[Mark Pearce]

Kalen,

The numbers are bound to be lower when there isn't a single dominant golfer.  "Better" in your post is an entirely subjectice term.  And to say that Woods has "fallen off the planet" "by his own incredible standards" appears to be an admission that he hasn't fallen off the planet on any objective measure.

[V. Kmetz]

Shivas (and all)

The original question is broadly constructed, so it is valid to re-question - as you and others have - whether the Game is suffering or just its iterations in elite competition.  

But to take TL's original question at face value, my answer is affirmative.  It has never meant less to the observer to be #1 than right now.  

Since the time when we have cared at all about such things - whether codified by a discrete ranking value or not - there is no leadership, no hegemony right now about who does it, play Golf, the best.

To say that Woods' decline has not had a desultory effect of the vitality of the Game is premature.  The Latin phrase that encapsulates your circumspection is "Post Hoc, Ergo Proptor Hoc"  "After This, Because of This."  It is often used to cite a fallacy, but did not Woods success have a palpable impact when he was going great guns?  Wasn't there a lot of "After Him - Because of Him" then? Why wouldn't the same be true when his reign is over and he is more known for his failings and personal disgraces than his leadership?

His amateur exploits certainly had an immediate effect on the Game.  His initial carryover success from am to pro certainly had an immediate effect on the Game.  His decade-long hegemony certainly had a long-term impact on the Game.  The combination of these factors had a massive impact on the Game.  He was the real deal, no checkbook Charlie, no Nick Price 1992-95, no over-inflated, advertising star, he.

His undisputed, proven, worthy and able #1 status was remarkable - it framed the failings of Mickelson, it blunted the resume of Els and Singh.  Woods exposed the myths of Garcia, and other like-minded contenders.  Golf, like so many things, needs a Gold Standard and Woods was it.  As a matter of fact, many may only care about who is #1 because Woods was for so long.

Just like Tyson's fall from grace against Buster Douglas was the end of the heavyweight division's meaning (and maybe Boxing as a whole) so it is, imo, with the greater public's attraction to, and valuation of, Golf as Woods is down.  Jordan with hoops, Gretzky in Hockey, ...when the absolute best go down, they take a lot with them, so disposable and money-based is the culture.  I never knew what MJ's salary was, did you?  

Do I care?  No, not at all, I'm going to do my thing and love my Golf and enjoy posting GCA stuff here and maybe, just maybe write about it for a living - but in the larger world Golf has become even more disposable because its emperor has been shown to have been naked.  Whether that is "meaning" or "meaningfulness" is a debate for Aesthetics scholars.

However I do pose this critique of post-modern  culture here in Machine Age 2.0.  Forget Golf, forget sports, forget TV - has it ever meant less to be #1 at anything than it does today?

Yet, in the narrow avenue of Golf, Woods staved off that desultory effect on the sport for a while.

Martin Kaymer, Lee Westwood, Luke Donald, Rory, Sean O Hair, Watney, Garcia, blah blah blah...the 800-lb gorilla in the room is that these guys could be #42 in the world just as easily as #1, perhaps with greater ease for the former. Doesn't mean they're not all-world players of the era with bright futures - just don't think you're going to be saying to the young ones - "Oh lemme tell you about Martin Kaymer..."

cheers

vk

[Keith Doleshel]

I don't know about any of those players named are as close to being #42 in the world just as easily as being #1.  Donald won an event featuring the top 64 players in the world, had a solid finish in the Masters (a 5 on #12 perhaps costing him the tournament) and with a win Sunday, a second win in 2 months.  I understand that the OGWR does have some faults, but Donald is playing as well as anybody in the world right now, and his consistency the past 2 years gives him the opportunity to be #1 by tomorrow.  I'm not sure what the outrage is all about.

[Mark Pearce]

Here's one person who doesn't agree with the initial premise http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/23/2245845/golfs-no1-spot-up-for-grabs-again.html#ixzz1KPUDRVpM][url]http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/23/2245845/golfs-no1-spot-up-for-grabs-again.html#ixzz1KPUDRVpM[/url]

[Adam Lawrence]

I'm astonished.  After years where everyone was, as far as I can remember, bemoaning the fact that no-one was challenging Tiger,

Mark,

Tiger falling off the map and being mortal again is not the same as players stepping up to play at his level.  From what I've observed, Tiger has done all the moving, not the other players....because its clear Tiger is not up to his normal standards.

