News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2011, 12:38:44 PM »
Ulrich,

I only wish to qualify "now Phil's winning majors" - he has won 1 out of 20 in the last five years.

That melt down at WF in 06 was as bad and as costly to his trophy case and his place in history as Norman's 1996 disaster at Augusta, perhaps moreso...

cheers

vk
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2011, 02:01:22 PM »
Tim,

That's all fine and good, and I actually agree with you on your last post.  But that's not what this thread is about.  The question is has being number 1 ever meant less.  And with the current format of the rankings, its clearly a no.

Ulrich,

Except Phil has:

1) Twice as many major wins as Norman!
2)  He only blew up on the last hole, he didn't barf all over himself on the final 18
3)  He has 3 more green jackets than Norman.

P.S.  Your other piece of logic doesn't follow either. Jack has won't a major in 25 years, so ergo Jack must be chump meat right!?? ;)

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2011, 02:03:54 PM »
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. 

Tim,

Good argument.  I come down on the other side, but you made some good points.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2011, 02:07:14 PM »
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)   <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?

It's a hard bunch of numbers to look at since so many guys are playing multiple tours ...

Westwood 22 (20 Euro, 2 PGA)
Kaymer 10 (9 Euro, 1 major)
Donald 6 (2 PGA, 3 Euro, 1 WGC)
Mickelson 39 (34 PGA, 4 majors, 1 WGC)
McDowell 8 (7 Euro, 1 major)
McIlroy 2 (1 PGA, 1 Euro)
Casey 12 (11 Euro, 1 PGA)
Strciker 9 (all PGA)
Kuchar 3 (all PGA)
Schwartzel 7 (6 Euro, 1 major)
Johnson 4 (all PGA)
Furyk 16 (15 PGA, 1 major)
Watney 3 (PGA)
Els  (13 PGA, 2 WGC, 3 majors, 21 Euro)
Watson 2 (PGA)
Poulter 10 (9 Euro, 1 WGC)
Scott 14 (7 PGA, 7 Euro)
F Molinari 2 (both Euro)
Mahan 3 (2 PGA, 1 WGC)


Woods 79 (41 PGA, 16 WGC, 14 majors, 8 Euro)

Essentially, even if you leave out all Euro tour wins, the other 19 in the top 20 have 115 PGA/major/WGC wins vs. 71 for Tiger.

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2011, 02:15:00 PM »
Matthew,

Thanks for doing the math!  I suppose it would be a lively debate were we to attempt to "weigh" the significance of the wins on the PGA vs. the European Tour or the WGC vs. either tour.  We'd likely get some nationalistic fur flying on that one!  There's no debate, however, that the "other 19" pale in significance to one player's accumulated wins in the "majors" category, since Tiger's got them all beaten even when you add up their major victories together.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2011, 02:40:08 PM »
Matthew,

Thanks for doing the math!  I suppose it would be a lively debate were we to attempt to "weigh" the significance of the wins on the PGA vs. the European Tour or the WGC vs. either tour.  We'd likely get some nationalistic fur flying on that one!  There's no debate, however, that the "other 19" pale in significance to one player's accumulated wins in the "majors" category, since Tiger's got them all beaten even when you add up their major victories together.

Yeah, I didn't even want to get into that mess. Tiger's 16 WGC titles stunned me. When you add that to his major, that's a lot if winning against the best fields.

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2011, 02:50:08 PM »
Tim,

That's all fine and good, and I actually agree with you on your last post.  But that's not what this thread is about.  The question is has being number 1 ever meant less.  And with the current format of the rankings, its clearly a no.


Kalen,

I was responding to Terry's question:  "The game is surely more competitive than it's been in awhile, with Tiger slumping, but is it better?"  My response is . . . it's too early to tell but it might be if some good rivalries develop or duels in majors occur.

