Rolex world rankings are more realistic when it comes to Michelle Wie

Tim: Absolutley agree with new rating system...certainly better than the predecessor. I've read a few of teh comments on Dot's blog and I find it interesting that MW fans are now verynegative about teh rankings. For some, its a conspiracy to knock their girl from teh top..unfairly. For others, they now feel the ROLEX rankings are realy nothing special and should not be ctaken seriously...noe, that is.

[Sorry everyone, first post was a misfire]

Tim: Absolutely agree with new ROLEX rating system...certainly better than the predecessor. I've read a few of the comments on Dot's blog, and I find it interesting that MW fans are now very negative about the rankings and the new formula. For some, it’s a dark anti-Wie conspiracy to knock their girl from the top...unfairly. For others, they now feel the ROLEX rankings are really nothing special and should not be taken seriously...even MW really doesn’t care about it. Well, old Albert E was right ...all things are relative, aren’t they. How can any even-handed person not look at the new rankings and say...yeah...that makes better sense. If the ranking were based on marketability, gallery draw, sensationalism...OK, MW has a lock on #1, but those are the least important variables when you rank based on competitive results. No doubt MW will be right up there in time, but for now, 7th place is probably about the right spot for MW. Finally, I like your observation that MW may not fair as well if she were faced with the same tour grind schedule as the ladies she competes against. Now for the past several weeks, she’s been out there on a more regular basis since the U’S Open qualifier. I notice she posted a 3-over in today’s first round of the WBO...I wonder if the grind is beginning to show??? Maybe too early, but I think she may well miss the cut this time around. EEEEKKKK! Sacrilege to the Wie faithful, I know...but something in my gut tells me that after this disappointing first round this young lady may just say...man. I’m tired....take me home to Hawaii.

I haven't seen the new rankings but I would have to agree that they sound more realistic.
While I am a fan of MW, her position at number 2 was pretty difficult to justify with nothing in the wins column.

JRC: Look up definition of fact in dictionary; then edit your post.

Tim:

First - sorry to disappoint you, but, actually NO ONE (other than maybe your children) listens to you - especially not the lpga or rolex! man! talk about an ego - wow!

next - wot 'bout the RWR on Morgan? Oop, sorry, I didn't "hear" you.

Still, seven is probably a bit high for MW at this point. maybe they could "tweak" the rankings, without making it too obvious that the whole point of the tweak is MW, to make MW's divisor 50 - to match most of the other players - that would put her into double digits and squash the frenzy of anti-RWR.

But, seriously, why no comment on Morgan?

toto

The new ranking system is better.

However, something important should be noted. It is a ranking system that is used to measure performances of full time golfers, who play a minimum of 35 events in a 2 year period.

For anyone else, their ranking is skewed. For Wie having played in 16 events, they take her 16 events, and then they pretend that she missed the cut in a further 19 events that she did not even play in.

There is nothing wrong with the new ranking system. However there is something wrong with anyone who tries to claim that it makes Wie the 7th best golfer. What ranking she would have when she would play the 35 events is the only accurate ranking.

Johnny N. it sounds like you want the #1 ranking given to MW rather than have her earn it...

toto: OK, I'm all for self-improvement, but I don't get your comment. OK, I did poke the pooch and sent a pre-mature posting rife with errors, but hey...I fess’d up and posted anew. I looked, but found I didn't use the word “fact” in the offending post???? Now I did use "fair" when I meant "fare" and I fat-fingered an apostrophe between the U and S of US, and OK EEEEEKKKK! is not a proper word, but otherwise I’m at a loss to respond to your editorial criticism and pointed direction???? Can you help me out here?

I'm wondering about the lack of comments on Morgan's performance too. For a little while there the media seemed to make her out as the Anti-Wie, but haven't heardmuch about it lately. Oh yeah toto...what exactly does this line mean?

"next - wot 'bout the RWR on Morgan? Oop, sorry, I didn't "hear" you."

Again, I guess I'm a little slow...what did you mean here?

A HA..OK my bust, MW ended rnd 1 at +2 (74) today, I was inaccurate in my previous post.

With the new Rolex Ranking, Michelle Wie could win the grand slam next year and still be ranked behind a golfer who earned one more point in 35 events than Michelle Wie earned in just 16.

The new system is basically designed to guarantee that no part time golfer will be ranked number one--no matter how well she does.

How can Tim say it will be more realistic to pretend that in the next rankings Michelle played in 35 events during the ranking period--when she actually will have played in only 17?

I have a question for Tim.

Under the current system, if Michelle Wie wins her next 16 events over a two year period, she would be number one. Under the new system, I believe a player with 35 seconds and no wins over the same period could be ranked ahead of Wie. Are you saying it would be more realistic for Michelle Wie with nothing but wins to be ranked behind a player with no wins?

"Are you saying it would be more realistic for Michelle Wie with nothing but wins to be ranked behind a player with no wins?"

I'm saying it would be more realistic to talk about pigs flying then to talk about Michelle Wie with nothing but wins.

I wasmerely questioning the claim that the new system is more realistic with respect to Michelle Wie.

Rephrase the question.

Should a part time player who plays in 16 events and wins them all be ranked behind a full time player who plays in 35 events and finishes second in all of them? This would be possible in the new system but not the old.

ROLEX can't design a ranking system specifically with respect to Michelle Wie. It should consider the larger body of full-time competitors on the tour actively playing week in and week out. The whole notion that a part-timer can swoop in and swoop out, cherry-picking events, and (although unlikely) win each and everyone one and sit in the #1 spot is well----unrealistic, no?

There are two questions here.

1) How should the system have been designed in the first place?

2) Should the system be changed midyear to protect the number one ranking of a particular player?


