Shanks - does the ranking system differ in any significant way between the PGA and the LPGA?

What do you think is the most accurate period to judge over and why?

PS - See Natalie Gulbis has taken to heart your criticism re her putting grip.

I didn't even know that there was a number three...I'm very familiar with numbers one and two...Ochoa and Pettersen.

I think the men's WGR are more reasonable although many complain that there are too many foreign players who have done little or nothing in majors ranked way to high vis-a-vis average PGA tour players and I tend to agree. The thing about rankings is it all depends on the type of tracks played. If, for example, a tour is played on really tough tight golf courses then the top players might be a completely different group than from a tour played on wide open courses.

Shanks, I think they should change the rules of golf as follows : (1) If you are on the green and your ball moves and you didn't hit it then there is no penalty. (2) At any time you may play the next stroke from where you played the previous stroke with a one stroke penalty. (1) would end this ridiculous staring at a ball on the green wondering if it is oscillating and (2) would end this "please don't find my ball" in the woods. I know this is off topic but wanted your opinion or comments.

I prefer the Golfweek/Sagarin Rankings - uses a 52 week period rather than 2 years and measures head to head performances against every other ranked player.

I'm not sure of the difference between the women's & men's ranking systems. All I know is that the arbitrary ranking period is too long. There is no reason whatsoever to use anything longer than the most recent 12 months. I could have also picked on Annika Sorenstam at number 2 although her last win was in early September 2006. But I didn't want to cloud the issue with discussion of injury. Webb's case perfectly illustrates the point.

OS - I'll dedicate a future story to your question.

While I must confess the ranking system on the PGA tour is complex one must admit it is a very well thought out system. A player loses points earned in a tournament over a period of two years, losing a quarter of those points every six months. A game like tennis uses a relatively simple format of maintaining the points earned in a tournament for a period of one year and then completely knocking it off once that period is over. So if a player performs very well in a grand slam and earns a lot of points he maintains a strong ranking for a period of one year and then could suddenly find himself falling down the ranking list all of a sudden. Therefore the periodic knocking off of points makes a lot of sense.

The only thing that one could argue about is probably whether a period of two years is just too long to maintain the points earned for a tournament. What is debatable is whether ranking should be relative or absolute. While a relative system with a certain cap on the number of tournaments played over the period of two years gives the better indication of the better player but there are many who believe ranking has to be taken care of in an absolute manner. The more you play, the more points you get in your kitty and from there on your finish determines yours ranking. But whatever system you use and despite the fact that Tiger played only 16 tournaments this year there is absolutely no doubt where his position would be on the ranking list.

Shanks/Andy - in tennis the tournaments tend to be played in the same place at the same time of year every year. Does the fact that the golf tournaments change location, dates, etc, most years mean that it necessitates a more complex ranking points system? I do look at points lost/gained after tournaments, but had not been able to make head nor tail of it, so thank you for the clarification.

Venue means nothing to world rankings because it's relative to the field that particular week. Rather it is strength of field that influences the rankings. It matters who you beat, not where.

Sorry - I was not very clear. I didn't mean that the venue had a value per se (although in the case of Oakmont, perhaps it should!) but rather that there are more variations in the golf year than tennis. The explanations behind the ranking calculations are clear but nowhere does it say why it's two years, or at least I haven't found it.

The 2 year period is arbitrary, decided by the mathemetician who developed the ranking system. I think he acted beyond his pay grade and nobody has the stones to challenge his system. Clearly, 2 years is much too long a period to decide the number one ranking.

I understand that golf is not like most sports where the best wins most of the time. So there is a need for ranking to be calculated over a significant stretch of time. If I had my way, I'd say calculate the rankings on the most recent 12 month period. The most recent 6 months of history should get full value and the prior 6 months should get 75% value. Then you would have something resembling a true current ranking.

The advantages of your system vis-a-vis the Golfweek/Sagarin Rankings which John prefers? Why complicate the full-year value?

The Secretary at my golf club was totally flummoxed by my query re the two year measurement period (although he knew it had been reduced from 3 to 2 yrs.). I only asked him because according to the R & A such questions have to come from Club Secretaries. Probably given the pro-shop instructions to mess up my future tee-times in revenge.

Here is the advantage of valuing the most recent 6 months higher than the previous 6 months. I'll take the EXTREME example to see how it works. Player A dominates Jan-Jun then can't make a cut afterwards. Player B couldn't make a cut thru June then dominates therafter, exactly the way player A did early in the year. So on Dec 31st of that example who should be number one in the world? Player B, of course. But if you value the entire period the same, they would be tied for No. 1 despite that player A hadn't made a cut in 6 months. Ridiculous.

Well, I could live with that and simply accept that Player B is currently the player on form. Still, let's get to the 12 months before we argue over how they are valued!

I agree 100%!!

Shanks - how are you getting on with your story on Oliver's question re golf rule changes? Not nagging, honest, but apart from Brandon and his alligator (don't you wish it had moved just a little?) nothing very gripping. Thank goodness I had 3 Opens to watch and have to get round golf course most speedily to avoid frostbitten feet (whilst not neglecting to fulfill my housewifely duties - just in case the Dreadful Duo should get on my case).

Been a little too tied up to write much lately but will get back to it shortly. So many things to write about: proposed Skins game changes, Els collapse, Immelman getting healthy, annual golf fantasy draft ....

Promises, promises, procrastination, procrastination - just a gentle nudge! Looking forward to them all, then.