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2011, 04:08:43 PM »
Here is a chart giving the history of the OWGR that I copped from Alex Miceli's post on golfweek.com

Player      Date Started      Date Ended      Total Weeks
  Bernhard Langer      4/6/86      4/20/86      3
  Seve Ballesteros      4/27/86      9/7/86      20
  Greg Norman              9/14/86      11/15/87   62
  Seve Ballesteros      11/22/87   11/29/87   1
  Greg Norman               11/29/87  10/23/88   48
  Seve Ballesteros      10/30/88   11/6/88      1
  Greg Norman              11/6/88      11/13/88   1
  Seve Ballesteros      11/13/88   3/19/09      19
  Greg Norman              3/26/89      4/2/89      1
  Seve Ballesteros      4/2/89      8/13/89      20
  Greg Norman              8/20/89      8/26/90      54
  Nick Faldo              9/2/90      10/7/90      6
  Greg Norman              10/14/90   1/27/91      16
  Nick Faldo              2/3/91      3/31/91      9
  Ian Woosnam              4/7/91      3/15/92      50
  Fred Couples              3/22/92      3/29/92      1
  Nick Faldo              3/29/92      4/5/92      1
  Fred Couples              4/5/92      7/12/92      15
  Nick Faldo              7/19/92      1/30/94      81
  Greg Norman              2/6/94      8/7/94      27
  Nick Price              8/14/94      6/11/95      44
  Greg Norman              6/18/95      4/13/97      96
  Tom Lehman              4/20/97      4/27/97      1
  Greg Norman              4/27/97      6/8/97      7
  Tiger Woods              6/15/97      6/22/97      1
  Ernie Els                      6/22/97      6/29/97      1
  Greg Norman              6/29/97      7/6/97      1
  Tiger Woods              7/6/97      8/31/97      9
  Greg Norman              9/7/97      1/4/98      18
  Tiger Woods              1/11/98      4/5/98      13
  Ernie Els                      4/12/98      5/3/98      4
  Tiger Woods              5/10/98      5/17/98      1
  Ernie Els                      5/17/98      6/7/98      4
  Tiger Woods              6/14/98      3/21/99      41
  David Duval              3/28/99      6/27/99      14
  Tiger Woods              7/4/99      8/1/99      5
  David Duval              8/8/99      8/15/99      1
  Tiger Woods              8/15/99      8/29/04      264
  Vijay Singh              9/6/04      2/27/05      26
  Tiger Woods              3/6/05      3/13/05      2
  Vijay Singh              3/20/05      4/3/05      3
  Tiger Woods              4/10/05      5/15/05      6
  Vijay Singh              5/22/05      6/5/05      3
  Tiger Woods              6/12/05      10/24/10   281
  Lee Westwood      10/31/10   2/20/11      17
  Martin Kaymer               2/27/11      4/17/11      8
  Lee Westwood      4/24/11      N/A      N/A

I'm sure people can make whatever they want out of this list, but it seems to indicate that we're sort of at a very low ebb leader-wise these days.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2011, 04:17:52 PM »
Shivas writes:
By 1900, what had Vardon done?  Is your definition of a consistent, dominant player anybody who has won 3 majors?

When you are only playing one major a year, yes.

Vardon's first Open Championship, 1893 at Prestwick  Tied for 23rd, 22 shots behind Willie Auchterlonie.
Vardon's second Open Championsjip, 1894 at Sandwich Tied for 5th, 8 shots behind JH Taylor
Vardon's third Open Championship, 1895 at St. Andrews Tied for 9th, 16 shots being JH Taylor
Vardon's fourth Open Championship, 1896 at Muirfield winner in playoff with JH Taylor
Vardon's fifth Open Championship, 18977 at Hoylake 6th place, 6 shots behind HH Hilton
Vardon's sixth Open Championship, 1898 at Prestwcik winner one shot over Willie Park
Vardon's seventh Open Championship, 1899 at Sandwich winner by five shots over Jack White
Vardon's eighth Open Championship, 1900 at St. Andrews second place eight shots behind JH Taylor

An argument could be made that up to 1900 Taylor might have been a more consistent golfer, but it would have been close.

I don't doubt that Vardon's vist gave a lift to the game.  But that game had to exist first.

I'm guessing this is a counter argument for some old argument you are having with someone else. I don't see how this is a response to any point I ever made.

And Vardon's lift came about after the genesis of the game here, thanks primarly to CBM, and nearly a decade of breakneck growth prior to Vardon's visit.  The Chicago area alone went from zero golf clubs to 20+ from 1893 to 1900 prior to Vardon's visit.  I don't have stats for the Metro area or Philly or anywhere else, but I think it's perfectly clear that golf was expanding rapidly with or without a visit from a 3 time major winner from across the pond.

Herbert Warren Wind (not a Brit) said at the turn of the century there was roughly a thousand golf courses. There were 165 courses in New York, 157 in Massachusetts, 57 in Illinois, 43 in California, 17 in Florida and five in Texas. Most of these courses were for expatriates and the well to do, but there was also public golf courses at Van Cortlandt Park in New York and Jackson Park in Chicago.

