World Ranking & Majors

[Crow]

Having been a long time believer in the lofty status of Majors against the mundane World Rankings, after this weekend's PGA I have to say my opinion has changed.

The competition fielded the four current holders of the Majors as well as seven of the top ten in the World Rankings.

Of the four Major holders only Kaymer made the cut and he finished 31st.

Of the seven representatives from the rankings five made the cut (the two who didn't were Major holders so might not even have been in the top ten without the Major win) and the top two in the rankings finished tied for first.

If ever there was a statement for a golfers ability related to Major winner or World Ranking position then this is surely it.

I know that you need nerve and skill to win a Major against a top class field but there is also a degree of luck needed, just look at some of the chancers who have won it down the years. The multiple major winners stand out as the greats they are such as Nicklaus and Woods but also look at how Woods dominated the World Rankings at the same time.

So forgive the long ramble, but the World Rankings have gone up in my estimation and anyone who achieves Number 1 is a far better golfer than a one or two time Major winner.

Your thoughts?

 

[elliottlale]

agreed!! at the end of the day a Major is just ONE match, just like any other, just more prestigious! the world rankings are based on golfers performance over a 2 year stretch. any of the top 50 can win a major if things go their way. a few lucky holes wont make anyone No.1, that comes with playing consistently better that everyone else. Just look at Lukes year so far!

 

[Imurg]

Given the choice I think any Pro would want a Major rather than being Number 1.
As far as I can see the main reason for having rankings anyway is that a lot of the qualification criteria for bigger Tournaments is based on the rankings. Take the PGA. Open to any player from the top 50 in the World - that Americans were conspicuous by their absence is irrelevent, as are they!
However being Number 1 carries a load of Kudos as well. It shows you are the best - not necessarily the best at winning Majors.
The rankings show consistency, the Majors, generally, show one-off ability.

 

[birdieman]

No.1 is an achievement but there is nothing tangible about it, you don't get your name engraved on a trophy, you don't get presented with it in fromt of a huge crowd, you don't have a pressured back 9 on day 4 to deal with to achieve it, there are no video highlights of the 'event' to be recorded in history etc etc. Some players play 45 events a year, some play 20 so it isn't a competition where everyone is equal. You get my drift?

Personally give me a major any day.

 

[jammydodger]

It wont be long before all the doom merchants will be along with their 'Donald doesnt deserve it he hasnt won a major' BS. Just the same as Westwood. Totally confounds me how ignorant a lot of people are of what it takes to get to world number 1

 

[birdieman]

People are not ignorant about it, it is a worthy achievement but it's computer generated statistics based on a subjective ranking points system.

Golf as a sport is about the pressure of winning and being able to hole a putt when it really matters and your knees are like jelly - Think McIlroy at Augusta - the pressures and the drama, you don't get that with a ranking placement.

Donald and Westwood are great players but they have not quite done it on the really big stage yet.

 

[jammydodger]

They havnt won a major but surely the times they have won when facing the pump on the back 9 is worthy of recognition. You cant get to number 1 without having some big cahoonas and winning your fair share of big events

 

[birdieman]

Wouldn't disagree there jammy, both have won some good titles. Those titles are what they'll be remembered by.

 

[Crow]

People are not ignorant about it, it is a worthy achievement but it's computer generated statistics based on a subjective ranking points system.

Golf as a sport is about the pressure of winning and being able to hole a putt when it really matters and your knees are like jelly - Think McIlroy at Augusta - the pressures and the drama, you don't get that with a ranking placement.

Donald and Westwood are great players but they have not quite done it on the really big stage yet.

It's not a subjective ranking points system, it's based on the quality of the field, the better the field the greater the points accrued.

Donald and Westwood have done it on the big stage, just not a Major. Admittedly these are the biggest stage of all but I think we get a bit fixated about them sometimes, for me they're over hyped, especially the ones in the US.

 

[FourPutt]

At the end of the day, look at Oosthuizen, Schwartzel, McDowell and Kaymer and tell me any of them that you would say are better golfers than Donald? I wouldn't say any of them. Kaymer is the only one that would even come close on a regular basis.

Not saying that Louis, Charl and Graeme aren't great golfers, they clearly are, but Donald has come in the top 15 in something like 8 of his last 10 tournaments or some such stat. That is phenomenal. This season alone, he's had what, 2 wins and a few seconds? Again, phenomenal form. Arguably the best form since Tiger's dominance ended. The fields are (again arguably) better than when Tiger was at the top, with so much talent out there on any given tournament.

At this current time, I can't think of anyone more deserving of No 1 than Luke, closely followed by Westwood. I think they'll pull away from the chasing pack (what has Kaymer done since he went to No 1?) and maybe pass it around between them for a bit. My personal belief is that Donald is a slightly better all-round golfer than Westwood, and will eventually hold on to the Number 1 spot for a while, as well as winning a few majors, but hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[FourPutt]

The thing with majors, other than the history and hype, is that they are just a 72 hole strokeplay event against the same (if stronger) fields as every other tournament.

