« Crowd Favorites Natalie Gulbis and Darren Clarke Can't FinishGolf Fans in Washington DC Get Screwed by PGA Tour »

49 comments

Comment from: Randy Hebert [Visitor]
Those rankings are so screwed up no one in sports gives them any credence, not even the lpga players except perhaps for Wie. No way she should be at 2, that spot belongs to Ochoa. As you mentioned, Pressel is way to high, you can also throw in Miyazato and Fudoh as players ranked much higher than they should be. Fudoh can't beat anyone over here.Until the fix them no one will take those rankings very seriously.
07/13/06 @ 14:20
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
I don't disagree with your comments but I purposely did not mention Fudoh because I wanted to try keep this on an apples to apples basis. At least Wie, Pressel and Miyazato are playing against the same competition this year. Fudoh is a mystery, perhaps like Jumbo Ozaki was 10-20 years ago.
07/13/06 @ 14:47
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
1--Morgan Pressel

The rankings are flawed in one respect. Recent events are given more weight when points are handed out--but all have equal weight in determining the divisor. With only 7 events last year, has a much higher percentage of her events getting the higher weight of recent event compared to Hurst or Pak.

IDEA Do something like this. Triple points for last 3 months, otherwise double points for last year and single points for previous year. But then divide by (3 times the number of most recent events plus double the number of recent events plus the number of older events).

They won't do this because they want to encourage players to play in events NOW. So they have a system that gives greater weight to the rewards for recent svents--but equal weights as far as the penalty is concerned. The weight given to Pak's win will decrease after 3 months and then again after a year. The weight given to Pressel's recent missed cut will stay the same for the full 2 years.

2--Michelle Wie

Wie's results are not concentrated in the last year like Pressel's. They are somewhat more heavily grouped in the last 3 month, but this is not a critical issue in her number 2 ranking.

Karrie Webb has done well this year--but her results in the previous year and a half were considerably worse than those of Michelle Wie. The same thing to a lesser extent could be said of Ochoa, even though she did manage to win last year.

But think about this. If Michelle Wie wins the Evian she will come fairly close to Annika in the rankings. If we change the rankings to put more emphasis on recent events it could drop Wie behind Ochoa and Webb for now--but it would probably push Wie ahead of Annika into the number 1 position if she wins the Evian. Would you really want to change the rankings to make it easier for Wie to knock Annika out of the number one spot.

How much emphasis shuld be placed on winning? If you look at older rankings for the LPGA I believe the Solheim Cup Ranking gives twice the points to a win as compared to a second, and then gradually decreasing points down to 20th. Wins are given somewhat more weight in the more exclusive Player of the Year rankings which only go down to 10th place--while wins are given less emphasis in the Rookie Rankings which go down to making a cut. Even if you want to put more emphasis on winning for the top players, you might not want to put the same emphasis on one lucky win for a player who has no other top 10 finishes.






07/13/06 @ 15:52
Comment from: Stacy [Visitor]
Annika Sorenstam once stated that the Rolex Rankings needed to be "tweaked" a bit. She's absolutely right.

I agree with Randy regarding Ochoa's placement. Her wins and top-tens should place her in Michelle Wie's position.

Karrie Webb should be right behind Ochoa in third. She's a grinder that has been doing very well this season.
07/13/06 @ 15:54
Comment from: Randy Hebert [Visitor]
I can understand keeping it to players playing against the same competition for comparisons sake. I just threw Fudoh in because I think to much was factored in to the Japanese tour. A win there against much lesser competition shouldn't be weighed the same as one on the lpga where the best from the world play. It does need tweaking. personally a major victory should count more than anything. Webb has that plus another win this year. Ochoa has been very consistent. I'm not a Wie basher or warrior, I think her play in the majors kind of speaks for itself. If they let her, and she would, be a full time lpga player she would be a top 5 player in those rankings. But not #2 yet. I would probably have her between 5 and 7 right now based mostly on limited appearances and no wins.
07/13/06 @ 17:30
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Attention All Wie Warriors: Bubbles is not out of the John Deere yet! The projected cut is 2-under. I know, I know, she is now 6-over But, all she needs tomorrow is a career best 63 and she will make the cut on the number! Go Michelle!
07/13/06 @ 18:27
Comment from: putt4par [Visitor]
To be realistic, they should use a divisor of 20 or 25 Tournaments.
I realize that would knock MW out for now but it would reflect a more realistic view of the stats, IMO.

