Who, in your opinion, is the real #1 in golf today?

[rockford35]

Personally, I vote for Ernie. He suffered a bit Sunday, but i'd bet on him any weekend.

Any other opinions?

rockford35

[Farzin]

Not again Please.

[Colby]

Not again Please.

I agree. I think we have beaten this horse to death

[powerlefty]

That's easy - Mickelson. A first and a second in the 2 majors this year, first on the money list, he has risen in the world rankings from 15th to 4th this year, and he has another win, another second and 2 thirds this year in regular events. And he has now retaken the "best lefthander in the world" crown back from Mike Weir.

[Deep Woods]

That's easy - Mickelson. A first and a second in the 2 majors this year, first on the money list, he has risen in the world rankings from 15th to 4th this year, and he has another win, another second and 2 thirds this year in regular events. And he has now retaken the "best lefthander in the world" crown back from Mike Weir.

Mickelson.

[broken27]

Me.

Dan

[mr shank]

Me.

Dan

agreed.
those other guys are good, but week in & week out, broken is better.
he just needs to get a sponsor's exemption & then look out!

[em69]

Lefty. He has been one of the most consistent this year plus his stellar play in the majors.

[Chieflongtee]

Moe Norman.

[Big_duck]

Sorry, but its not all about the last couple of months, offically it's still "He who must not be named" until somebody knocks him off his perch (or more likely he plays himself off)-and I am not neccisarly a fan btw.

The world golf rankings are based on longevity and consistency not a short period of success. Ernies #9 on the money list and lefty is 38th.

Just because you don't whos on top doesn't mean a points system is wrong. It's like saying Ryan Newman should be on top of the NASCAR points just because he won the last race.

[Colby]

Sorry, but its not all about the last couple of months, offically it's still "He who must not be named" until somebody knocks him off his perch (or more likely he plays himself off)-and I am not neccisarly a fan btw.

The world golf rankings are based on longevity and consistency not a short period of success. Ernies #9 on the money list and lefty is 38th.

Just because you don't whos on top doesn't mean a points system is wrong. It's like saying Ryan Newman should be on top of the NASCAR points just because he won the last race.

Valid points. Look at last year. Kenny Perry was the hottest golfer around for a while. Did that make him #1? Where is he now? Vijay played the Ironman Tour last year and won the money title. Did that make him #1? He didn't even win Player of the Year.

The point system is valid and as mentioned, is based on a legitimate period of time rather than jumping around to cater to the hottest streak.

[broken27]

Sorry, but its not all about the last couple of months, offically it's still "He who must not be named" until somebody knocks him off his perch (or more likely he plays himself off)-and I am not neccisarly a fan btw.

The world golf rankings are based on longevity and consistency not a short period of success. Ernies #9 on the money list and lefty is 38th.

Just because you don't whos on top doesn't mean a points system is wrong. It's like saying Ryan Newman should be on top of the NASCAR points just because he won the last race.

That ranking system is stupid in my mind. That's like saying the Oilers are the best team in the NHL because nobody has strung together 4 consecutive Stanley Cup wins since they did it in the 80s.

If they altered their formula a bit to take into account total events played, cuts made etc then it might make some sense. How can a guy who hasn't won anything and has played less tournament rounds than I have be #1 in the world? I have seen the rating system, but it's fairly meaningless anyway.

Best golfer in the world is the guy with highest fairways hit %, highest greens %, fewest putts, and longest drive.

As I stated previously, that's ME.

Dan

[Farzin]

I have converted, I am joining the :readheart Phil :readheart.

[Big_duck]

That ranking system is stupid in my mind. That's like saying the Oilers are the best team in the NHL because nobody has strung together 4 consecutive Stanley Cup wins since they did it in the 80s.

If they altered their formula a bit to take into account total events played, cuts made etc then it might make some sense. How can a guy who hasn't won anything and has played less tournament rounds than I have be #1 in the world? I have seen the rating system, but it's fairly meaningless anyway.

Best golfer in the world is the guy with highest fairways hit %, highest greens %, fewest putts, and longest drive.

As I stated previously, that's ME.

