We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Who is the Number 1 Golfer

Who is the Number 1 Golfer

  • Tiger Woods

    Votes: 8 17.8%

  • Phil Mickelson

    Votes: 18 40.0%

  • Lee Westwood

    Votes: 4 8.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 15 33.3%
  • Total voters
    45
JB said:
But he also has higher finishes like a 2nd in a major I believe.

I believe that the rankings should be done on a 12 month schedule and not 24. It makes people play more events to stay on top or get back, which helps tournaments, which helps viewers and ratings. Someone playing well 2 years ago means little to the world now. I believe if you took the two players and measured strictly on the last 12 months from today, Phil would be #1.

But that is for a different argument
Click to expand...

Phil has not got 2nd in a major in the last 12 months. He finished T-4 in the US Open... but so did Tiger. Don't forget that Tiger also won the Australian Masters in the last 12 months. In regard to more points in the last 12 months... Tiger would still be on top of Phil. That is still the case even though Tiger's points would be divisible by 20, even though he only played 17 tourneys. Phil played roughly 24 in that time span.
 
interlooper said:
Phil has not got 2nd in a major in the last 12 months. He finished T-4 in the US Open... but so did Tiger. Don't forget that Tiger also won the Australian Masters in the last 12 months. In regard to more points in the last 12 months... Tiger would still be on top of Phil. That is still the case even though Tiger's points would be divisible by 20, even though he only played 17 tourneys. Phil played roughly 24 in that time span.
Click to expand...

They said on the Golf Channel last night that if they went back 12 exact months from yesterday, and only used that for a measure, Phil would be the world's #1. Only going off of what was said.
 
:popcorn:
 
Look up the stats for the last 18 months not 12. Thats where the ranking comes from. As faR AS RIGHT NOW i THINK THE FEDEX POINTS ARE A BETTER INDICATION OF WHO IS PLAYING WELL FOR THE YEAR.

Edit: oops, I hit the caps button. Didn't mean to yell.
 
The problem with the rankings for me is that as mentioned, there is no real reason to go back 24 months outside of certain players not playing enough spots. It also greatly rewards contending. One needs to look no further than Robert Allenby to see that. Each week matters less and less by having the span cover what it covers. To have a WGC event and not 1 place in the entire top 10 change is ridiculous if you ask me.

To quote TGC

"There were no changes in the Top 10. Steve Stricker is fourth with Jim Furyk in the No. 5 spot. Ernie Els remained No. 6 ahead of Luke Donald and Rory McIlroy. Paul Casey holds into the No. 9 spot and Ian Poulter is 10th."
 
Degoins said:
Look up the stats for the last 18 months not 12. Thats where the ranking comes from. As faR AS RIGHT NOW i THINK THE FEDEX POINTS ARE A BETTER INDICATION OF WHO IS PLAYING WELL FOR THE YEAR.
Click to expand...

I agree, but Fedex cup is not really global That is why I said the rankings should be done over 12 months. I mean the LPGA had this same issue with Ochoa. She had done nothing for almost 10 months and was still #1.
 
JB said:
They said on the Golf Channel last night that if they went back 12 exact months from yesterday, and only used that for a measure, Phil would be the world's #1. Only going off of what was said.
Click to expand...

Ah... that is because the golf channel is now as sensationalist as many other media programs. They were NOT going back 12 months... they were going back to the tournament after the WGC Bridgestone 2009 (because Tiger won that event). However, Tiger won that event 12 months ago to this very day. So, he would still be on top of Phil... until tomorrow.

Ask me the same thing tomorrow, and I will agree that Phil has played better in the previous 12 months according to how the OWGR does its ranking. :smirk:
 
It's really tough to put points on these guys for sure. Thats why I think there should be a mandatory number of events each player has to play in order to make the rankings more accurate.
 
Tiger has not played well enough recently to be number one if they went of a one year rating system (as of tomorrow! hehehe). Phil has played much better, although in recent tournaments when he has had the chance to take over the number 1 spot, he hasn't delivered.
 
Degoins said:
It's really tough to put points on these guys for sure. Thats why I think there should be a mandatory number of events each played has to play in order to make the rankings more accurate.
Click to expand...

There is a minimum now. The problem is that they need to rotate that which is what they are trying to do. Once that happens, we will see the rankings change quite a bit I think. The only way rankings work is if people play the same number of events in theory. To fix that, reward players that play the most events by making every single thing divisible by the same number.

That of course will never happen, because certain players would go nuts. But sorry, an injured player should drop in the rankings, as should guys that hand pick their schedule and play the bare minimum.
 
Let's say you make the guys play atleast 12 tourneys to be in the rankings. No matter how many more than 12 they play you take their 12 best finishes and base the rankings off that.
 
Degoins said:
Let's say you make the guys play atleast 12 tourneys to be in the rankings. No matter how many more than 12 they play you take their 12 best finishes and base the rankings off that.
Click to expand...

They have a minimum now. And in my opinion it should be higher.
 
If it went year to year by the events you ahev played and how well you have finished, I would have to put my money on Barnes. That guy is consisently in the top 10
 
One-T said:
If it went year to year by the events you ahev played and how well you have finished, I would have to put my money on Barnes. That guy is consisently in the top 10
Click to expand...

No wins.
 
No one likes Tiger I see hee hee :) I'm a Phil Phan (hee hee :D)
 
I went with other. Go OEM!!

Phil has had two months to take over the number one spot and has failed to capitalize. Westwood can take number one only because Tiger and Phil haven't been winning. All three aren't consistant enough IMO to be huge contenders at the moment.
 
JB said:
They have a minimum now. And in my opinion it should be higher.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. I was just using 12 as an example. I think they should be required to play many more events and should have to commit to them at the beginning of the season.
 
ddec0418 said:
It bothers me that Phil hasn't taken charge and seized that number 1 spot.
Click to expand...

Yea that does too. However, using the slow changing ranking system, that has allowed Tiger to stay number one for forever, Phil should be number one despite his recent poor play.
Not saying i know how the world ranking system works, but I do know it focuses little more on total body of work than compared to recent play. (how else has tiger stayed at number 1?)
I'm also NOT saying Phil's total body of work is better than Tigers. (who would argue that?)
I think Phil should be number #1, regardless of how poor he's been playing recently.
 
I vote other cause the answer is Jeff Overton. :D
 
JK I really voted for Lee but watch out for Overton, he is a beast. He also has some impressive moobs.
 
JRod said:
Call him what you want but there hasn't been a more consistant player the past 6 months.
Click to expand...

It was a joke for him acting the way he did 2 weeks ago.

Not a more consistent player huh? what about Ernie? both have 6 top 10s and 10 top 25 finishes BUT Ernie has a win to jeff's no win, id say ernie is ahead there.
 
Tiger had 6 wins last year and none so far this year. Phil won 3 times last year and only 1 so far this year. So over the same time period Tiger has 6 with Phil having 4. How is Phil the clear number 1? Yes Tiger is playing like crap the last few weeks. I don't say all year because 4th spot in two majors isn't playing like crap. It's funny how short of a memory some people seem to have, you would think Tiger had been washed up for years now instead of 4 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top