[Terry Lavin]

Just read a story in today's paper that said Luke Donald would vault to the #1 spot with a win in this week's Heritage in Hilton Head.  Has this lofty perch ever meant less?  Is it meaningless except as a line on a golfer's resume?  With all of the gnashing of teeth and bashing in chief of Tiger Woods, isn't it by now obvious that the game is suffering the absence of a consistent, dominant player?  I like the new blood as much as the next guy, but the game needs one of them, or a thirty-something player, to start winning a lot more on a consistent basis.


P.S.  I'm all for Luke Donald, who has had an above average career (three PGA tour wins, three international wins) and who went to college here in Chicago, so don't take this as anti-Euro, please.

[C. Squier]

TL - I agree.  I think Luke's a pretty cool guy and has excellent taste in undergrad college programs.  I just never looked at him and though, "there's a future #1 in the world right there".

Like it or lump it, I think Tiger will get his stripes back.  Though I think it could be sped up with a phone call and check to Butch Harmon.  Jordan took the same few years "off" and came back better than ever.  No real reason to believe TW can't do the same.

[Dan Kelly]

I don't know about less -- but it might have meant just as little the one week Tom Lehman was No. 1 in the world.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that it never matters at all!

[jeffwarne]

I don't think the chicks dig it as much

[Brent Hutto]

Like Dan, I'd say it would be hard for the week-to-week results of some arbitrary ranking formula to mean any less than it always has. Of course the same could be said of golf-course rankings IMO.

[Kalen Braley]

Of course its absolutely meaningless.

Because everyone one of them sumbitches on that list uses yardage books and other distance aids.

[Ronald Montesano]

Number one golf course architect? Isn't that what GCA is about?

[Brad Isaacs]

Does the guy in the white hat always need the guy in the black hat? Jack played the black hat well and Tiger did black hat better. ( Change the black pants occasionally please) You can never keep the black hats down, there will be a new Jack, Tiger or whoever. Do not despair, thrill in the process of seeing the next, best guy establish himself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In the few times I have discussed these rankings with pro golfers, I can tell you they mean a lot to them.  Even  a mid range pro who made up to 12th in one season talked that up for many years after.  A long time great was very concerned whether he deserved to be ranked 7, 8, 9 through 12 all time by another ranking system.

And, when Golf World ranked architects, and I was tied 16, I was very happy.  On all years I failed to make the top 25, I assured my clients I was a T26.

[Mark Pearce]

I'm astonished.  After years where everyone was, as far as I can remember, bemoaning the fact that no-one was challenging Tiger, we now have real competition at the top of the game, with perhaps 5 players who, at any time, could be number one in a month's time (any one of three could be top tomorrow, depending on results).  I think the game may be better for lacking a single dominant figure.  I'd like, however, a couple of them to move on and prove themselves to be great players.  Kaymer may be the best bet of the current top three to step up.  McIlroy has the game but there must be questions over his ability to convert.  Westwood has the ball striking ability but hasn't the natural short game of a great player.

Anyway, in my opinion, golf is all the better for real competition at the top.  This discussion goes away if Kaymer wins another major or Westwood and Donald win a couple.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Since the formula hasn't changed from the "Tiger way ahead days" to today, the rankings mean just as much now as they did then. What they currently show is that there is a bunch of golfers, who are about equal in their abilities. This is the same situation as a couple of years ago with the exception that there was an additional guy, who was way ahead.

The 5-6 guys, who used to be bunched up behind Tiger, had about the same points as the 5-6 guys leading the rankings today: around 7-8 was and is the number. Tiger used to hover at about twice that number, but it is debatable whether he really was twice as good or whether he simply won twice as much against weaker fields.

Ulrich

[Steve Salmen]

Since Lee Westwood and Luke Donald (shall he become #1) have never won major championships, they would be the only two players in the 25 year odd history of the ranking to do so, and in a span of less that a year.

The Honourable Mr. Lavin could not be more correct with his assessment.

[Mark Pearce]

(shall he become #1)

Should.  Should he become.
And do you get to retrospectively retract that statement if (when) one of them wins a Major?

[Kalen Braley]

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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. 

[Terry Lavin]

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.

I just have the fear/feeling that the guys out there lurking and occasionally winning are more checkbook charlie types than ruthless winners.  Speculation, I know, but that's the way it feels.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

You miss the point.  I'm not saying Tiger isn't still one helluva golfer, of course he is. Its just that he isn't anywhere near dominate anymore.  In the current week his score is 5.89 and ranked 6th in the world.

However for most of his career, not only was that number always in double digits, but often his number was twice as large as the next closet guy.  He's just another top of the pack player now instead of being "the" guy to beat.

Here are some numbers:

June 2009 10.276
June 2008 20.734  Next closest 10.07
June 2007 20.09    Next Closest 8.09
June 2006 16.28
June 2005 14.09
June 2004 12.39
June 2003 15.16
June 2002 17.06
June 2001 30.78    Thats just stupid insane high! Next closest guy was Phil at 12
June 2000 26.20    Next closest guy 11.16
June 1999 14.19

The guy brought it year after year after year, even with his swing changes along the way. But now, where he sits at 5.89...he's clearly nowhere close the dominate player he was.  He's come back to the pack, they haven't caught him.