It may also stop her from being granted entrance to some Venues, but at the same time it would be a more balanced system for those that play the whole year.
just my .02 coppers.
07/13/06 @ 18:58
Comment from: John D [Visitor]
Alex, I like your "POSITIVE" thinking. Just imagine what the world would be like if everyone thought the way tou do!
07/13/06 @ 20:09
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
putt4par

The men have a minimum divsor of 40--but no minimum on the number of events actually played. Under that system, Wie(16 events) would rank 12 just behind the Pressel's current point total--but Pressel(20 events) would drop to 36th. Use 20 as the divisor instead of 16 and Wie is still number 2. Use 25 and she is 8.40 just behind Creamer's 8.41 and number 5.

However if they did something like this, we could still look at Wie and Pressel and figure out for ourselves how they would be ranked using the actual number of tournaments played. How seriously could we take Paula at number 4 with 8.41 if Michelle were at 8.40 only because we pretended that Wie played in and missed cuts in 9 imaginary tournaments?

Randy

The Japanese situation will be adjusted naturally within the system. If players from there perform poorly elsewhere, the value of given to those events will lessen.

If you rank Wie at 5 to 7, who besides Annika, Lorena, and Karrie would you rank ahead of her. It is hard to take you seriously in ranking Wie that low if you cannot name names you would or might put ahead of her? Would you use the 25 divisor rule as an excuse to rank her behind Paula? Would you push her down even further than the 25 divisor rule would?


Here is what I think. I'm OK with a subjective ranking that would put Wie behind Lorena and Karrie as well as Annika--a a kind of reward for their performances this year. BUT if I had the first pick in choosing a fantasy golf team for the upcoming Evian and Weetabix I would pick Wie ahead of anyhone else.




07/13/06 @ 21:50
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
Why it was decided to use a 2 year period as the basis for ranking, I'm not sure. Men's ranking is also calculated over 2 years. Seems to me that a rolling 12-month period would do the trick, with heavier weighting on winning, Majors and especially, winning Majors. At the very least it would be closer to a representation of who is playing well NOW.
07/13/06 @ 22:07
Comment from: John Neal [Visitor]
Shanks, Perhaps you long for
these
rankings...the older Golf Week rankings by Sagarin. They only look at the past 52 weeks. They also compare players "head-to-head".

The only problem with coming up with a "feels good" ranking out of that is that if you search out Michelle Wie you discover that by Sagarin's ranking system, if she were allowed two more lpga events in a year, she would be ranked number one in the world.

Statistics have a funny way of not always proving what we want them to prove.
07/14/06 @ 00:49
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
SHANKS

If you look at combined score for the first 3 Majors(regulation) Wie has 848 leading Annika's 853 by 5 shots and the 858 of Lorena and Karrrie by 10. Inkster is 12 back, Pak is 16 back and Creamer is 31 back.

Consider Webb. In her first Major she finished 1 shot ahead of Wie, and won a playoff with Ochoa. In her second Major she finished two shots ahead of Wie, and lost a playoff to Pak. Shanks referred to these two results, but failed to mention her most recent Major, where she finished 15 shots out of the lead, and 13 shots back of Wie.

