# Tiger #1?



## James Hall (Jan 31, 2010)

I heard today that Tiger was #1. Why.....he hasn't won a tourney this year?


----------



## FrogsHair (Mar 4, 2010)

It's because of the math, based on various tournament scenarios, (strength of field), the world ranking system uses. I for one don't think it is accurate, and relies too much on how player played several months ago, and not what is going on right now. I don't think some golfer should be ranked #1 in 2010 for how he/she played in 2009, and even part of 2008. That said, Woods might be the exception to my way of thinking.

Personally I would like to see the world golf rankings run from January 1st to December 1st of any given year. Then it would be current, fit in nicely with all the other yearly awards, and may even boost the competitive value of the current year's tournaments. I don't think it would hurt the likes of Tiger Woods since he regularly out plays everyone on a yearly basis as it is. However, the fact that he is still #1 after only playing one tournament is the past 5 months, does not say much about any other individual player's competitive value while he was gone. Before Woods returned there was parity in the PGA since no one player took over the tournament trail. The game of golf may be the only game where parity is not a good thing. 

Right now, using a calender year schedule, the world #1 player would be Ernie Els,(172 pts) with Anthony Kim (140 pts) ranked second. (I just looked at the current top 50 players) After these two, there are around 7 other players that are with in just a few points of each other. By the same token Woods has only garnered 27 points since the first of the year.


----------



## Surtees (Sep 11, 2007)

Yes I like the idea of a 12 month theroy but I think you would have to have a rolling 12 months so that at the start of the year in the first tourament you could get a gun player v a low level golfer. so i think there could be an unbalance in match play at the start of the year.


----------



## FrogsHair (Mar 4, 2010)

My thought is most of the better golfers shut down their games in the fall, leaving the scraps of the silly season to those who are still looking to secure their cards. Some of the bigger names don't come back till February, or March. This leaves a lot of tournaments with less than decent field of players. Money Titles, POY, the rankings are some what important to the players as far as endorsements are concerned. Since these players would have to depend on a 12 month calender year for these titles, more of the better players would have to play in more tournaments though out the year. This would help the fan base, and the tournament organizers due to better product being put on the course, more often. I copied the following from another forum poster -on the positives of a calender year ranking system. The poster had some good points. Why there were no "Cons" listed for a calender year system I have no idea. 


Pros;
There is a perceived ending of the regular pro golf season
POY is a calendar year award.
Money title is a calendar year award.
FedEx playoffs are an 8 month award based on points for the previous 8 months
Most players end their play sometime during a calendar year. Then start again after January 1st.
The current “Top 64” will be the best playing players at that tournament, at that time. 
The Majors would have the best playing players’ field available at the time of play
Players in the top 64, but playing poorly (slumping) do not take spots from players playing better than them.
Better players would play against better players in more tournaments. 
Creates more competitive value for ‘fans” in more tournaments.
More fans equals more sponsors, which equals more tournaments. 
Less skipping of tournaments, by the better players.
TW would still be ranked #1 as long as he played a calendar year schedule.
Players would place more importance on their games, and golf rankings.
Contracts, endorsements, and perks would be money better spent by sponsors










Surtees said:


> Yes I like the idea of a 12 month theroy but I think you would have to have a rolling 12 months so that at the start of the year in the first tourament you could get a gun player v a low level golfer. so i think there could be an unbalance in match play at the start of the year.


----------



## Surtees (Sep 11, 2007)

You do have a fair agrument. I think the current system differently need to be redone. For as good a golfer as Tiger is look at his past 2 year had time off to sort out his life that was about 5 months but before that he was out of the game with his knee now I cant quiet remember how long a break he had there but it was a while. So yes he is a great golfer but I dont think he should be number 1 atm. The current ranking system doesnt work.


----------



## 373 (Jun 9, 2006)

Personally, I think the minute he announced his indefinite layoff, he should have stopped being considered #1. I don't know what you should do to rank him the day he came back.

I like the idea of a 12 month rolling ranking with points elevated for majors and less points for less important tournaments. I think they should also give or take points for tournaments played that suffer small markets. Number 1 should be required to play the small markets every so often too.


----------



## Fourputt (Nov 18, 2006)

Surtees said:


> You do have a fair agrument. I think the current system differently need to be redone. For as good a golfer as Tiger is look at his past 2 year had time off to sort out his life that was about 5 months but before that he was out of the game with his knee now I cant quiet remember how long a break he had there but it was a while. So yes he is a great golfer but I dont think he should be number 1 atm. The current ranking system doesnt work.


I don't have any issues with the current system. What it shows to me is that in the past, Tiger has been so much better than any other pro golfer that he can almost take a full year off and still be untouchable. There should be at least one rating that takes a player's past career into consideration. Force another player to do more than just win a couple of tournaments in a season to unseat him. 

What Tiger's world ranking shows is that he has performed exponentially better than any other player over the last decade. So much better in fact that he will almost have to retire to be caught. 

Unless he keeps shooting 74's like he did today at Quail Hollow.


----------



## 373 (Jun 9, 2006)

My only complaint with the system is that an inactive player could still be considered #1. That doesn't make any sense to me, but them, when did a lot about golf make sense?


----------



## Fourputt (Nov 18, 2006)

DennisM said:


> My only complaint with the system is that an inactive player could still be considered #1. That doesn't make any sense to me, but them, when did a lot about golf make sense?


I guess I feel that there are enough ranking categories that I don't have an issue with one of those lists allowing for a player's entire history. It's a reasonable measure of his overall performance that it takes so much time for him to be unseated. :thumbsup:


----------



## FrogsHair (Mar 4, 2010)

I suppose my biggest gripe against the current method is that there are quite a few tournaments that a player's ranking either allows, or disallows them to participate. A player who's ranking allows them to play, but who are presently playing lousy golf should not be chosen based on how well they were playing several months ago. The other side of the coin is a player who is playing exceptional golf right now, but who was playing poorly several months ago should be allowed to play to enhance the competitive value of the tournament. More players who's games are peaking at the same time, playing in the Majors, and top 64 invitational tournaments can only help with the fan base, and sponsorships. In a top 64 event, a calender year ranking system would probably only effect less than a dozen players, good, and/or bad. 

Heck, even the players say they want to play against the best. Might not this include playing against the best of the best, who are playing their best golf at the time of the tournament? 

I don't think a calender year ranking system would change the top 10 from year to year that much. In Wood's case, except for this year (so far) and possibly last year, he would have just been the #1 player for several, consecutive years.


----------