This week's PGA Championship had 7 of the top ten in the world in the field including all four major holders, so had arguably (I say arguably a lot!) as strong a field as any major. Is winning this tournament any easier than a major? Probably not. It might mean slightly less to a player, but I don't think it takes any better a player to win a major. It's just about who hits the top of their game on a particular week.

I don't think a major deserves any more recognition in terms of world rankings than they already get (double points) in fact, they may deserve less. Is Charl Schwartzel the 7th best player in the world, or Loius Oosthuizen the 35th (ish?)? I doubt it and I think that is a more relevant argument than whether a non-major winner should be "allowed" to be No 1.

 

[Imurg]

At the end of the day, whoever wins any Tournament needs a drop or 2 of luck, they need to play well and they don't need anyone else to play better than them.
Schwartzel won the Masters by 2 shots - he had oceans of luck early on. Turn those gained shots into pars and he's have lost or been in a play-off.
Majors are just Tournaments. Ok they are career defining Tournaments but someone is going to win.
Just assume for a moment that the top 10 in the world can't play the US Open for whatever reason. Adam Scott wins it. Does that make him a great player? You can only beat what's in front of you but it would have been a pretty poor field - but it's still a Major. Luke wins with 6 of the top 7 playing - in reality why is that any less of a win..

 

[LanDog]

No doubt that if you play consistent golf then you deserve to be No.1 but the pressure it takes to win a major is a testament to great golfers and if you look at David Duval, he was world No.1 in like 1999 and look at him now, so in my opinion getting to No.1 is the sign of great golf but staying at No.1 is how you can tell a true champion

 

[CrapHacker]

Given the choice I think any Pro would want a Major rather than being Number 1.

I'm not so sure.

By getting to no 1 a pro has earned enough money to keep themselves, their family and me ( if only they knew me ) in Mars bars for the rest of their days.

Which is surely the point of being pro - to earn a comfortable living.

Having reached that level of comfort, then bring on the majors.

A major win will earn you £1,000,000.

Being no 1 sets you up for life.

 

[FourPutt]

But assuming he already has the money (like Luke, Lee etc) I bet they would gladly drop 30 places in the rankings to get their hands on a major!

I think the point is that people see being a major winner as more prestigious than being world number 1 in golf, and indeed other sports like tennis.

Look at Murray, he's beat Federer etc a number of times to win tournaments, but because it wasn't in Wimbledon or one of the other majors, he's somehow less of a player. Players in golf will always be judged, at least to a certain extent, on whether they have won one of those four tournaments.

 

[Tiger]

Bobby Jones impregnable quadrilateral. Then which golfer was it that won lots of regular tournaments Nelson or Snead or someone else? At that time it was about how many tournament wins not which ones. Then Palmer, Player and Niklaus shifted the focus back to the four Majors. In my eye:

Good professional golfers win a few tournaments
Great ones top the world rankings
Legendary ones top the rankings and win a Major

To win a tournament requires peaking at the right time, playing well, coping with the pressure and a little bit of luck. For some those things come into line during Major week for others it doesn't. They may be deemed prestigious but there are quite a lot of other big tournaments without the history but with an equally strong field. I'm with Crow on this one.

 

[John_Findlay]

I agree with Crow.

You can fluke a major, maybe even 2 (I'll name names if you want) but there's no chance of fluking your way to No. 1

Legendary status starts at 5 Majors in my mind and it doesn't matter if you never got to No. 1 in achieving those, I reckon.

 

[CrapHacker]

But assuming he already has the money (like Luke, Lee etc) I bet they would gladly drop 30 places in the rankings to get their hands on a major! You might well be right. But they'd never admit it. If you asked them tomorrow they'd say that they're happy and if a major comes along... yadda yadda yadda

I think the point is that people see being a major winner as more prestigious than being world number 1 in golf, and indeed other sports like tennis.

Look at Murray, he's beat Federer etc a number of times to win tournaments, but because it wasn't in Wimbledon or one of the other majors, he's somehow less of a player. I think Murray is considered to be a lesser player because he is a lesser player. He is below Federer in the rankings his PB is much lower than Federer's PB, and he has won zero majors.

Players in golf will always be judged, at least to a certain extent, on whether they have won one of those four tournaments. I agree, but I think that with the huge amounts of money that is there to be won nowadays compared with 'the good old days' the judgement is more from our side. I think their peer recognition is more evenly balanced.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I think all the players who have topped the official World Golf Rankings had won or went on to win at least one Major. Most were multiple Major winners. If you are good enough to top the world rankings history suggests you are good enough to win a Major. Time will tell if Lee and Luke can keep up the trend.

 

[muttleee]

I've always thought that people tend to put too much weight on the importance of majors. Yes of course it would be nice to have one or more of the trophies sitting on the mantlepiece at some point and it means that your name will go down in golfing history but pretty much anyone in the field can win one if they just happen to hit a hot streak on the right week.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Majors are the golfing equivalent of the FA Cup or League Cup (that one's the USPGA, obviously).