Now suppose we exchange the performances in the Majors for Wie and Webb--and remember it would now be Wie who made two long range eagles including one on the last hole at the Kraft. Michelle's rating would almost certainly be higher than it is now, while Karrie's would be lower. Yet in the 3 Majors combined, it would be Karrie who would be 5 shots better than Annika and 10 shots up on Wie. Would you now think Wie deserved her high ranking, and not complain aobut the fact that overall Webb was 10 shots better in the first 3 Majors--and a whopping 13 shots better in the US Women's Open, the biggest and the most recent of the Majors?

Suppose Michelle Wie wins the Evian and then finishes 15 back at the Weetabix? Who thinks the net effect will be that her critics ease off, and who thinks they will be much worse than they are now?

07/14/06 @ 02:59
Comment from: JR [Visitor]
Jim C... what you just stated about the totals scores from the majors is about the same as adding up the total number of games during a tennis match. It's quite possible to LOSE 6-0, 6-7,6-0,6-7,6-7. So, even this fictional player won 30 games to the winner's 21, a loss is a LOSS. That's the problem with data, you can over analyze anything and eventually you'll get results that you like.
07/14/06 @ 07:19
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
Excellent example, JR.

Jim, here I will repeat a segment from my previous post - "with heavier weighting on winning, Majors and especially, winning Majors." It is an absolute travesty that Wie is ranked ahead of Webb, Ochoa & Pak. And truthfully, she shouldn't be ranked ahead of probable ROY Seon Hwa Lee either. As I would heavily weight performance in Majors, perhaps there is room to argue about the relative ranking versus the other winners on the LPGA tour in the past 12 months.

Forget that mythical grand slam total stroke contest. If you ask ANY professional golfer what they would rather have - one Major win and 3 middling finishes OR 4 top five finishes in the majors - guess which one they would take? They don't engrave the name of 3rd-5th place finishers on the trophy.
07/14/06 @ 07:55
Comment from: canine lover [Visitor]
Shanks, how about Birdie Kim? She won the biggest Major of them all last year. the US Women's Open, Why not simply the argument and just say that Birdie Kim was the best female golfer in 2005? #\Who needs the ranking anyway...LOL
07/14/06 @ 08:00
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
CL, thanks for the humor. I am aware you have tongue firmly in cheek here, but I say this for anybody else who might think that's a bright idea.

I'm pretty sure that all of Kim's other weak finishes in any rolling 12-month period that includes her US Open win would put her ranking where it deserved to be. Regardless of what that would be, she should get a lot of credit for playing so well that one particular week.
07/14/06 @ 08:08
Comment from: Ford [Visitor]
Jim I'm worried about you. Seriously, I'm really starting to get concerned, you have resorted to creating new stats to prove what we already know. Michelle Wie is consistent, we get it. She is also winless and no amount of number crunching or stat twisting is going to change that. We can give Michelle the coveted, fewest combined strokes in majors award if it will make you feel any better. I'm sure you are a decent fellow, but does you're fasmily know what you are doing on this site? Over the past few weeks you have slowly begun to lose touch with reality, can you do me one favor please? Tell me at what post office you work and give me a heads up as to when you are going to "make the voices in your head stop."
07/14/06 @ 09:10
Comment from: Randy Hebert [Visitor]
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Randy

The Japanese situation will be adjusted naturally within the system. If players from there perform poorly elsewhere, the value of given to those events will lessen.

If you rank Wie at 5 to 7, who besides Annika, Lorena, and Karrie would you rank ahead of her. It is hard to take you seriously in ranking Wie that low if you cannot name names you would or might put ahead of her? Would you use the 25 divisor rule as an excuse to rank her behind Paula? Would you push her down even further than the 25 divisor rule would?