That's the thing.  Based on results in the last year Woods is 3rd in the world.  He hasn't "fallen off the map".  He has become mortal.  A very, very good mortal but a mortal.  Previously he was, almost universally, recognised as one of the two or three best golfers ever to play the game.  Falling short of that standard isn't £falling off the planet".  Westwood, Kaymer and Donald are, and have been, playing great golf.  Two of them just need a Major to establish themselves.  

"Two of them just need a major to establish themselves."  You're probably right, Mark.  And maybe they think that way.  And maybe Donald and Westwood will win A major.  It definitely helps the resume, but it isn't nearly what I'm talking about here.  I think the game is better off with a dominant player and some great challengers.  Let's say, arguendo, that Tiger is as finished as Schmidt fantasizes he is finished.  Is there a player out there that we can count on to win five or six majors (less than half of Tiger's current total), or maybe twenty tour wins (less than a third of what Tiger has done)?  I don't see Luke Donald doing that.  I don't see Lee Westwood doing that.  And I certainly don't see Kaymer or Schwartzel doing that.

Terry, the problem with this analysis is that one of the players you're dissing _does_ have twenty tour wins (Westwood, in a total of 33 tournament wins as a pro... [EDIT... 34, he just won in Indonesia]). The fact that they are European Tour wins, and you don't really count them... isn't that your problem, not Lee's?

[Scott Warren]

All the other sports/leagues I follow - NRL Premiership, Super 15, test cricket, English Premier League - are more interesting when there is competition at the top, and Tour golf is no different.

The suggestion it means less because 4-5 people can claim the crown at any time makes no sense to me.

Yes, it was remarkable watching Tiger at his prime, just as it was amazing watching the Australian cricket team of 1995-2005 or the Canterbury Crusaders around the turn of the century, but it's even more enthralling to watch a number of evenly-matched gladiators going at it.

[Jud_T]

The Pro game suffers in the ratings and sponsorship game without the cat prowling.  As for the world #1, the average fan has no idea of the methodology involved in calculating the rankings so it's rendered meaningless.  You need something like the Fedex cup playoff to really take off, or ideally some matchplay tourney with the top 16 players to create a NCAA tourney vibe.  How many of us really watch anything other than the majors and the Ryder Cup from beginning to end?  And we're the golf obsessed.  Personally I just record regular tour stops to throw on when I can't sleep at night.

I agree with Shivas (take a picture!) that the game itself is little impacted by Tiger's success.  Sure there may have been a bit of a surge in junior golf when he first ruled the world a decade ago, but if we're counting on the world #1 and golf as it's played on tour to lure new players into the sport then we all might as well pack it in and take up tiddly winks...

[Tony_Muldoon]

Terry, despite your disclaimer, I have difficulty believing  you’d have started it if the three in contention were called Mahan, Watson and Fowler.  There’s a changing of the guard and what happens next is always THE question in sports.  Yes is was also fascinating wondering how far Eldrick could run with the ball, but add in the question over whether he can ever get it back and the rankings have every bit as much real value as they have ever had.


Kaymer isn’t playing this weekend, but he’s currently the Prince in waiting.

[Niall C]

I haven't read anything on this thread other than the opening post so apologies if I'm repeating what others have already said.

The rankings are based on a players performance over a period of time rather than just taking it a week at a time which I think is fair enough. Where it fell to bits was when Tiger was so far ahead and then was out of the game for months and yet was still number one. He might be the most talented player in the game but the fact was he wasn't active. Just a quirk in the system I guess.

At the moment you have a number of players who are bunched together. Maybe there is no one streaking away with it but for those like me who like competition its great. If Donald gets to no. 1 not only will he merit it by his play over the qualifying period but he will be thebest player of the moment having just one the tournament. You can't say thats not merited (well obviously you can but you would be wrong  )

Niall

[Terry Lavin]

Terry, despite your disclaimer, I have difficulty believing  you’d have started it if the three in contention were called Mahan, Watson and Fowler.  There’s a changing of the guard and what happens next is always THE question in sports.  Yes is was also fascinating wondering how far Eldrick could run with the ball, but add in the question over whether he can ever get it back and the rankings have every bit as much real value as they have ever had.


Kaymer isn’t playing this weekend, but he’s currently the Prince in waiting.

Tony,

I probably would post the same thing, except with more emphasis, because the three Euros in question, IMHO, have much more talent than the three Americans you mentioned.  I'm all for one of these young guys running out and winning a bunch of majors and a passel of tournaments, whether he's English, German, Irish or American doesn't matter to me.  They all have a lot of talent.  I'm just waiting for somebody who has the focus and the will to dominate.  In the meantime, it will be fun to watch the bunch of them out there competing week in, week out.