Dan

No based on your criteria it would be Jim Furyk.

The Official World Golf Ranking, which is endorsed by the four Major Championships and the six professional tours which make up the International Federation of PGA Tours,

As you can see from above, the problem is that it is the WORLD rankings not the PGA rankings so the system has to be designed to take that in mind. So in fact it would be Soviet Red Army, not the Edmonton Oilers

Just for the record, I am defending the system not "He who must not be named".

[broken27]

You can defend the system all you like, but it still doesn't make any sense to have the #1 guy be someone who barely ever plays, and plays like crap when he does (compared to the field and his capability). Maybe they need to cut back on the number of years considered for evaluation.

Dan

[Big_duck]

You can defend the system all you like, but it still doesn't make any sense to have the #1 guy be someone who barely ever plays, and plays like crap when he does (compared to the field and his capability). Maybe they need to cut back on the number of years considered for evaluation.

Dan

2 years does seem a long time, but the points for the last 13 weeks are doubled, so recent performance is given more recognition.

[dbleber]

I have converted, I am joining the :readheart Phil :readheart.

dbleber:
Tiger hands down. I am Tiger's #1 Fan! Yes, I am a jerk!
Denny

[jbrace]

dbleber:
Tiger hands down. I am Tiger's #1 Fan! Yes, I am a jerk!
Denny

Easy, Denny. Don't get them going...

P.S. How did you do today??

[broken27]

2 years does seem a long time, but the points for the last 13 weeks are doubled, so recent performance is given more recognition.

Please understand that I'm not saying the system is unfair or anything, nor am I disputing the mathematical outcomes of their system. I'm just saying that I don't like the criteria used to generate a world ranking, when they don't technically award any points for simply making the field (which is by no means an easy feat from my understanding). Showing up and playing events means you're taking more physical punishment, even if it is only golf. Today's new generation of players is more athletic for the most part, and guys like Tiger should be able to play more than just every few months in a major. By rights, if you added the calculation of a ratio that determined how many late season events a guy like Els or Singh play in and how well they fared, they should get triple the points of Tiger winning that tournament (or some other every-once-in-a-while player).

Just my theory, doesn't really matter overall I guess.

Dan

[dbleber]

Easy, Denny. Don't get them going...

P.S. How did you do today??

dbleber:
I can't resist!

I played great on the front 9 but the back was really ugly. I couldn't tell were I was aiming with my driver and felt weird over the ball. Needless to say I did't hit the big stick very well and didn't have the smarts to put it away. Made the cut with 170. Unlike yourself, I didn't have a sweet 78....Congrats!!!
Denny

[Andru]

Please understand that I'm not saying the system is unfair or anything, nor am I disputing the mathematical outcomes of their system. I'm just saying that I don't like the criteria used to generate a world ranking, when they don't technically award any points for simply making the field (which is by no means an easy feat from my understanding). Showing up and playing events means you're taking more physical punishment, even if it is only golf. Today's new generation of players is more athletic for the most part, and guys like Tiger should be able to play more than just every few months in a major. By rights, if you added the calculation of a ratio that determined how many late season events a guy like Els or Singh play in and how well they fared, they should get triple the points of Tiger winning that tournament (or some other every-once-in-a-while player).

Just my theory, doesn't really matter overall I guess.

Dan

The system is fine no one complained when Norman was number one. He didn't win the number of full field events that Tiger has. He's number one until someone knocks him off. People forget, he won 6 tournaments last year. SIX including 2 world golf championships with major quality fields. That's why he's still number one. Every tournament he tees it up is a big event with a field of super stars. I won't even go into the head to head stats of Phil Vs. Tiger. They're embarassing for lefty.

Tiger still hasn't missed a cut. Check out his cash per event stats in 2003. Here's another stat to swallow. After the Byron Nelson he has 100 top ten finishes in 154 events on the PGA tour. Tiger gets NO respect.

