Golf with Shanks - Latest Comments on Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Johnny N. [Visitor] in response to: Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Johnny N. [Visitor] — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:32:15 +0000

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.

Shanks [Member] in response to: Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Shanks [Member] — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:20:53 +0000

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?

Johnny N. [Visitor] in response to: Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Johnny N. [Visitor] — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:00:58 +0000

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.

Shanks [Member] in response to: Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Shanks [Member] — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:03:08 +0000

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.

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] in response to: Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:57:49 +0000

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.

Shanks [Member] in response to: Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Shanks [Member] — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:34:02 +0000

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.

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] in response to: Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:23:33 +0000

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.

Shanks [Member] in response to: Michelle Wie and The Rolex World Rankings for Women Golfers

Shanks [Member] — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:46:32 +0000

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.