Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?

[George Pazin]

Of course World Ranking points available in any event are calculated according to the strength of the field.  Anyway, what about US PGA Tour events where Woods didn't play, presumably you'd have those downgraded.  What about now.  If Westwood, Katmer and McDowell aren't playing, should US Tour events be downgraded?

I am under the impression that all events are weighted based on who (which number ranking, that is) plays. In other words, events get weighted higher when more higher-ranked players participate. In that sense, the rankings should self-adjust to the strength of either tour event on any given week.

[Adam Lawrence]

Of course World Ranking points available in any event are calculated according to the strength of the field.  Anyway, what about US PGA Tour events where Woods didn't play, presumably you'd have those downgraded.  What about now.  If Westwood, Katmer and McDowell aren't playing, should US Tour events be downgraded?

I am under the impression that all events are weighted based on who (which number ranking, that is) plays. In other words, events get weighted higher when more higher-ranked players participate. In that sense, the rankings should self-adjust to the strength of either tour event on any given week.

That's exactly right. Which of course means that, as more players like Westwood, Kaymer and McIlroy choose to play most of their golf in Europe, the points available for European Tour events when they are playing will get higher. So it'll get even more feasible to achieve high world rankings with relatively low visibility to US fans.

[Matthew Petersen]

Here's the summary of how events are "weighted" per the WGR site:

The official events from the six professional tours together with the Canadian, OneAsia, Nationwide and European Challenge Tours are all taken into account and “Ranking Points” are awarded according to the players’ finishing positions and are generally related to the strength of the field based on the number and ranking of the Top-200 World Ranked players and the Top-30 of the Home Tour players in the respective tournaments (Event “Rating Values”).  However, the four Major Championships are rated separately to reflect the higher quality of the events together with the Players Championship in the United States.  In addition, the BMW PGA Championship in Europe, the Australian, Japan and South African Open Championships and the Flagship events on the Asian and Nationwide Tours are allocated higher minimum points levels to reflect their status.

[Mark Pearce]

As an example of the weighting of tournaments, Westwood won fewer points for winning in Indonesia than Donald won for finishing T4 in the Masters.  That's also why Donald would have overtaken Westwood if both had won this weekend, the Heritage was worth more points than the Indonesian event.

[Ulrich Mayring]

All that being said, there is still a base number, below which you can never go, no matter how weak the field is. And that base number is the same for PGA Tour and European Tour, closely followed by the Asian Tour and some others. It is debatable whether those base numbers are correct - I would like to do away with them.

Ulrich

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I never thought it meant much, but it is good for revenue for areas which value that on a resume. I cannot imagine it making much difference each week if a player is 1 or 5. It still means he is playing at the top of his profession right then.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Here's how the BBC man sees it http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/iaincarter/2011/04/rankings_accurately_reflect_go.html

Mark,

I think Ian Carter makes some very valid points in his blog.

Before reading it, I was tempted to jump into this discussion and write that there must be something wrong with the rankings when Harrington couldn't make the top spot a few years back. But Carter does illustrate that Harrington would be No. 1 today as his average was 7.855. This highlights the need to focus on the actual average number and not the position. Harrington didn't make No. 1 because Woods had an average somewhere around 11, and Mickelson was just a little shy of Woods.

[Mark Pearce]

Donal,

I don't think focussing on the average is right.  If, say, Woods, Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson, Seve, Faldo and Mickelson had all been at their peak at the same time, I doubt one of them would have avearged more than 8.  That doesn't mean they wouldn't all still have been great players.

[Gary Slatter]

the "system" in place could be strengthened by deducting points each week if a ranked player does not play in a professional event.
Poulter did not play one event as he didn't want his rank to suffer - by not playing IMHO his rank should have been adjusted.

Anyway, I thought the OPEN CHAMPION was GOLFER OF THE YEAR, every year.

It's a great era, so many good winners playing around the world, many in New Orleans this week.  Winning is important.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Donal,

I don't think focussing on the average is right.  If, say, Woods, Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson, Seve, Faldo and Mickelson had all been at their peak at the same time, I doubt one of them would have avearged more than 8.  That doesn't mean they wouldn't all still have been great players.

Mark,

Yes, I definitely agree.

I should have worded my remarks differently. I should have written that looking at position alone, or average alone, you'll end up with a distorted view. But you must take the average into account. I think the trouble people have with a Westwood, Kaymer or Donald being No. 1, basically comes down to a comparison with Woods. There's an expectation that a No. 1 should be winning 5-6 tournaments a year (one or two of which are would be majors), but this is unrealistic. Woods set very high standards.

We are now seeing a lower average for these three, as they are performing very well, but certainly not as exceptional as Woods did. As with your example, if Woods, Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson, Seve, Faldo and Mickelson were all playing today at their peaks, the No. 1's average would probably be even lower than Westwood's current average.