[Farzin]

dbleber:
Tiger hands down. I am Tiger's #1 Fan! Yes, I am a jerk!
Denny

Denny please,
Dan has figured it out for PGA, USGA, RCGA and all the other GA's. Who gives a damn To a jerk like Tiger who wins 8 majors, four of them one after the other. Phil is the man. He has got one major and he came so close to golf's grand slam that was heart breaking. God knows when he will have another chance at another Grand slam. not in my life time, maybe in some of his :readheart Phil :readheart life .
All I can say I do my prayers for him as I know the best.
I am a changed man now. This is what I have to say all the time :readheart Phil :readheart in defence of phil and offence of golf biggest jerk after Arni and Jack..

[NoBack]

:shake

[broken27]

Denny please,
Dan has figured it out for PGA, USGA, RCGA and all the other GA's.

I figured it out?

Dan

[broken27]

The system is fine no one complained when Norman was number one. He didn't win the number of full field events that Tiger has. He's number one until someone knocks him off. People forget, he won 6 tournaments last year. SIX including 2 world golf championships with major quality fields. That's why he's still number one. Every tournament he tees it up is a big event with a field of super stars. I won't even go into the head to head stats of Phil Vs. Tiger. They're embarassing for lefty.

Tiger still hasn't missed a cut. Check out his cash per event stats in 2003. Here's another stat to swallow. After the Byron Nelson he has 100 top ten finishes in 154 events on the PGA tour. Tiger gets NO respect.

Man, the way you rave about this guy, I'd have to assume your real life name is Elin....



Dan

[Farzin]

:shake

:readheart Phil :readheart

[Deep Woods]

I have converted, I am joining the :readheart Phil :readheart.

no, no, no, please don't, I don't want to read endless paragraphs about Phil having the right to do anything to nasty, evil nuns who make noise during his tee-offs.

By the way, Steve Karam should sue your ass for stealing his wonderful logo...


:readheart Farzin :readheart.

[BC MIST]

By labeling one of them as #1, it suggests that all others are inferior to that person, to some degree, which is nonsense, of course.

Everyone goes goo goo over the majors. Well, a major is a major because someone says it is. Why is one tournament more important than another? History? Tradition? Quality of field? One year we had the Du Maurier as a designated major on the LPGA Tour. The next year the Du Maurier was gone and the Ladies British Open became as major. Why? Because someone said it was.

So Tiger is #1 still because some mathematician came up with a formula which spat out an index and, presto, he is number 1 because someone says he is.

All the books on the mental game of golf tell us to "stay in the moment." The only shot that is important is the next one. And this is very true. So apply this principle to the #1 golfer in the world. It's Reteif Goosen 'cause he won last week. This week it will probably be someone else because the best golfer in the world is the one who is playing the best golf, RIGHT NOW. Not last week, last month or last year. Now.

[Farzin]

no, no, no, please don't, I don't want to read endless paragraphs about Phil having the right to do anything to nasty, evil nuns who make noise during his tee-offs.

By the way, Steve Karam should sue your ass for stealing his wonderful logo...


:readheart Farzin :readheart.

I think when your logic fails, you resrot to this kind of bullSh**. Isn't this your trade mark Mr :readheart Phil :readheart, you might as well sue my ass for stealing your wonderful Logic.
:readheart Phil :readheart

[broken27]

By labeling one of them as #1, it suggests that all others are inferior to that person, to some degree, which is nonsense, of course.

Everyone goes goo goo over the majors. Well, a major is a major because someone says it is. Why is one tournament more important than another? History? Tradition? Quality of field? One year we had the Du Maurier as a designated major on the LPGA Tour. The next year the Du Maurier was gone and the Ladies British Open became as major. Why? Because someone said it was.

So Tiger is #1 still because some mathematician came up with a formula which spat out an index and, presto, he is number 1 because someone says he is.

All the books on the mental game of golf tell us to "stay in the moment." The only shot that is important is the next one. And this is very true. So apply this principle to the #1 golfer in the world. It's Reteif Goosen 'cause he won last week. This week it will probably be someone else because the best golfer in the world is the one who is playing the best golf, RIGHT NOW. Not last week, last month or last year. Now.

Can't argue with that.

Dan

PS - I think we're at the point where arguing this belaboured issue any further will suck all the fun out of being a fan/basher of anyone we discuss. I'm done.