# How Is #1 Calculated?



## 373 (Jun 9, 2006)

I have to admit I find it mind boggling that Tiger Woods is still ranked #1 considering that for nearly 10 months, he has only played about as well as a journeyman pro.

Who calculates the rankings and does anyone know anything about the equation they use or what facets of information go into the calculation?

By the same token, I find it a bit amazing that given his recent play, the British odds makers have him as the favorite this week at 5-1. They got a couple days of sunshine last week and it went straight to their heads.

Anybody know?


----------



## 373 (Jun 9, 2006)

Me dumb... I simply Googled how is golf's number 1 ranking calculated? and it explained it... not that it made much sense...


----------



## FrogsHair (Mar 4, 2010)

Another way to look at Woods still being #1 (with all his recent issues) is to look at the value of his competition. Was he that good over a period of time, or was his competition that poor? Personally I think it is a little of both. Yes he was a very good golfer, and yes he did not have to play against quality competition on a weekly basis. At least not like the past greats played against. I also think the amount of prize monies, appearance fees, and endorsements involved made a lot of his competition lazy. 

I read a post on another forum where the author listed a bunch of reasons why the world golf rankings should change to a 12 month calender year. January 1st to December 31st. I never gave it much thought until I read the reasons that were listed. Now I agree with that possible scenario. A 12 month calender ranking would make the rankings more up to date than they are now. At least it would make them more believable. Every other measuring stick of how well the pros are playing is based on how well they played since January of that year. Why should should their world rankings system be any different? What purpose does it serve the way it is?


----------



## 373 (Jun 9, 2006)

I agree the time period should be limited, but apparently there is no limit at all. It's apparently based on the accumulation of points, so many for 1st, somewhat less for 2nd and progressively less for each spot on down. Tiger built up such a big lead when he won the 6 or 7 tournaments in one year, but the key was, nobody was consistently finishing 2nd, thus keeping within striking distance. With a different winner almost every week since then, his lead on the field never decreased by much until Mickelson won 2 tournaments early in the year. 

Now that I understand the concept, I still don't like it for various reasons, not the least of which is, various tournaments that aren't majors apparently are worth more points, but some of them require qualification. I also think the points for 2nd and on down should be amounts closer to 1st depending how many shots behind you finish... but there I go making common sense again.


----------



## Fourputt (Nov 18, 2006)

At one time he had such a lead on the rest of the field that they said he could quit for 2 years and still not be passed. I like the system as it is. It forces someone to step up and surpass him for a sustained period in order to unseat him. I'm not a fan of it being just a year by year thing. If a player does an exceptional job against all of his competition for a long period, he should get credit for that longevity. There are other lists which rank just on an annual basis... why should they all have to be that way? :dunno:


----------



## 373 (Jun 9, 2006)

Fourputt said:


> why should they all have to be that way? :dunno:


BECAUSE WE SAID SO..


----------



## Surtees (Sep 11, 2007)

Tiger would still be considered as one of the best of all time if he lost the no 1 and at the moment he isnt no. 1 played in the world its just his rank.... Look at Federa (spelling) in the tennis he lost his number 1 but there is still no one that would say his not a great.


----------



## 373 (Jun 9, 2006)

If Tiger retired tomorrow, he would still be a shoe in for the Hall of Fame, but I wonder if he retired whether they would remove him from the #1 position right away? When Lorena Ochoa retired, by the next tournament, yani Tseng was proclaimed #1.


----------

