The World Golf Rankings Really Need an Overhaul!

[TWshoot67 37]

I was watching the Golf Channel and they brought it up today. I was already thinking the same thing. Nothing against Luke Donald he played great. But for him to be #3 in the world is just FREAKING RIDICULOUS. I mean here's a guy who has won 2 events in the last 5 years and he's #3 in the world. The system is as FLAWED as the Stupid FEDEX CUP! Like the guys were talking on the Morning Drive. The guy beat 6 people to win. Every week when they play a PGA tour or EPGA Tour event the winner has to beat 125/130 players. It's just crazy how they award the points. I realize when they play the WGC events they're tougher fields but in a Match play format a 1/3 of the better players are ousted on the first day of the event. There's always upsets! I just feel they got to tweak this OWGR thing a little better.Points have to be allocated better. No one should be able to move that fast up the ladder with one win! I know they changed up the time frame of holding on to wins to make it more like who's the better players now instead of how it use to be when Tiger would win 6-9 events a year and no one would ever get a sniff at #1, but this is ridiculous. To say that Luke Donald is a better player then Matt Kuchar for example is just crazy. take the last two seasons and compare everything it's not even close and he gets hot in one event and jumps what 6 places he went from 9th to 3rd with one win. NOT RIGHT! Something has to change. Even if they want to say wins don't matter which is obviously the case or money standings don't count which is true, even with that Matt Kuchar has been the most consistent golfer than Luke Donald. It's almost like golf is so boring they had to come up with a way to peak viewers interest so they changed up the OGWR point values to have people moving up and down the list. I mean this week the Doral tourney will have as tough or tougher field as the match Play event and the points for winning won't even come close to this past event. Does anyone else see this or am I just insane?

 

 

Sorry for the rant....... and believe me I like the European guys as much as the USA guys it has nothing to do with that, although Kaymer had a chance to prove he was the real #1 in the world and beat Donald but failed too. I can't wait for this week to see my boy McDowell do his thang!!

[jamo 16]

Luke Donald in particular always seems to be ranked higher than his results would indicate.

[Noonan 0]

Luke Donald in particular always seems to be ranked higher than his results would indicate.

 

He gets one win a season and finishes an average of 30th every other tournament. The system rewards wins.

[TWshoot67 37]

He gets one win a season and finishes an average of 30th every other tournament. The system rewards wins.

 

not sure what your saying above, but Luke has 1 win in last 5 seasons on PGA Tour and 1 win on European Tour. It's a joke I hope is what your saying, but its hard to read sarcasm in post?

 

Here's his PGA stats this year:

 

Driving Distance 261.5 186th

Driving Accuracy Percentage 60.71% 97th

Greens in Regulation Percentage 50.00% 185th

Putting Average 1.833 166th

Birdie Average 3.00 166th

Scoring Average 72.06 144th

Sand Save Percentage .00% 186th

Total Driving 1,998 185th

FedExCup Regular Season Points 550 9th

Money Leaders $1,400,000 5th

Par Breakers 16.67% 169th

Putts Per Round 29.00 69th

 

 

Just don't seem like 3rd best player in the world Stats. JMO!

[Xamilo 0]

To say that Luke Donald is a better player then Matt Kuchar for example is just crazy.

 

Well, the results from the Accenture, when they played head to head disagree with your statement

 

I can understand coming from the ninth place to the third one is a little bit strange, but nothing is weirder than having Tiger stay in the Top 3 after not winning in 18 months. There you see there is a real flaw in the system.

 

Anyway, there will always be controversy when you don't have measurable statistics to objectively fit into a system. You can't obviously say than winning one and coming last in the next one is better or worse than comming third in two championships, and you can't say winning the Masters really makes you a better golfer than winning The Player's. There will always be people arguing about the value variables are given. You can argue about who drives longer, its just a measurment, but you can't argue about players performance when they haven't even played the same ammount or the same tournaments anyway.

 

Even though it has its flaws, I think in some way its a good effort to try and clasify golfers in some way. And I expect it to improve with time. Things like Tiger ranking today and Donald's "jump" will come to the attention of the people in charge and will be used to justify future changes...

[Xamilo 0]

Driving Distance 296.0 23rd

Driving Accuracy Percentage 44.64% 184th

Greens in Regulation Percentage 66.67% 87th

Putting Average 1.813 153rd

Birdie Average 3.25 156th

Scoring Average 71.40 102nd

Sand Save Percentage 54.55% 38th

Total Driving 1,998 185th

FedExCup Regular Season Points 47 143rd

Money Leaders $63,096 140th

Par Breakers 18.06% 163rd

Putts Per Round 29.50 116th

GIR Pct. - Fairway Bunker 33.3% 134th

 

Not much better than Donald on No 3 for Woods on No 5 ain't I right? hehehehe

[jamo 16]

Well, the results from the Accenture, when they played head to head disagree with your statement

 

I can understand coming from the ninth place to the third one is a little bit strange, but nothing is weirder than having Tiger stay in the Top 3 after not winning in 18 months. There you see there is a real flaw in the system.