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Are you saying the game grew in America because of Harry Vardon during that period?

Vardon's tour of the U.S. in 1900 selling the Vardon Flyer was a huge success and was given at least partial credit for golf's popularity at the turn of the century.

Cheers,
Dan King

Moderation is essential in all things, madam, but never in my life have I failed to beat a teetotaler.
  --Harry Vardon

[Ulrich Mayring]

It is a grave mistake to assume that Tiger is playing worse now that he averages 5.89 points compared to when he averaged 20 points. The points values do not say anything about how good someone plays, they are not about the quality of the golf, they are only about results against the field.

As far as the ranking points go, Tiger could very well play the same game today as compared to way back when he averaged thrice the number of points. It could simply be down to the competition being a lot better today.

That being said, I do agree that Tiger is playing worse now than he used to. But it is not correct to back this up with the ranking points, they neither support nor disprove that opinion.

Ulrich

[Jay Flemma]

I'd say it means a lot right now...you're better than Tiger Woods!

[Tony_Muldoon]

Terry, despite your disclaimer, I have difficulty believing  you’d have started it if the three in contention were called Mahan, Watson and Fowler.  There’s a changing of the guard and what happens next is always THE question in sports.  Yes is was also fascinating wondering how far Eldrick could run with the ball, but add in the question over whether he can ever get it back and the rankings have every bit as much real value as they have ever had.


Kaymer isn’t playing this weekend, but he’s currently the Prince in waiting.

Tony,

I probably would post the same thing, except with more emphasis, because the three Euros in question, IMHO, have much more talent than the three Americans you mentioned.  I'm all for one of these young guys running out and winning a bunch of majors and a passel of tournaments, whether he's English, German, Irish or American doesn't matter to me.  They all have a lot of talent.  I'm just waiting for somebody who has the focus and the will to dominate.  In the meantime, it will be fun to watch the bunch of them out there competing week in, week out.

Ok I understand and apologies for pigeon holing you.   I think it will be a long time before someone dominates like Tiger did, but it will be fun watching and waiting.

[Steve Lang]

  I once had the oportunity to talk with Fuzzy Zoeller for about 30 seconds.. asked him why he's still playing, for love or money?  He said quickly, "Friend, they put that money out there.. and somebody has to go get it!  Better me than anyone else."

so forget the points.. look at the money impacts at being #1.. pre or post tiger

[Kalen Braley]

It is a grave mistake to assume that Tiger is playing worse now that he averages 5.89 points compared to when he averaged 20 points. The points values do not say anything about how good someone plays, they are not about the quality of the golf, they are only about results against the field.

As far as the ranking points go, Tiger could very well play the same game today as compared to way back when he averaged thrice the number of points. It could simply be down to the competition being a lot better today.

That being said, I do agree that Tiger is playing worse now than he used to. But it is not correct to back this up with the ranking points, they neither support nor disprove that opinion.

Ulrich

Ulrich,

I don't buy this for a moment.

The mere suggestion that 125 guys have all of a sudden moved closer to Tiger, even though they themselves have the same mid single digit rankings,  is absolutely laughable...if not statistically impossible.

You're basically suggesting that every last player on tour is now vastly better than they have been over the previous 10 years when Tiger was utterly dominating?  They all got on the same horse, and all "caught" Tiger, all at the same time?  It couldn't have been one person doing all the moving....

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Dan, you've got it backwards.  Vardon came here to sell the Flyer because the market was exploding, not the other way around.

This is based on what?

Cheers,
Dan King

The advent of the rubber ball was instrumental in creating an entirely different method of striking the object. The solid ball required to be hit for carry, whereas it was quickly apparent that the Haskell lent itself to an enormous run. I hold the firm opinion that from this date the essential attitude towards accuracy was completely lost sight of. This was the start of the craze for length and still more length.
  --Harry Vardon, 1933

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Well, the smarty-pants answer to that, Dan, is that it's based on the decade CMB spent evalgelizing the game before Vardon came over there, as well as the explosion the game enjoyed after 1893.

CBM spent his time getting his buddies and expatriats to play the game in the U.S. Vardon took the game to sporting good stores bringing the game to the hoi polloi.

The practical answer is: economic reality. You don't market a new golf ball to non-golfers in a country with no golfers.

I don't think anyone is saying there was no golf interest in the U.S. prior to the Vardon tour.

Here is what Robert Browning wrote in A History of Golf: The Royal and Ancient Game about Vardon's 1900 tour.

