Tiger's accident last year by getting in the Chevron and finishing second, which earned him valuable points and a spot in the U.S. Open. More power to McDowell for taking advantage of the situation.

It seems the outrage over Tiger reclaiming the top spot should instead be directed at a system that lets him go winless over a season and still be in position to reclaim the No. 1 ranking.

Comments

[Tottenham Hotspur]

All Westwood has to do is win in South Africa and he'll still be numero uno.

[chico]

In the same way that it was hardly G Macs fault that he benefitted from a crazy situation then no blame can be laid on Tiger if he gets back to no.1 via this event.
Tiger playing well again is no bad thing and if Westwood wants to stay no1 he's going to have to start winning.Should be fun to watch.

[easy 3 putt]

It was nice seeing Tiger play well again yesterday. Some really beautiful shots along the way. Looking forward to next season. Foley obviously is doing something right.

[CharlieG]

Tiger could be working with Axel Foley and he'd be improving. He just needs some distance from the controversy.

[mel]

As of 7:30 am EST Lee Westwood is three clear of the field at the Nedbank. Still lots of golf to be played but it will be interesting if Tiger wins in California but doesn't take back World number one because Lee finishes first or second in South Africa.

[Papa Bing]

What a joke. How can the world rankings be adjusted by silly season events?

[PJ]

The issue is that some are confusing the world golf rankings point system's purpose with that of simply identifying the best golfer. That's not its true mandate. For the top 10 in points (and especially #1), bragging rights are certainly in play, but other than that the OWGR points are merely a currency that players use to gain access to bigger events across tours. Any system will be an approximation at best. There's nothing dramatically wrong with the way the OWGR does it now, and G-mac is a perfect example of working within it to his advantage.

Does anyone really think that Tiger and Westwood exchanging points back and forth at the top is a direct representation of who is absolutely the better golfer? It isn't - nor does it need to be.

[Psycho]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Tiger's had several good rounds this year. What he hasn't, as yet, is four good rounds in the same week. I share the reservations others have about limited field events like these counting for the rankings.

[Ky Laffoon's Ghost]

Go Tiger!

[Tim in Hoylake from Ottawa]

How do the points per event compare; surely winning from a field off 154 is worth at least triple between 17 guys playing exhibition golf. Any stats out there?

[AK47]

Further to Psycho's point, forget four in a row, he hasn't had two good rounds in a row since Augusta, and that was adrenaline. How about AK throwing a 79 at a course with 5 par 5s?

[tlavin]

Twitter outrage. Oh, my.

[Bret]

I'd be more worried about the implications of Tiger taking back #1 by winning this event if Westwood had actually WON TOURNAMENTS to get to #1 in the first place.

He's been very consistently good, but he only won 1 tournament in 2010 - and that was because Robert Garrigus played the last hole with one hand around his own throat.

[Marky Mark]

If the world rankings were limited to one year worth of points, Woods would not be in the top 50, which wouldn't be right either.

It is also important to note that even if Woods regains #1, he will lose it anyway to Westwood in the next two weeks. Because of the math involved, Westwood is guaranteed to end the year at #1 regardless of what either he or Woods does this week.

This is really just a function of math and two players that are essentially tied in the rankings and end up toggling back and forth for a while - which will continue until Kaymer takes the reign of #1 for the next five years :-)

[Psycho]

Kaymer better hurry, he's got McIlroy, Mannesero, maybe a Molinari and even an American or two who'll be pushing for the spot in the next 5 years.

[digsouth]

I don't care if TW regains #1, but to do so by playing well in a Lake Nona sendup is BS.

McDowell is not to be blamed for taking advantage of his good fortune, but he should also be humbled by just what a lucky break he got.

There is no justification for a closed event exibition to have an effect on who can play where in the the future.

If I were the guy who Graeme bumped...... well, I would not be happy about that.

[Hod]

The "No. 1 ranking" is, like the money list, a ruined commodity in today's market.

[jay]

the only reason tiger is in position to be no. 1 (despite being handicapped by not playing in the minimum 40 events) is that no one else has stepped up. no one else is even carrying 9.0 ranking points. i wonder from a historical viewpoint what is the lowest ranking point for players occupying the nos 1 & 2 spots

[Michael C.]

I still believe the strangest result of Tiger's crash up from a year ago is for all of us to wake up and find that Lee Westwood (??!!!) is now the #1 ranked player in the world... when does the bad dream ends??!!!

[d.b.cooper]

Agree with Bret 100%.

[Lindsay Addie]

Those world rankings have been a complete joke since day one. Just further proof of the shambles called pro golf.

[Alex H]

I like the World Rankings and think they work perfectly fine.

As for points, Chevron was worth 48 points last year, about as much as the Verizon Heritage. The 2009 Nedbank challenge was worth 30 points.