If there were no divisor there would be pressure on players to play a lot of events if they want a high rating. In tennis, Pete Samprass may have burned himself out playing a lot of events each year to retain the number one ranking.

The divisor relieves this pressure--and for the men the minimum divisor was set at 40, or more precisely 20 in each of the one year periods. But the divisor system is flawed. As long as Tiger's rating is more than 12.5, a win in a Major between 1.75 and 2 years old actually brings down Tiger's average.

As long as weighted points are given, the divisors should also be weighted numbers.

This issue also exist for the women, but it is less extreme. For the women, the winner of a Major seems to start at 100 points(with points later declining)--but for the equally competitive Evian I believe the winner got 60.

Under the old system Michelle Wie would have had a higher proportion of Majors than Annika so that after the WB a divisor of 20 might have been a resonable way to take this factor into accuont. Wie also has a higher proportion of recent events at this time of year--although it is lower at other times.

I came up with an approximate formula to take this into account. Use the actual divisor for Wie--but then reduce her average by (10+2.5R) per cent where R is the number of events in the last 13 weeks. I am making some guesses about the decline in values after 13 weeks which may not be correct. I have assumed a loss of 1/3 value.

In any case with this her current rank would be reduced from 14.63 to 11.70. Annika's number one would not be in jeopardy this week--but Wie would still be number two by a comfortable margin.


Unfortunately the divisor is too crude to do its job properly.

first of all, my poll question:

Who will capture their maiden LPGA stroke-play victory 1st? (It's alpha, so don't bitch about Michelle's placement)

Julieta Granada
Natalie Gulbis
Brittany Lang
Brittany Lincicome
Ai Miyazako
Morgan Pressel
Michelle Wie


Next, here's a shocker: Coulthard is actually right about something: It is unfair to change the rules in the middle.

Probably to generate some hype for whomever and themselves, the suits created something at the beginning of the year and they should stick with it, to praise or ridicule.

The simple solution. In baseball, there's a reason that somebody who got a base hit in their first at-bat and then never batted again never wins the batting average championship. You need a certain number of at-bats to qualify. You need a certain number of innings pitched to qualify for the ERA crown.

Obviously, one should have a certain number of tournament starts to qualify for the rankings. They are meant to rank people with a common level of exposure to the LPGA.

-George

I think what happened with the rankings was this.

Originally they used Michelle Wie and the number 15 as an excuse to entirely exclude almost every amateur by not even listing anyone with less than 15 events in the two year period.

But Michelle Wie did well enough that a lot of people wanted to use a PGA style divisor to make it virtually impossible for a player to place high in the rankings with very few events. The trade off is to actually list everyone so we can actually see what the ranking would be if they used the actual number as the divisor.

They explain the reason as having nothing to do with Michelle Wie--they found most of the top 200 had at least 35 events. But please tell me that they didn't have this info 6 months ago.

It's really odd that they decided, almost out of the blue, to change the Rolex Rankings. I agree with Jim, part of it has to do with Michelle Wie and the controversy with her being ranked so high. No way could they not realize that the top 200 had at least 35 events down 6 months ago. Take note, when it first came out, the powers that be in charge of the Rankings reasoned that the minimum 15 events were required because tours, like the JLPGA, did not have as much events. And, I theorized like most, because that's the minimum events Michelle plays in.

No Ranking system would be perfect. Even as a Michelle Wie fan, I'd say the currently one ranks Wie just a bit high. Top 5? Yes. Second? Not quite yet, Ochoa deserves second. But then again, like Jim said, it would be unfair for a player to finish high consistently and be ranked under one who's mediocre, but has more events. My solution is just to set the minimum events higher to 20-25. The way I see it, it's better off if Michelle is not included in the rankings. Not because she doesn't deserve to be in it. Her inclusion can cause a lot of controversy, no matter where she is ranked. I've gotten used the idea of her being high up, but others don't. It seems like the Rankings are trying too hard to balance having Wie in the standings and silencing critics (of the Rankings). But what's the Rankings worth, if you don't have Michelle Wie included?

35 will be more realistic ranking system indeed. I think they finally figured things out. The only question is, how are they rating the points of Japan tour/Korean tour ? There are too many no name Jap/Koreans in the ranking chart. In my opinion, currently the best Japanese (Fudoh)is not even top 20 of LPGA.

OK, Come on now, how can anyone, MW booster or otherwise, mathematical genius or Liberal Arts major not look at these new rankings an say..."Yeah, now that looks more sensible."

Top 25 + 1 Rolex World Rankings (Updated August 7 2006):

1 Annika Sorenstam SWE 17.41
2 Lorena Ochoa MEX 9.87
3 Karrie Webb AUS 9.39
4 Paula Creamer USA 8.13
5 Cristie Kerr USA 8.04
6 Juli Inkster USA 7.75
7 Michelle Wie USA 6.83
8 Jeong Jang KOR 6.09
9 Yuri Fudoh JPN 5.98
10 Ai Miyazato JPN 5.79
11 Mi Hyun Kim KOR 5.75
12 Hee-Won Han KOR 5.65
13 Se-Ri Pak KOR 5.60
14 Pat Hurst USA 5.23
15 Shiho Ohyama JPN 5.09
16 Natalie Gulbis USA 4.61
17 Seon-Hwa Lee KOR 4.57
18 Sakura Yokomine JPN 4.11
19 Sophie Gustafson SWE 3.94
20 Sherri Steinhauer USA 3.90
21 Ji-Hee Lee KOR 3.86
22 Brittany Lincicome USA 3.74
23 Meena Lee KOR 3.49
24 Akiko Fukushima JPN 3.20
25 Julieta Granada PRY 3.19
26 Morgan Pressel USA 3.16