'To be No1 in the world you should have won a major' ??

[SirSliceAlot]

I have just been reading Ian Poulters twitter feed from this morning and he has been having a debate with the Telegraph sports journalist Oliver Brown.
Basically Brown has quoted the delightful Mark Roe and said 'It should be harder to get to world number 1 in golf. To be number 1 you should have won a major'. They have been back and forth debating it but I am well and truly on Poulters side, it sounds like Roe is having a subtle dig at Luke Donald for being number 1 without winning a major despite his incredible consistency across the season. It was also pointed out that Tiger has climbed 30 places in the rankings just for winning one 'contrived' event....
What are your thoughts on this?

 

[bluewolf]

the ranking system is fine. Luke is there because hes the most consistant golfer on the planet. Is he the best? No. But over the course of 2 years he has been consistantly brilliant. I quite like Roe because he isnt a typical media fence sitter, but hes wrong here... THe best answer is to ask the players who are affected by it, and I think they like it as it is....

 

[bladeplayer]

Must stop looking at the avatar & answer the question..
I think the world rankings are as fair as they can be , the best or most consistant golfer week in week out deserves to be world No 1, a decent pro could have a good week & win a major , as we have seen lately .. ok the majors should carry extra ranking points due to the pressure of the week & the standing of the tournament etc , Tiger still had to win that event ,the points were on offer for all the entrants , as for the world rankings, the fedex set up is worse . i dont know of any other way, even if they had say one world ranking tournament a month, (like club medal etc) it would come down to the most consistant player ,

 

[JustOne]

Luke is there because hes the most consistant golfer on the planet. Is he the best? No. But over the course of 2 years he has been consistantly brilliant.

^
^
That sums it up.



I'd like to see them change the way they rank the players though, but they probably won't.

 

[wull]

i agree with the above comments....

i was watching the coverage when mark roe said this and it was just his opinion,i can't remember if dennis pugh agreed with him or not.....or to a certain extent.

 

[Oddsocks]

consistency has always been a championship winner, but for me to be ranked world number 1 you should have one a major, its like people winning motorsports championships without winning races. being ranked number 1 is an achievement, but to do it without winning a major sort of knocks a bit of the sparkle off for me.

Like justone said there should be a changing in the ranking system meaning that it is neigh on impossible to be ranked number 1 without a major behind you.

 

[muttleee]

Winning a major doesn't mean you're a great golfer. Sure it's nice to have one on your CV but any flash in the pan can win one if their luck is in. It takes real talent/skill/hard work to be as good as Luke has been over the last couple of years, which is why he's deservedly number one.

 

[Tiger]

Poulter's reply that based on Brown's point of view the world ranking should read:

Niklaus, Woods, Hagen, Player, Hogan, Watson was inspired! I'm with IJP on this!

 

[Wildrover]

So Mark Roe thinks that Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton are better golfers than Luke Donald and Lee Westwood, err I think not!!!!

 

[Oddsocks]

. Sure it's nice to have one on your CV but any flash in the pan can win one if their luck is in.

got to disagree 100%, look at rory last year in the states, miles in front on the final day and melted like cheese on a big mac.

To me he coming back from that is a big testimonial to him as a player, but i would have rather him excelled in that position and won the major. To handle world wide pressure is what i believe a world number 1 should be able to do, not get to number 1 by loads of 2nd's, 3rd's etc.

Maybe this is exactly why wood woods was so dominant, because he knew how to handle the pressure, almost thrive on it so to speak.

 

[elliottlale]

so what if luke donald was to win every single tournament on the us pga/european tour next year, but didnt win a major? does that mean he shouldnt be number 1 in the world?!?!

 

[need_my_wedge]

consistency has always been a championship winner, but for me to be ranked world number 1 you should have one a major, its like people winning motorsports championships without winning races. being ranked number 1 is an achievement, but to do it without winning a major sort of knocks a bit of the sparkle off for me.

Like justone said there should be a changing in the ranking system meaning that it is neigh on impossible to be ranked number 1 without a major behind you.

Really.....?

So you can be World number one if you win one of 4 comps a year but play crap in everything else, but can't be number one if you win half a dozen other comps without winning one of the 4. That's like saying you can't be Premier league champions unless you beat the big 4(5!).

Surely any ranking system has to be based on consistency over the season, not just your ability to win a specific match/ tournament. It's about doing it week in and week out with the odd blip here and there. If you limit it to major winners, you are restricting those that can win, and may as well only play 4 comps in the year and ignore the rest.

 

[MadAdey]

It has been said over and over again. Anyone could have a good week and win a major and then never get in another top 5 all season. But because he won the major should he have so many ranking points that it puts him number 1 in the world. If you need to win a major to be number 1 that is harsh. Imagine being a player who is consistently finishing in top 10 and maybe has a couple of runner up's in the majors. Would he deserve to be denied the number 1 slot just because he did not manage to win one of them.

 

[Tommo21]

Winning a major doesn't mean you're a great golfer. Sure it's nice to have one on your CV but any flash in the pan can win one if their luck is in. It takes real talent/skill/hard work to be as good as Luke has been over the last couple of years, which is why he's deservedly number one.

A flash in the pan......four of the most impotant days of a pro golfers life, against the best in the world on the toughest golf courses in the world. Next time you're in east lothian I'll take you up to Muirfield, just for a look. You cannot flash any pans round there.

Agree with the rest.

 

[coolhand]

We're talking about 2 different things here:

Can you be World number 1 without winning a major - yes it's designed to reward consitancy, rightly so.

Can a World number 1 be the best player in the world without a major win - no that is probably the highest ranked player with a Major in that year i.e. Rory Mac.

 

[muttleee]

A flash in the pan......four of the most impotant days of a pro golfers life, against the best in the world on the toughest golf courses in the world. Next time you're in east lothian I'll take you up to Muirfield, just for a look. You cannot flash any pans round there.

Agree with the rest.

Rich Beem, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, Paul Lawrie, Steve Jones...the list goes on. Of course you have to play really well to win but if you do it once and then basically disappear without trace, then for my money that makes you a flash in the pan.

 

[Slab]

Ok so if the money, prestige, sponsorship deals etc arn't enough then maybe it should be like Monopoly for the world ranking points at Majors

one major win over the rolling two years give the current allocated points (one major = one monopoly railway station)
2nd, 3rd major wins (2nd, 3rd railway station held by same player) would multiply the offered ranking points for that player by a factor of (x) whatever is fair/agreed for the achievement

 

[Wildrover]

Totally agree with Muttleee on this, you could add John Daly to that list for me as well. Got lucky twice, both in Ryder Cup years, yet didn't make either team which shows you what the rest of his year was like.

 

[USER1999]

There are no rules in F1 that stop a driver from being world champion if he has no wins. 2nd in every race would do it fine.

World number one in any sport is to do with ranking, not performances in specific tournaments.

It doesn't mean much any way.

Every one knows the best golfer in the world is Tiger.

 

[Liverbirdie]

We're talking about 2 different things here:

Can you be World number 1 without winning a major - yes it's designed to reward consitancy, rightly so.

Can a World number 1 be the best player in the world without a major win - no that is probably the highest ranked player with a Major in that year i.e. Rory Mac.

Totally agree, they are two different things. For football equivalent look at Arsenal over the last 6 years, champions leagure qualifiers every year, finish in the top 2,3,4, but can't win a trophy.

It still should not decry Birmingham, Portsmouth and others their place in the Sun because of a good cup run, and then finally seeing it through. Oh aye, and Arsenal are bottlers also.