I don't understand why there's such an uproar about dishing out world ranking points. You play a formal tournament, by the rules of golf, against a great field, and you win. Why shouldn't you get points? Just because not everybody is invited? Well, not everybody gets invited to The Masters, either.

And to the point of Tiger winning and regaining the No. 1 spot - well, it seems just fair. Westwood played the Chevron Challenge last year and got himself a healthy 16.8 points.

[Del the Funk]

Good on ya Alex H...!

!0 birdies and an eagle so far for Tiger, offset by one bogey. But if he wins I'm sure they'll say it doesn't count because...blah blah blah.

[digsouth]

OWGR is a work of fiction, is my basic problem. A marketing tool, which became a placement device, based upon, 'if you hear something enough, it must be true."

I don't care if TW wins or not: I am just hoping it is all smooth and TMZ free. He certainly looks good, nd his puttr was not working on Thusday.

[rmppia]

The ranking system was invented by a management company who knew how to skew things so their lead horse would be number one, and then was lucky enough to sign on Eldrick when Norman was on the down side of his career. Eldrick has been the beneficary of more hero worship by the press and public than any other golfer other than maybe The King. I find it hard to even mention Eldrick and The King in the same sentence. To give ranking points in a limited field event is one of the more stupid things Tim and the boys have done. One thing that bothers me about limited field events is the broadcasters failing to show every shot of every player in the filed, how hard could that be.

[vwgolfer]

The King and Eldrick both liked the ladies.

[DMazza]

Tiger is swinging scary good, best he has in years. I haven't seen a single sign that his game was coming around until this week. Sometimes you see something emphatic in a guy's game that is hard to articulate. His rhythm looks great and he isn't taking as much time over the ball. Look out...

[Del the Funk]

rmppia. can you elaborate on this "skew" factor? I'm interested in that. Also, who was the "lead horse" that you refer to? Norman? Thanks.

[Brad Ford]

Geoff,

The problem with the WGR is that they have all the credibility of the BCS rankings. Counting TW's silly season event is barely better than counting the results from the Skins Game or Big Break.

[digsouth]

the big break....mmmmmmm Sara, or Blair. Or Christina.....er....

maybe hey will show TW in the 'confessional at the Chevron.

.


*One thing that bothers me about limited field events is the broadcasters failing to show every shot of every player in the filed, how hard could that be.*

Everyone is more interested in TW blowing his nose, and stuff like that...... Gary and the boys are on TW like he was on top a week ago, never left.

Nice to see TW playing well, seriously.

[canuckgolfer]

The system that would rank Tiger #1 after winning one tournament is broken and not worth the time to talk about.
GMAC is not lucky he is simply really good! I hope Westwood wins in South Africa - he is a class act that deserves to win and be number one worldwide no matter what system you use to determine the top golfer. Martin Kymer is also a player to watch as he is seriously good too. Rory, Ryo, and Matteo make golf interesting moving into the future.
Tiger is looking very sharp this week. However, I have enjoyed watching golf this year more than any other as Tiger was absent and it was nice to see other players perform. I could care less if Tiger quit golf as there is many other interesting players to watch.

[vwgolfer]

How come Phil is not at Sherwood?

[Hawkeye]

This week feels like a replay of the ´04 event at Sherwood, and I hereby predict that Tiger's going to win The Masters and then remain at #1 into his 40s. Not as dominant as in '06-'08, but still numero uno.

[Bar Fedora]

Tiger is (19)-under for his last 42 holes with only one bogey in that stretch! Think he found something?

[GeorgeM]

As noted above, the OWGR serves 2 purposes.
1. Gives top players some bragging rights (and $ from sponsors)
2. Determines who is granted entrance to top events.

However, the system is seriously flawed.
1. Event points are weighted, average is not a weighted average
2. Event strength is independent of field size (also a problem for Sagarin)
3. "Home Tour Points" skew field strength
5. Field strengths are based on rankings, not ratings (averages)
6. Minimum divisor (40) hurts new players.
- (Better to not rank players until after some [ 6?] events)

Note: Nedbank and World Matchplay were in OWGR before Sherwood and few complained.

[Tim in Hoylake]

Thanks Alex; given that Nedbank is only 12 players, not a full field, then Westy's point this weekend will have been a gimme, just like Tiger's. Oh well; it's still a crock to allow invitational events with fields under 50 to count for anything.

How long before the Par-3 wednesday at Augusta gets a few ranking points (just to get the top players to play it)?

[Del the Funk]

Tim, what's magical about 50? Even with 80+ the Masters isn't really considered a "full field" event.

The Tour Championship is only 30, should it get points?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tiger's going to beat more players (and better players, though marginally) than Lee's already beaten.

And without the 40-even minimum divisor, Tiger would still be #1, never having lost it.

Much ado about nothing. The top spot is somewhat irrelevant. It's only newsworthy because Tiger's had it for so long.