P.S.  Let me know if you don't like June, I'll run some numbers from a different month!  

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps November is more meaningful as it was usually the end of the season until recently.

November

2010 - 8.254 - Only Ranked #2, 1/2 point behind Lee Westwood
2009 - 16.16 - Next closest is Phil at 9.0
2008 -  13.79
2007 -  21.87 - Next closest Phil at 9.65
2006 - 22.09 - Next closest 9.01
2005 - 18.04 - Next closest 10.04
2004 - 11.95 - Only ranked #2, behind Vijay Singh
2003 - 16.07
2002 - 17.32 - Next closest Phil at 8.43
2001 - 17.88 - Next closest 9.59
2000 - 28.47 - Next closest 11.69
1999 - 20.30

[Carl Rogers]

I suggest that the point priorities needs to be in this proportion:

1. Majors ............................... 10 points
2. TPC, WGC, Memorial ........... 5 points
3. Regular Tour Event .............. 2 points
4. Tour Event w/ weak Field .... 1 point

[David Harshbarger]

Mark,

You miss the point.  I'm not saying Tiger isn't still one helluva golfer, of course he is. Its just that he isn't anywhere near dominate anymore.  In the current week his score is 5.89 and ranked 6th in the world.

However for most of his career, not only was that number always in double digits, but often his number was twice as large as the next closet guy.  This is the big drop-off I'm referring to.  He's just another top of the pack player now instead of being "the" guy to beat.

Here are some numbers:

June 2009 10.276
June 2008 20.734  Next closest 10.07
June 2007 20.09    Next Closest 8.09
June 2006 16.28
June 2005 14.09
June 2004 12.39
June 2003 15.16
June 2002 17.06
June 2001 30.78    Thats just stupid insane high! Next closest guy was Phil at 12
June 2000 26.20    Next closest guy 11.16
June 1999 14.19

The guy brought it year after year after year, even with his swing changes along the way. But now, where he sits at 5.89...he's clearly nowhere close the dominate player he was.  He's come back to the pack, they haven't caught him.

P.S.  Let me know if you don't like June, I'll run some numbers from a different month!   

Love/hate/indifferent...Tiger not only played at a level well above the rest of the WORLD, he brought golf to the attention of people who didn't otherwise pay attention.

For example, my wife thrilled to see Tiger sink that putt to win Bay Hill a few years ago.  30 minutes of TV.  Iconic Tiger.

All the weirdness since then is beyond weird.  Everyone is waiting to see if Tiger reclaims his crown, like him or not.  Until that question is answered, the world number one title is like daily 4 numbers.

[Mark Pearce]

Kalen,

It appears we are speaking an entirely different language, since you clearly don't understand a word I'm saying.  No-one is arguing that Woods is the dominant golfer he once was, this thread wouldn't exist if he was.  You seem to think that the failure of one of the two best golfers ever to pick up a club to maintain that standard devalues all his contemporaries.  I don't.  Faldo, Duval, Woosnam were all number one without facing Woods or NIcklaus at their peak.  All were number one.  Are their achievements devalued too?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

It appears we are speaking an entirely different language, since you clearly don't understand a word I'm saying.  No-one is arguing that Woods is the dominant golfer he once was, this thread wouldn't exist if he was.  You seem to think that the failure of one of the two best golfers ever to pick up a club to maintain that standard devalues all his contemporaries.  I don't.  Faldo, Duval, Woosnam were all number one without facing Woods or NIcklaus at their peak.  All were number one.  Are their achievements devalued too?

Mark,

You said this..

He hasn't "fallen off the map"

He has indeed fallen off the map set by his own incredibly high standards.  And by those same standards he may as well have fallen off the planet as well....

Westwood, Kaymer and Donald are, and have been, playing great golf.

Once again the numbers say otherwise.  You can pick any of their numbers in the last year and they aren't even remotely close to what Tiger was doing in his prime.  Hell they aren't even in the same ball park as when Vijay, Ernie, Phil, and David Duval were playing their best golf. 

The current crop of top golfers are clearly a "just OK" pack when compared with how well the greats played when they were on form.  Hence Tiger, and Phil for that matter, have come back to them, not visa versa!

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

Let me put this another way.

In 1996 the official World Golf Rankings changed to thier current format where it ranked the players by Average Points.

You can go back and look at any week in those last 15 years and you won't find anything even close to what the top 10 looks like right now. They are all far better!!!

1   7.650
2   7.378
3   7.017
4   6.627
5   5.932
6   5.893
7   5.741
8   5.680
9   5.473
10  5.235

So the answer to the question of this thread is a resounding No.

Numerically, based on the current system, we've never had a statistically worse number 1 in the world than we have right now!

[Steve Lang]

   lest we forget when Norman was #1 for like 300 weeks or so???

[Dan King]

Shivas asks:
Terrry, who was this consistent, dominant player that caused the Game of Golf to enjoy its greatest growth:  the skyrocketing in its polularity from 1894-1905 or so?   Who was that?  I must have forgotten his name...

Harry Vardon.

Cheers,
Dan King

I'm the best and I'll thank you to remember that.
 --Harry Vardon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()