Jim I have Annika, Ochoa, Webb Creamer and possibly Pak ahead of her, although I think Pak while winning a major and a top 3 in the Open would still fall slightly behind her based on her disappearance from contention previous to this year.I'm not saying Michelle isn't a good player so don't go get yourself all in a knot.I just think those playing full time winning, and being consistently up on the money list are higher rated in my opinion. If she gives up this foolish notion of playing with the men, and just making a cut isn't competing, and petitions to play full time on the LPGA she would have a great chance to overtake some ahead of her.There is no doubt they would let her go to Q school this year. They would be crazy not to, but she has to want to first. I don't believe she would put up Annika type numbers, for the simple fact it is getting much more competitive out there every year.Even Annika is having difficulty reaching past totals. But I do think she could put up Inkster, Webb type career numbers which is a hall of fame career. But and i do mean BUT if only she plays full time on the LPGA. If she doesn't she will always be Miss What Could Have Been.
07/14/06 @ 09:14
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
The LPGA developed the Rolex rankings with Rolex and the LPGA can change them if they want to, but not this season. Next season they could change them to give more weight to current results and possibly exclude non-members from the rolls.

07/14/06 @ 15:11
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
Let's hope they come to their senses and tweak the system as even Annika Sorenstam has pointed out they should.
07/14/06 @ 15:53
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks,
I'm a bit busy and haven't read the comments above, so sorry if I repeat anything others are saying.

For the rankings, I actually agree with you that it is unfair on the likes of Ochoa, who plays so well so often to have someone like Wie ahead of her, who plays so few events.

There is one issue you are wrong though and that is in regard to winning. You and others have said that a player with no wins shouldn't be ranked number 2.
The reality is, that in the mens game if someone were to finish 2nd in every event they entered, they would be number 1 by a huge margin ahead of Tiger. That is the way rankings are in every sport and that is just the way that it is. Win totals measure win totals. Rankings rate performance, and they give ranking points to people other than the winner.

I understand what you are saying about giving more points to the winner, but with Michelle having such a high percentage of high finishes, the only way you could push her down is to give 100 points to the winner and drop it to something like 20 points for 2nd place. That would be unfair as it would mean that the ranking list would just look like a list of who had the most wins, and would give little or no reward to players who faught to try to get from 20th position to be in the top 5. There simply would be no ranking incentive for those players.

A higher minimum divisor would probably be a good option. That would push Wie's ranking down a bit, but most of us would be sensible enough to know that if someone doesn't have the minimum divisor number of events played then they are at a disadvantage.
If the minimum divisor number was the number 30, that would mean that Wie would get credit for her 15 events, and then she would be treated as if she had missed cuts in another 15.
Although this is unfair, the current system is unfair to golfers like Ochoa, and those of us with common sense would know that Wie's ranking was lower due to number of events player.
There are plenty of people who post regularly on these boards who wouldn't understand that, but many of us would.

As regards weight of points, I think that is perfect as it is. Se Ri Pak may be behind Morgan Pressel, but you should realise that Se Ri was playing pretty dreadful golf until recently. She was something like 120 on the 2005 money list. Don't worry, she will pass Pressel soon enough, and should climb towards the top 5 places.

Also mentioned was Seon Hwa Lee. She has something like over 50 events that she is rated on. Yes she had done well this year, but she had low ranking points previously.
She was ranked over 100 before the start of the season, so she has climbed steadily. I think she will continue her rankings improvement also.

I don't agree with shorting rankings periods. If that were done, perhaps Lorena would have passed Annika and become world number 1. I simply don't agree with that happening.
She should have to produce the goods for longer than that to pass Annika in my opinion.
07/14/06 @ 18:48
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
NORMAN