 

Anyway, there will always be controversy when you don't have measurable statistics to objectively fit into a system. You can't obviously say than winning one and coming last in the next one is better or worse than comming third in two championships, and you can't say winning the Masters really makes you a better golfer than winning The Player's. There will always be people arguing about the value variables are given. You can argue about who drives longer, its just a measurment, but you can't argue about players performance when they haven't even played the same ammount or the same tournaments anyway.

 

Even though it has its flaws, I think in some way its a good effort to try and clasify golfers in some way. And I expect it to improve with time. Things like Tiger ranking today and Donald's "jump" will come to the attention of the people in charge and will be used to justify future changes...

 

I don't have a problem really so much with what the Accenture did to Donald's ranking as much as how high he was before it. I believe he was as high as 3rd a year or two ago also, but he had done basically nothing to deserve it.

[Jimmmy 0]

for me it does not matter who is No 1 or No 125 as anyone can win any given week ... however here is my wee bit ... why do they not weight the stats and then add or subtract this figure from the present system ... that way you should have the golfer that is performing the best over a given time period ??? seems simple enough to me ...

[TheHacker 3]

For quite some time now, the WGR had Tiger Woods as number one golfer in the world, despite the fact that he was not playing that well for quite a while. And through that period, this ranking system had almost zero credibility.

 

Then Lee Westwood overtook Tiger, and after that Martin Kaymer overtook Lee, then things start to look a bit more realistic.

 

The way I see it, the ranking system looks much more credible now than it was 1 week ago, and way more credible than it was er.... 6 weeks ago.

 

I will not quibble over the 3rd rank, because I think Luke Donald had a fantastic run over the weekend, and it just that he players he overtook did not open a wide enough gap, which allowed Luke's fantastic play last week to overtake them all.

 

Still the ranking now is much more realistic than when Tiger was world number 1.

[Dave 24]

He's not that bad, since Feb 2010 he's had.

 

2 wins

11 Top 3s

15 Top 10s

 

and only 4 missed cuts. How many other guys have got that sort of record, don't bother looking at his stats. Ranking points are done off where you finish.

 

Funny thing is his 2009 record wasn't that great, and with the ranking period being over 24 months, he's not that far away from #2

 

http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/players/bio.sps?ID=4163&name=Luke&Rank=3&TotalPts=345.07968

 

By the way, if you at Tigers ranking points, his bottom 8 tournaments that are about to fall out are all Top 10s, so unless he has Top 10s soon, he's only going to drop further

[Long Iron Pete 0]

Rankings system carries results over for 2 years.

 

It also awards points based on the strength of the field - eg rank of other players teeing off that week are considered when no. of points for a win/2nd place etc are awarded

 

For me the flaws are:

 

- carrying across 2 years;

- not enough rating for a major (these are what count).

 

Firstly - major winners should have points for that event doubled. Majors are the benchmark of a players career; they are the one stat that everyone remembers. Tiger - everyone knows the 14 majors. Only the stattos know how many tour wins, WGC wins, Ryder Cup points, weeks at No. 1, etc...

 

The point has already been made about Tiger holding onto his ranking for so long without even playing, and then underperforming once he got back. Too much weight is applied on historic fields. Hard to say as it protects a player who suffers an injury that might rule him out for 3-4 months at a time.

 

But other than qualifying for majors and WGCs - what relevance really do the ranking have?

 

Lee Westwood - not won a major but a load of consistent there or thereabouts over the past year or so. So what is he was No. 1? He hasn't won a major. World No. 1 is a big deal, but a major is a bigger deal. He has been consistently good but for me the world's best player has to have won a major - a few third places in 2010 shouldn't be enough.

 

Kaymer for me is undoubtedly the best player in the world right now. I can't see him winning the Masters because his natural shot is a fade; but the other 3 majors I'd have him as favourite if I was placing a bet today.

 

GMAC - fantastic season that saw him climb from outside top 50 - and only scrap into the US Open - go from provisional 3, and then 4th once Donald got the win. His record, and Kaymer's, last season justify their status in the rankings. Westwood similar showing last year, only issue for me is the no. of majors = 0.