Wind (not a Brit) wrote:
"The year 1900 brought into the focus of American golfers three men who talents were to provide invaluable in promoting the growth of golf in this country: Walter J. Travis, Harry Vardon, and Coburn Haskell." Pg 59, Wind, Herbert Warren, The Story of American Golf: Volume One: 1888-1941, Callaway Editions, New York, 2000.
 
But for the Vardon visit, was golf doomed to fail?  Hell no.

If your grandmother had balls she would be your grandfather.
 
It was growing at a breakneck pace and was going to continue to do so.

Your crystal ball is telling you a whole bunch more than mine is telling me.

My opinion:  Browning, a Brit, is being just a wee tad biased in favor of his fellow Brit in terms of the import of this visit on the growth of the game in America.  Vardon's visit was icing on a growing cake.

But Wind (not a Brit) seems to agree with him.

Vardon came over to the U.S. on a trip sponsored by Spaulding to sell Vardon Flyers. At the time he was one of the two best golfers in the world. His demonstrations at sporting good stores, department stores and golf courses was an introduction to golf for many of the spectators, bringing a new clientele to the game, an audience that would not have been interested in golf without witnessing Vardon's exhibitions. According to Wind (not a Brit) he was unsuccessful in selling the Vardon Flyers (1900 was also the year of the Haskell) but he was successful selling golf.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
He hit the ball with an utter absence of visible effort, and yet his timing was so fine that he sent his shots yards farther down the fairways than his straining opponents. After they had seen Harry [Vardon], American golfers knew that the game, in the hands of a master, could be an art.
 --Herbery Warren Wind
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 04:21:06 PM by Dan King »

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2011, 04:48:57 PM »
Terry,

I appreciate that your OP and your subsequent posts aren't anti-European.  However, I can't help believing that your view on the current "low ebb" isn't, at least in part, due to the fact that the players at the top of the rankings now aren't players you have been familiar with for years and haven't seen as much of.  The fact is that these guys are, currently, the best around.  Judging Kaymer's career at this point in time seems pointless, given his age.  Your earlier description of Donald as a journeyman seems rather unfair, all the more surprisingly given his adopted home.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #60 on: April 25, 2011, 04:54:29 PM »
Shivas you are a funny guy. I can understand you not reading what I wrote, but it is fun to watch you arguing when you have not even read what you wrote.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!
--George Carlin

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #61 on: April 25, 2011, 05:00:45 PM »
To me the real issue here is not that we're at a low ebb in terms of interesting players dominating at the top, it's that the ranking itself has a major wrench in the works.  It's the BCS all over again.  We need a clear champion golfer decided by competition and not a computer, like the World Series and the Superbowl, not some arbitrary calculation that was thought up as a marketing gimmick by a sports agent...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #62 on: April 25, 2011, 05:02:12 PM »
http://tinyurl.com/3kvbd9j

Beginning on page 8 of The Rise Of Golf In America is the author's take on the explosive growth of golf during the last decade of the 19th century.

In the first decade of the 20th century it was men like Vardon (Labbance & Siplo's book makes this point) and Travis (his '04 win at the British Amateur) among others (like CBM) who helped to fuel the growth.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 05:05:00 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2011, 05:26:41 PM »
Jud,

And if Luke Donald (or, heaven forbid, Edoardo Molinari) wins that, are you happy that he's the number 1?  Whether he wins a Major or not?
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2011, 05:39:26 PM »
As much as the World Golf Rankings means anything, being number one now means quite a bit, as there is fierce competition from many quarters for that honor.  Equally interesting is the ascendance of the Euro tour players in the majors. Could the additional variety of courses they play in Europe be setting up the Euros to compete with a more robust set of tools than the Americans are bringing to the party?
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2011, 05:45:37 PM »
Mark,

If it was a climax to a full season and a competition that everyone got behind, then yes.  It'd be infinitely better than the current system which seems completely meaningless to me.  I've actually had the pleasure of meeting Luke and he's not only a great guy but a pretty good winemaker, so I'm rooting for him more than your average redneck Yank... 8)
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #67 on: April 25, 2011, 06:00:41 PM »
David,

Is it really meaningful to you when one guy has a round dropping out of the calculation and another guy needs to grind out an 11th place finish in a meaningless tour stop the first guy isn't playing in to grab first place for a week in the Mark McCormack count-by-numbers-a-thon?
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Greg Clark

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #68 on: April 25, 2011, 06:18:08 PM »
I read this theory quite a bit in regards to the Euro Tour having a wider variety of courses than the PGA Tour, and that being an advantage for the Euro player.  I have to tell you that I watch a sampling pretty much every week of the Euro Tour, and most of the courses are bland (as are many PGA courses) and don't seem to offer much more in the area of variety to me.  I think both tours offer only a small sampling of the best in architecture on their respective continents.  Most Euro Tour courses would fit right in as a PGA stop.