Let me explain the weighting problem with the rankings. Suppose a similar system were devised to measure how well you do at shooting birdies, and suppose you always shoot 4 birdies per round. The Rolex system would pretend like you shot 6 birdies per round for tournaments in the last 3 months, and pretend that you shot only 2 birdies per round for tournaments over a year old. Depending upon when you played, the system might be claiming you are shooting anywhere from 2 to 6 birdies per round. If the system gave the same added weight to recent tournaments when it comes to determining the divisor as well as the points there would be no problem--but this is not the case.
07/14/06 @ 19:27
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
The Rolex ratings are flawed because they use an incorrect mathematical formula to find the weighted average. To find a weighted aberage you divide by the sum of the weights, not by the total number of items. If the attention is to attach more weight to recent performances, what we want is the weighted average, and that is not what we are getting. The men's ratings have the same flaw, but with a minimum divisor of 40, the issue is far less important.
07/14/06 @ 22:01
Comment from: David [Visitor]
I bet if Michelle was asked about the rankings, she'd say, 'Oh yes, I am absolutely the second best female golfer on the planet. No doubt about it.'
07/15/06 @ 06:11
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
David--You lose the bet. She was asked about the tankings when they first came out(she started at 3 behind Creamer). She talked about how nice it was to be ranked so high--but explained to critics that she was not responsible for the rankings. She did not claim to be the 3rd best or later 2nd best female golfer.
07/15/06 @ 11:22
Comment from: george valdez [Visitor]
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
[Wie] was asked about the tankings when they first came out
*****

**tankings**

I know it was a typo, Jim. Nevertheless, an ironically amusing one when referring to Michelle

-George
07/15/06 @ 11:50
Comment from: Jenny [Visitor]
I'm glad you educated David, Jim. Without knowing what she said he just jumped in with his anti Wie comment

I have never heard her boast or bad mouth any other golfer a la Morgan. She even said Morgan was a nice girl even after reading all of Morgan's jealous comments. She shows great maturity understanding and tolerating all the jealousy in the LPGA in my opinion And yes she's only 16.

Morgan at 18 could learn from her
07/16/06 @ 00:31
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
Speaking of Pressel, why is that The Golf Channel always shows where she is in a tournament on the scrolling score updates at the bottome of the screen? She is usually far outside of the top 10, but they'll show her score last (i.e. T35 Pressel +4) like they do with Tiger or Annika when they are not in the mix. I don't think that special mention is warranted, do you?
07/16/06 @ 08:56
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
SHANKS

I believe you a wrong about any professional golfer taking a win and three middling performances in the Majors over 3 top 5 finishes. Specifically, I believe you are wrong with regard to Michelle Wie.

Last year in the US Women's Open, Michelle Wie learned a very important lesson. If Michelle Wie puts up a middling performance in a Major--even if she ties the greatest female golfer ever to play the game--there will be far more focus on how badly she plays than there will be on the winner. Michelle Wie knows she will not be judged by her best performance but by her worst--so she works very hard never to have another performance like she did at last yaer's Open.
07/17/06 @ 00:58
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
My hypothetical case was an either/or proposition. And I'm betting the ranch that Wie would rather be a winner. Did you notice Annika getting criticized for that middling performance in last year's US Open? No, because she'd already won the previous 2 Majors. The heat that Wie took from that US Open was because she folded horribly when starting tied for the lead on Sunday. Annika just didn't have it that week.

07/17/06 @ 07:39
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Michelle Wie's results this year with Majors starred.

3T,3T*,5T*,3T*,5T

Se Ri Pak's

41T, CUT, 45T*, CUT, WDC, 09T, 25T, 01*, 45T, 03T*, 09T, 04.

Michelle Wie did much better than Se Ri Pak in late 2004 and 2005. But even if we look just at 2006 how can you look at Se Ri Pak's record for the year and say it is better than Michelle's? If Michelle Wie had a record like this her 45T in the event after her win would be considered proof she is no winner.

I may have overstated the case with Michelle Wie preferring the high finishes in Majors. But I am quite certain she would not trade records with Se Ri Pak.



07/17/06 @ 13:29
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
Jim, your fondness for numbers is showing. I'm gonna ask you to trust me on this one. The best golfers in the world are primarily interested in one thing: winning. When asked what constitutes a great year, Tiger once responded "Winning a Major, period". I don't believe I've ever heard any great player say "but I'd prefer to have a bunch of high finishes instead."
07/17/06 @ 13:41
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks,
I would much rather that Michelle Wie have her record than that of Se Ri Pak for 2006 so far.