"The first tremendous fillip to the progress of golf in the United States was given by the tour of American courses undertaken by Harry Vardon in 1900. During the tour he won the U.S. Open Championship at Wheaton, Illinois, and it is a startling example of the vagaries of golf that his score of 313 included one stroke that missed the ball altogether -- a short putt in which the head of the club caught the ground and jumped over the ball! Vardon's amazing accuracy with the long game, combined with his graceful and easy style, brought converts to the game wherever he went and started a new golf boom in the States."

I'm going to take Browning's words over your conjecture.

Cheers,
Dan King

The modern player has grown accustomed to having a special club for every conceivable stroke that he fails to realize how much of his vaunted skill is due to the science of the club-maker.
 --Robert Browning

[Mark Pearce]

Kalen,

Did you even read what Ulrich wrote?  Your answer suggests that you didn't get to the end, or understand much of it.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I agree with Kalen, just from watching Tiger play, that he doesn't play as well as he used to. But that is from watching him hit shots, make or miss putts etc. - nothing to do with world ranking points. I also believe, again just from watching, that the field has gotten better. But again, no support from the world ranking points for these subjective impressions.

One fact is that there are a number of young players out there, who are winning big tournaments and who simply weren't there years ago when Tiger dominated.

But the real issue with the world ranking points is that they don't measure absolute quality. They only measure relative quality to the field. For simplicity's sake just imagine that there are three players and 30 points on offer. No matter how good or how bad they play, there are going to be 30 points distributed between them. If everyone starts with 10 points and then two players get worse, you get the same points distribution as if those two players stagnate, but the third gets a lot better.

Therefore, in the current situation I would not rule it out that a handful of players have gotten a lot better. Example: Phil Mickelson didn't win any majors years ago when he was #2 behind Tiger. Right now his game is peaking, he is winning the majors and he went from a clear #2 to #5 or #6. Doesn't this speak for the field?

Ulrich

[jeffwarne]

I agree with Kalen, just from watching Tiger play, that he doesn't play as well as he used to. But that is from watching him hit shots, make or miss putts etc. - nothing to do with world ranking points. I also believe, again just from watching, that the field has gotten better. But again, no support from the world ranking points for these subjective impressions.

One fact is that there are a number of young players out there, who are winning big tournaments and who simply weren't there years ago when Tiger dominated.

But the real issue with the world ranking points is that they don't measure absolute quality. They only measure relative quality to the field. For simplicity's sake just imagine that there are three players and 30 points on offer. No matter how good or how bad they play, there are going to be 30 points distributed between them. If everyone starts with 10 points and then two players get worse, you get the same points distribution as if those two players stagnate, but the third gets a lot better.

Therefore, in the current situation I would not rule it out that a handful of players have gotten a lot better. Example: Phil Mickelson didn't win any majors years ago when he was #2 behind Tiger. Right now his game is peaking, he is winning the majors and he went from a clear #2 to #5 or #6. Doesn't this speak for the field?

Ulrich

If the top twenty guys in the rankings shot 50 under each the next 40 weeks on tour(resulting in a twenty man playoff 40 weeks in a row), shattering every scoring record and they each won twice,none of the twenty would go anywhere in the rankings you'd still hear there are no dominant players and how Nicklaus was better because he had Trevino, Player, Casper,Palmer, watson.

these guys are good (still)
Tiger's not as good as he was

[Terry Lavin]