The world as a whole is just a bit up on the US players right now.  The courses have squat to do with it.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #69 on: April 25, 2011, 06:23:01 PM »
Oh, FWIW, I've always thought Luke Donald had the game to be the #1 player in the world.  I've thought that for at least a decade, and always thought of him as underachieving until recently.

Hate to call BS on a friend, but I distinctly remember someone stating Luke Donald's game wasn't suited to the Tour because he didn't make enough birdies. It's hard to imagine that same someone could believe he could be #1... :)

-----

As to the topic at hand, it simply shows how Tiger has warped everyone's expectations. Pre-Tiger, it would have been readily accepted that the best golfer in the world might only win 3 or 4 times in a season, maybe 1 would be a major if he was a little lucky. Now, if someone isn't in contention for a few weeks in a row, he's in a slump, he's done, he's a pretender, whatever.

Golf is very different from something like tennis, where the best in the world can show it on a regular basis. At least, it used to be, before Tiger...

Actually, this isn't strictly due to Tiger, it is also a TV/media/web phenomenon. We now have 24/7 golf on certain channels, with daily news shows, talk shows, and outlets on the internet to argue discuss things to death, etc. And those guys need something to talk about, and we all love to argue...

Does it mean less? Not in my book. But it didn't mean that much to me to begin with.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #70 on: April 25, 2011, 06:29:24 PM »
Mark,

Thats a very well written and presented piece.  Especially how he pointed out that if Padraig were in form now like he was a few years ago, he'd be well in control in the top spot.  And as stated in the article, no one claimed it was broken back then, even though they had good cause.

At the end of the day, which golfer is "better"?

One who wins 3 normal PGA events and no majors?  Or one who wins 1 major?

I'll take the 3 win guy any and every time if my money depended on it!

Jim Nugent

Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #71 on: April 25, 2011, 11:56:05 PM »
Tiger's 16 WGC titles stunned me. When you add that to his major, that's a lot if winning against the best fields.

A fact that downgrades the European Tour wins, when he wasn't in the field.  Which was most of them.

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2011, 12:20:33 AM »
Tiger's 16 WGC titles stunned me. When you add that to his major, that's a lot if winning against the best fields.

A fact that downgrades the European Tour wins, when he wasn't in the field.  Which was most of them.
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?
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #73 on: April 26, 2011, 01:16:15 AM »
Mark P,

I completely agree with you. Arguing the point here is probably the ultimate gesture in futility, but that won't stop me!

There was a time when the dismissal of the Euro Tour by those in the USA was understandable, but those days are gone.

Of the current World Top 20, half are European or traditionally Euro Tour players. They appear to be realising, through strength of numbers, that there is no need for them to play in a foreign land to play against the best, earn the most ranking points and make great money.

I hope for the US Tour's sake that those manning its helm are more wary of Europe and Asia than many of the posters here.

Dismissing or downgrading Euro Tour wins from the past three or so years is laughable, especially when you're going to give full US Tour credit to the winner of the glorified Nationwide Tour events. As has been noted, the tournaments are weighted, so if a guy gets to the top 5 by performing in Europe, you know he has been bdoing so against quality fields.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 01:21:00 AM by Scott Warren »

Jim Nugent

Re: Has Being Number One in the World Ever Meant Less?
« Reply #74 on: April 26, 2011, 08:57:48 AM »
Tiger's 16 WGC titles stunned me. When you add that to his major, that's a lot if winning against the best fields.

A fact that downgrades the European Tour wins, when he wasn't in the field.  Which was most of them.
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?

Yes, U.S. events Woods didn't play should not carry as much weight.  Same with events the top players now don't play.  But it sounds like the rankings already do that, which I did not know. 

I'd have to look at the fields, but my impression is the U.S. tour still gets the best players overall.  i.e. more top Euro players compete in U.S. events, than top U.S. players compete in Europe. 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back