If Michelle were just to win the odd title, and get a heap of lower finishes, as shown in Jim's account of Se Ri's placings, that would suggest that she was inconsistant and would only win the odd time, when she happened to hit the odd bit of hot form.

Her consistancy shows that when she wins, she could start winning a high percentage of the lpga tournaments she plays in.
07/17/06 @ 15:23
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I created a modification of the Rolex Ranking designed to give wins about 5 times the value of second place finishes instead of the 5/3 times as much in the current system(which approximates the division of money).

Within 3 months I add 200 points for a Major win(so 1st and second get 300 to 60 instead of 100 to 60) With other LPGA events I add 150 points.

With 3 to 12 month old events there is 2/3 the bomnus, and 12 to 24 months it is 1/3 the bonus.

I give two sets of results counting the 2004 and 2005 ADT Championships both won by Annika as a reular event and as a Major.

Annika 46.97(or 48.16)
Lorena Ochoa 15.93
Webb & Kerr 14.60

Wie still at 13.09
Jeong Jang 11.76
Paula Creamer 11.74
Se Ri Pak 10.81

Here Michelle Wie drops to 5th--but I cannot see anyone who is that far behind Annika in these ratings has any legitimate complaint about not being ranked 2nd. As I see it, the only player with a legitimate beef would be Annika. In the Rolex Rankings Michelle Wie could pass Annika with two top finishes including one win. In this alternate system Michelle could only come close and pass even two wins in Europe.
07/17/06 @ 22:09
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Correction

With two wins in Europe, Michelle would come close but she would not pass Annika in the modified rankings.
07/17/06 @ 22:14
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Jimbo, So all Bubbles needs are TWO wins in Europe? That should be a piece of cake. Just look at the way she performed at the John Deere. You Wie Warriors are TOO funny.
07/18/06 @ 07:55
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
SHANKS

Would you be agreeable to using a minimum divisor of 40 for players without a Major win, amateur or professional, within the 2 year reporting period? With this modification Se Ri Pak moves up to 12th with her 5.25 rating and Michelle Wie slips to 13th with a 5.24 rating.
07/18/06 @ 19:31
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
I disagree strongly with a 2 year rating period. It should be more like the most recent 12 months to make the ratings more sensitive to current form, and should have much heavier weighting on Majors, winning regular events and especially winning Majors. I don't know why something done between 13-24 months ago should have any bearing on who is the best player in the world NOW. For instance, if Annika goes into a prolonged slump it would still take forever for someone to overtake her. I think that's ridiculous.
07/18/06 @ 23:18
Comment from: totoks [Visitor]
Shanks:

I think I may have come up with a solution to your Rolex “dilemma” . Use the same system that college football uses – have the sportscasters rank the players, you know, like you and big dog on the golf channel. I mean, after all, you guys are the golf gods, right? So whomever you’all deem is the best has gotta be the best! Why? Because you say so, and like Alex says, you’re NEVER wrong.

So -- get together with your buddies and start coming up with your top 20 each week. Then the PGA/LPGA can have a GCS (like BCS) ranking and there can be a match play at the end of the year between the number 1 and number 2.

What’cha think?

toto
07/19/06 @ 13:11
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
Golf God? Oh no, no, no. I was wrong once - back in '97 I think - so that would have to reduce my title to something mortal like Golf Wizard Emeritus. (Leave that curtain alone, Toto.)
07/19/06 @ 14:13
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
SHAMKS

How do you like the Rolex LPGA Player of the Year ranking?
07/19/06 @ 16:07
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
To tell you the truth, I've never looked at them. I'd prefer that the LPGA do it like the PGA does: have the players vote. Then you see how pros value their accomplishments.
07/20/06 @ 07:46
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I believe they give points for first to tenth 30,12,9,7,6,5,4,3,2,1. Unlike the World Rankings,points are not averaged in case of a tie. A T3 is a good as a solo 3. Points for Majors are doubled.

