OWGR - yet again!

Much talk in the press recently about the world rankings. LW gets #1 back with a win in a 'lesser' event, Donald could have got it if he'd won at Hilton Head. Neither have won a major so shouldn't be #1 .... blah blah blah.

As we all know, the number of ranking points is based on the strength of the field. Sir Nick has joined in the debate this week by questioning whether majors should have double points status. And if so, what about WGC events and the Players which tradionally has the strongest field of the year? (although not this year)

Is it right that two VERY consistent guys should be #1 and #2 or should it be someone with a major(s) under his belt who doesn't always contend, a la GMac?

Personally, I think the current system is a pretty good compromise but it seems to have plenty of detractors.

Faldo shows an incredible lack of knowledge for someone who once held top spot. Majors carry at least twice the points of a regular tour event, and the WGCs are well ahead too. If you look at the event Westwood won in Indonesia, he collected 24 points. Luke picked up 74 for the WGC win, and Charl got 100 for winning the Masters. The field at Quail Hollow is a strong one, and the winner there will get just over 50 points.

D4S I think the Gmac reference is a little off, as he earned his top 10 place by his performaces last year. Not just the major but won or was in contention almost every event he played. He was by far the worlds no 1 if it was for pure consistency last year. His form however this year, since he took the yankee dollar from Srixon and parked his trusty Callaways has been a serious miscalculation, and one I hope he can rectify, otherwise he will tumble down the OWGR as fast as he climbed it.

I think I'm in agreement with Faldo as it makes no sense to have double points for majors. Louis for example and Charl will struggle playing a variety of courses, just as Bibba does, but Bubba is the more consistent golfer week on week. We've seen many outsiders win majors, but almost vanish, so players who play consistantly well should deserve to be closer to the top. After all a major win can come from a bit of luck or be lost by a favourite by a bit of bad luck. Luck sisn't skill and shouldn't be rewarded, and thats not taking anything away from any player who has won a major by a stroke of luck

Doc

Fair point about GMac, he was the first name that sprang to mind of someone that has recently won a major but done virtually nothing since. Oosthuizen would have been a better example perhaps as apart from the Open, he didn't do an awful lot else last year or since.

Regarding Faldo, I think he was advocating in favour of double points for majors rather than against it.

My view is this: A major is a 72 hole event just like any other. Sometimes the courses are set up very tough, other times fairly easy (TOC last year). The only difference between a major and a regular event is the pressure and expectation put on players, usually by the press and by themselves. There is no physical difference between winning a major and a normal event other than beating a stronger field but this isn't always the case ie the Masters limited field. If a player has the mental capacity to cope with the pressure (self expectation?) of a major then he has as much chance of winning it as any other event.

D4S - That last sentence is a pretty huge 'if', and therein surely lies the crux of the matter?

Smithers

Yes indeed. Maybe that's why the top pro's don't win all the time, the journeymen are able to handle the pressure of a regular event but not a major.

Interesting but I'm sure it's all in their heads. Guess that's what makes the game so enthralling.

I think the the current system is a decent compromise.

If it was based on majors does this mean that Michael Campbell, despite never really, if ever challenging on a regular basis since should be higher ranked than Westwood and Donald.

Or to swap it around if Westwood wins the US Open but then fails to make every cut for the rest of the year, yet somehow stayed no 1 in the world does this mean that he is suddenly a more worthy world No1.

The current system is there to rank the players based on consistency, and it is what it it does 95% of time.

I didn't hear this level of grumbling about the OWGR when a certain Mr. Woods couldn't hit a barn with a banjo for a good 18 months and yet remained top despite the fact he patently wasn't the World's best golfer at the time.

It's a decent system being railed against by the American media (mainly; and SNF is more or less an American now as well) because they aren't #1 and have few in the top 10. Must be something wrong with it. Stands to reason....

You should only be awarded points deriving from players you actually beat, not based on the strength of the entire field.

pedro wrote:You should only be awarded points deriving from players you actually beat, not based on the strength of the entire field.

Quite certain Woods' dominance would have been significantly shorter had that been the case.