 

Donald is a consistent performer. He is known as 'Cash Machine' by some journalists because of his consistency in picking up a cheque. He sets the bench mark for sand saves and bar Phil no-one has a more consistent short game. He made some changes to his game in an effort to get more distance. That caused issues with accuracy and it is only now that he is beginning to play like the guy who showed all that promise. This could be a very good year for Luke. However to be ranked 3 presently - not sure about this, but he has been kicking around the top 10 for quite a while...

[clonger 0]

First off I agree with the system is flawed. But to say that Luke had done nothing is IMO completely wrong. Luke is one of the best iron players in the game. Yes he has always had problems with driving stats. As to him doing nothing last year his stats were good and consistent. Also if I am not mistaken he won more money then anybody else last year.

[Dave 24]

Pete, the ranking are 24 months long, but the older 12 months the points only count for half what they did the previous year in the ranking calculation.

[Tony Covey MGS 668]

Rather than rant about the current state of World Rankings being flawed, I'm more inclined to ask why we even need them at all? Apart from determining who gets into certain tournaments and who doesn't (and there are other ways), why does it really matter? Perhaps it would be different if these guys were all grinding away with the same intensity all season long, but the reality is guys like Phil, and Tiger, and the others you'd assume to be at the top of any world ranking system, don't play in nearly as many tournaments as many of the guys on this list.

 

Don't get me wrong, the current system is clearly a farce. Does anyone really believe that Kim Kyung-Tae is better than Stewart Cink, or that Graeme McDowell is actually better than Phil Mickelson? At the end of day, however; I don't really care. The focus shouldn't be on the ranking themselves, it should be about getting the guys on that list to play in more tournaments. When everybody is out there competing, and doing it with regularity, these sorts of things have a way of working themselves out.

[Long Iron Pete 0]

Does anyone really believe that ... Graeme McDowell is actually better than Phil Mickelson?

I do. Based on last season I most certainly do.

[Tony Covey MGS 668]

I do. Based on last season I most certainly do.

 

That's fair (of course, if memory serves, Mickelson won a major last year as well), but if I was given a couple hundred grand to bet in match between the two, with the course to pulled out of a hat...

 

I'd put the money on Mickelson. Every time.

[Long Iron Pete 0]

That's fair (of course, if memory serves, Mickelson won a major last year as well), but if I was given a couple hundred grand to bet in match between the two, with the course to pulled out of a hat...

 

I'd put the money on Mickelson. Every time.

I wouldnt put a penny on Mickelson in match play!!! Not after Fowler handed him his ass!

I guess that's not fair.

 

Mickelson is a great shot maker. He'll be remembered long after he's gone for the flop shot, the banana shot on 13th at Augusta, etc etc...

But - he's only got a great rescue game because he is so wayward with his long game. Gimme a US Open set-up, or any British links golf, and I would be backing GMAC any day of the week vs Phil.

 

U and i live thousands of miles apart geographically. A wager on who of the two will fare better this season isnt feasible. However were we able to, I'd make that bet with you and take your money!

[Tony Covey MGS 668]

U and i live thousands of miles apart geographically. A wager on who of the two will fare better this season isnt feasible. However were we able to, I'd make that bet with you and take your money!

 

 

And see...right there's my problem with this hole rankings system. Fare better based on what? They'll probably compete in the same tournaments only a handful of times. That seems to be the way of the PGA superstar these days...play as little as possible.

 

 

[BIG STU 7,154]

I dont want to sound like a redneck dummy but I honestly do not understand the world point ranking system at all. It seems to me you would have to be a professor of mathmetics to understand it. I know I am not alone several players have admitted on camera they dont understand it either. maybe some of you guys can maybe post a simple explaination of how the point system works

[TWshoot67 37]

Well, the results from the Accenture, when they played head to head disagree with your statement

 

I can understand coming from the ninth place to the third one is a little bit strange, but nothing is weirder than having Tiger stay in the Top 3 after not winning in 18 months. There you see there is a real flaw in the system.

 

Anyway, there will always be controversy when you don't have measurable statistics to objectively fit into a system. You can't obviously say than winning one and coming last in the next one is better or worse than comming third in two championships, and you can't say winning the Masters really makes you a better golfer than winning The Player's. There will always be people arguing about the value variables are given. You can argue about who drives longer, its just a measurment, but you can't argue about players performance when they haven't even played the same ammount or the same tournaments anyway.

 

Even though it has its flaws, I think in some way its a good effort to try and clasify golfers in some way. And I expect it to improve with time. Things like Tiger ranking today and Donald's "jump" will come to the attention of the people in charge and will be used to justify future changes...

 

Then I guess Donald should be #1 since he beat Kaymer head to head?