Official World Golf Ranking   Ending   24 April 2011   
Week   17 2011   
World Ranking   
Events   Points   Points   Event   
This   Last   End   Name   Country   Average   Total   Played   Lost in   Gained in   Played   
Week   Week   2010   Points   Points   (Divisor)   2011   2011   (Actual)   
Min-40 Max-56   
1   (2)   <1>     Lee Westwood   England   7.653   359.704   47   -115.329   50.080   47   
2   (1)   <3>           Martin Kaymer   Germany   7.524   376.209   50   -98.390   118.797   50   
3   (3)   <9>           Luke Donald   England   7.375   383.494   52   -78.551   151.477   52   
4   (4)   <4>           Phil Mickelson   United States   6.520   293.398   45   -100.831   106.053   45   
5   (5)   <6>           Graeme McDowell   N Ireland   5.840   321.193   55   -72.463   60.164   55   
6   (6)   <2>           Tiger Woods   United States   5.715   228.613   40   -129.442   42.801   36   
7   (7)   <10>   Rory McIlroy   N Ireland   5.641   298.982   53   -86.991   78.201   53   
8   (   <8>           Paul Casey   England   5.590   245.972   44   -82.119   62.768   44   
9   (9)   <7>           Steve Stricker   United States   5.478   224.585   41   -95.151   56.942   41   
10   (10)   <13>   Matt Kuchar   United States   5.212   276.223   53   -64.985   94.137   53   
11   (11)   <34>   Charl Schwartzel   South Africa   5.133   287.426   56   -50.002   156.213   60   
12   (12)   <14>   Dustin Johnson   United States   4.993   239.656   48   -62.349   75.928   48   
13   (13)   <5>           Jim Furyk   United States   4.790   229.919   48   -90.799   34.687   48   
14   (14)   <35>   Nick Watney   United States   4.604   230.197   50   -53.269   117.776   50   
15   (15)   <12>   Ernie Els   South Africa   4.433   248.225   56   -83.863   20.685   56   
16   (17)   <32>   Bubba Watson   United States   4.307   198.138   46   -43.383   84.279   46   
17   (16)   <11>   Ian Poulter   England   4.214   223.325   53   -78.165   28.687   53   
18   (18)   <24>   Adam Scott   Australia   4.181   213.232   51   -43.444   70.692   51   
19   (19)   <15>   Francesco Molinari   Italy   4.064   227.572   56   -57.622   43.383   56   
20   (20)   <19>   Hunter Mahan   United States   4.045   218.422   54   -64.900   68.954   54   


That's the current list of the top 20 in the world.  Some math whiz can probably do it more accurately than I, but at first blush, it would appear that you can add up all of the majors won by those not named Tiger Woods and he'd still have the lead.  I might be wrong, but my motto is "often wrong never in doubt", so I'll leave it to somebody who has time to figure it out exactly.  I'm guessing that this group combined has won more tournaments than Tiger, because there are some heavy hitters there, especially Mickelson and Els, but the bottom line is that Tiger is still lurking in the Top Ten despite being the worst putter that Shivas has ever seen, while middling journeyman Luke Donald is ahead of him.

So does being Number One mean anything?  Sure, it means a hell of a lot to anybody who gets it, even for a bloody week.  It means a line on the career resume that a player will always be proud of, even if it lasts but a week or two.  But if the World Number One is a guy that hasn't won a single major title, the odds are that the general golf fan could care less about who that person is that week.

The game is surely more competitive than it's been in awhile, with Tiger slumping, but is it better?

[Kalen Braley]

It would seem there is a lack of understanding of how one gets a "high" average ranking, at least 10 or better.  Quite simply its all about consistently winning....

So lets look at the number of wins for each of these guys in the last year, to see where the majority of thier points come from.

Westwood - 1 win PGA tour, no majors
Kaymer - 4 wins, 3 Euro Tour, 1 Major -PGA
Donald - 2 wins, 1 Euro Tour, 1 PGA tour
Phil - 1 win, PGA Tour
McDowell - 3 wins, 2 Euro Tour, 1 Major
Woods - 0 Wins
McIlroy - 1 win, PGA Tour
Casey - 1 win, Euro Tour
Stricker - 1 win, PGA Tour
Kuchar - 1 win, PGA Tour

So you have a total of 15 wins (2 majors) between the entire top 10.  Only one guy is anywhere close to great with Kaymer.  Although his 3 other wins, came on the Euro Tour.

Now compare that to the number of wins in a single year when Tiger was dominating:

Tiger Woods:
1999 - 8 wins, 1 major
2000 - 9 wins, 3 majors....
2006 - 8 wins, 2 majors....
2007 - 7 wins, 1 major

Its not even in the same ballpark.

[Tim Pitner]

I've never embraced the argument that golf needs a dominant player or that any sport needs a dominant individual or team.  Watching Tiger blow away the fields at Pebble Beach and St. Andrews was impressive, but it wasn't that interesting to me.  In my view, golf doesn't need a single superlative player--it needs its best players playing well in majors.  Even in the Tiger era, there were some great duels involving other very good to great players, e.g., Goosen vs Mickelson at Shinnecock, Mickelson vs Els at Augusta, even Harrington v. Garcia at Carnoustie, etc. 

These sorts of rivalries will develop over time; people just have to be open to the idea of golf without a dominant Tiger.  And if Tiger has a resurgence and enters the fray at least some of the time, all the better. 

[Jud_T]

The best would be a resurgent Tiger competing with the brash young 20-somethings.  Gen X couldn't quite cut the mustard before, but I guess they can still lick the jar....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()