There is no divisor. Bit if we wished to introduce one, Majors should count double because double points are awarded. The top 3 are Lorena, Annika and Karrie--but if a divsor were used they would be Annika, Karrie, and Lorena. Michelle Wie is not a member of the LPGA and therefore has no points.
07/21/06 @ 15:23
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
Jim, those ranking appear to be more responsive to current form, regardless of the divisor, so I personally would prefer them to the current World Rankings. But I would presume that they are only based on the 2006 season. For World Rankings (and therefore tournament qualification / Match Play seeding) I think a rolling period of 12 months would be just about perfect for the basis of calculations.
07/21/06 @ 15:34
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
The Rolex POY rankings are a reasonable way to determine the best player on the PGA--but treating an 11 the same as a missed cut hardly seems like a good idea to determine the 30th best player in the world--or HSBC seedings down in the 20s, 30s, and 40s.

For the US Solheim Cup wins are only worth twice instead of 2.5 times 2nd place--and points go down to 20th place. For the Rolex Rookie of the Year, wins are given an even smaller multiple of 2nd place points--and points are given for just making a cut.

Payer of the Year rankings are designed to distinquish the number 1 and number 2 players. Nothing else really matters. For the US Solheim Cup they need to distinquish players who are in or not in the top 10. Again nothing else matters. For the Rookie award they need to distnquish number 1 and 2 rookies. World Rankings, however, need to make numerous distnctions.

Either accept the fact that the best formula to serve the overall purpose of the World rankings may not be the best to determine the number one or two player. Or design a system that does not simply award points to everyone on the same basis, and then divide by tournaments played.

07/21/06 @ 17:57
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
Jim, those are very valid points you are making. I think the Rolex World Ranking would be ok IF they cut the ratings period to the most recent 12 months and put a bigger multiplier on regular Tour wins, major performances and - especially - even more emphasis on Major wins.
07/24/06 @ 08:03
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Shanks,
I do not agree with you regarding Annika.

I think Annika has worked damn hard to build up her ranking, with her magnificant performances. If the rankings were designed in such a way that she could play a few bad events, and then someone would pass her that would be very unfair. Annika has built her ranking so that she is the clear number 1, and she deserves the leeway that gives.

How about Tiger Woods? If the mens were done your way, maybe Phil Mickelson would have passed out Woods in the rankings. That wouldn't have been fair.
07/24/06 @ 12:00
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
My feeling is that the number one golfer ranking should be more closely based to current form than it is.

For instance, if Karrie Webb had won that playoff for the LPGA Championship, then I think that should've been enough to make her the (current) number one player in the world going into the US Open, since she had already won the Kraft Nabisco and the full field event at Kingsmill in the previous weeks. Conversely, it would've worked in Annika's favor when she was overtaking Webb several years ago.

What it would do is generate more excitement. Wouldn't it be nice if the number one spot were up for grabs more often? Imagine if Wie, Creamer or one of the other young guns went on a tear and won a couple of Majors and regular events in a 3 month period. Certainly they would be playing better than anyone else. Why then should they not be called number one in the world?
07/24/06 @ 12:20
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Shanks,
We just differ on what the number 1 means.
I think it has huge status, and I don't think it should be passed around cheaply to someone who has a quick run of good form.

Your way may well add more excitement to the system but I think if someone plays really well over a good period like Tiger and Annika, then someone else should have to have a good run of sustained performance or Annika and Tiger a sustained bad run, for them to be knocked off the top spot.
07/25/06 @ 19:32

This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
PoorExcellent
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)

Simply select where you want to play, find a tee time deal, and golf now!

Dates: January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
1 Night Stay, 1 Round of Golf, 1 Breakfast, 1 Turn Lunch, 1 Dinner, offer is based on double occupancy. Offer is based on our availability. Reservations can't be made more then 7 days in advance. Price does not include tax and gratuity.
Price range: $99