91Èȱ¬

I think that it is a very fair system and over the last 2 years Westwood does deserve to be world number 1.....but it will never replace a major victory....for that reason Woods is still the best and Mickleson his biggest challenger for the title of best player in the world. No-one can deny that Kaymer has had a fantastic season, he deserves world number 1 as much as Westwood.

World number 1 is a measure of consistency. Westwood needs to back it up with major success or it will count for very little.

Even Monty has found a place in history for his performances in the Ryder Cup both as player and captain. How will Westwood be remembered? All of the above world number 1's have majors, he won't want to be remembered as the only world number 1 never to win a major.

When he is good, even now, he is untouchable.

Expect a far better showing for him next year.

To either Westwood or Kaymer*... congratulations!

*I do hope it is the Englishman though!

The world number ONE ranking will be well deserved for Westwood. But as someone has already mentioned, nothing beats winning a major. That really is the ultimate achievement for any professional golfer. It also commands respect from all the other players on the tour. Westwood is a class act and at present he's the most consistent golfer in the world, but if truly baffles me why he hasn't won a major yet. It's an evident missing gap on an otherwise very impressive resume. I still think Woods will regain the World number one ranking at some point in the future..most probably next year. He's too good not to.

Good Blog Iain, it's about time these rankings were explained............

It's a measure of Woods unbelieveable first half of 2009 that he has maintained the No.1 spot so long into 2010........................

Hope estwood gets it but if Kaymer does the business in Spain, then he will deserve the spot.........it will be great for the sport if there is a regular battle for the No.1 spot and will provide a sub-plot for every tournament over the Winter till we get back to the serious stuff in Augusta.

Westwood is a fine player but a system that makes him world number one has to be questioned. Woods' private life has made this season a bit of a write-off although two 4th placed finishes in Majors would be regarded as a great achievement for just about any other player. Can't help but feel that the rankings should be calculated over a longer period and weighted so that there is more emphasis on recent results. Let's not forget that Woods won his last Major only a little over 2 years ago and, after a lengthy injury lay-off, he returned in 2009 to win 7 big tournaments, the Fedex Cup and more than USD10M. 14 Major wins, 16 WGC wins and 71 PGA wins - it's a matter of when and not if he's back at number one. Kaymer and McIlroy (if he can improve his putting) could prove the biggest longer term challengers.

The more golfers chase the #1 ranking, the more likely it is that they will screw up their planning for Major Championships.
This is the time of year that Woods goes round the world pot-hunting and, more important, playing for appearance millions and owgr points.
Sadly it will all culminate in early December when the duelling Chevron and NEDBank exhibitions will spit out beaucoup owgr points for players in what is essentially a closed shop.
Who cares about #1? It's Majors that define a golfing legacy: Woods 14, Phil 4, Kaymer 1, leewestwood1 0.
If Lee compromises his fitness by going for #1, it is likely he'll also compromise his readiness for his true objective: Augusta National, April 2011.
Say it ain't so, Lee.

It's a bit of a joke. I know he's a Brit, so the press are all going doolally as we haven't got near the Number 1 ranking since Faldo swept all before him...BUT...the man has never won a major. It's a bit like the women's tennis rankings. Goog luck to you Lee, but number 1...erm....no.

#5, how long a period would you have for to count the ranking points......3 or 4 years??
I think the present 2 year "rolling" period is pretty ok....................
#6 Kwini, i dont believe for a second that Westwood would ever change his schedule to chase the No.1 ranking.

8 (John G): Tough one - perhaps 3 years. I'd need to really understand it more but, at the moment, it does seem too volatile with a player suddenly able to jump way up the rankings after a win or a couple of high finishes. I agree with LSR - Tom Lehman was number one for a week but I doubt he even cares about that when compared to his Open win.

It would just be westy's luck if Kaymer did pip him for #1. That would sum up his year, so near, so far. Nobody wants him to get there more than me. I'm a Notts lad who wants to see this happen. Been waiting for years. Kaymer, dont be the fly in the ointment. That would be too cruel.

#9, I'M sure Westwood wouldn't care either if he missed out on No.1 if he could get that Major.................and i hope he does...........

This can start a topic of best golfer never to have won a major. Monty has to be up there. So does Sergio, who was 1/2 inch away from winning at Carnoustie and probably should have won a USPGA title at least once.

Westwood has to win a major to go down in the annals of time as a true great, for how he came back from obscurity it would make a great story.

Who remembers that Ian Woosnam was world number one, or who remembers that Woosnam won the Masters..?
Exactly - No 1 in the world is nice, but nothing compared to winning a major.

Bad Mick

Jerseymike, your comments are both inherently contradictory (if you extend the ranking period, by definition you are reducing the emphasis on recent results) and don't seem to appreciate that golf already emphasises recent results far more than any other sport. As the article states, any result older than 13 weeks begins to lose their value. In most sports, players will keep the ranking points for at least a year. The UEFA team rankings keep their points at full value for 5 years!!

And why should results from 3 years ago indicate who is the best player at the moment? Whilst I'd be happy to argue that Tiger is still the greatest player in the pack and his time is likely to come again, there is no way he could be considered to be the best golfer at the moment and he should have lost his #1 ranking quite a few months ago.

Moreover, you cannot "jump up the rankings after a win or a few high finishes". Your points are divided by at least 40 (so you can't be a new kid on the block) and both Kaymer and Westwood have scored more points than anybody over the last 12 months (Westwood has had 8 top4 finishes including runners up spots at 2 of the last majors).

I agree that, like women's tennis, you question a system that has a #1 player without a major, but both tennis and golf have good rankings systems, it's just a factor of not having a consistent dominant player than allows that situation to occur. You could up the points for a major win to avoid it, but the only real change that would make is that Tiger would have lost his #1 ranking earlier to either Mickelson or Kaymer.

i for one hope kaymer gets it- not b/c he is german, but b/c it will be the bolt out of the blue NOONE spoke of. in the last year the overall opinion in golf media around the world was that westwood would eventually take over #1. nobody spoke of kaymer 6 months ago while he was back in the pack building steam. think there has ever been a german #1 while a german also led the us seniors at the same time? or the european seniors even? not in my young lifetime i don't think. that would be interesting and funny if another sport stereotype is crumbled..sure would tick off some though, hahah

Sponsorship bonuses aside, what does the number 1 ranking actually mean?

Surely golf fans and journalists are better qualified to judge the best players in the world than a computer ranking system?

Let's not get our underwear in a twist about it. If Westwood is the world's best player at the moment, then so be it. If Kaymer is better, some arbitrary formula isn't going to tell us so.

Beware of false prophets

Why cant a committee of sorts give every pro tournamenmt in the world a points system maybe winning a major 100 points second 75 third 60 and so on down the field then give maybe a lesser tournament maybe in china 50 points for first and so on down the feild then calculate monthly the players with the most points to be number 1,2 etc at least this will reward the active players and those in form

And why should results from 3 years ago indicate who is the best player at the moment? Whilst I'd be happy to argue that Tiger is still the greatest player in the pack and his time is likely to come again, there is no way he could be considered to be the best golfer at the moment and he should have lost his #1 ranking quite a few months ago.
----------
They dont though, they indicate the best golfer over the past two years. ALL rankings do that, without a period of longevity to judge over all you get is a meaningless statistic. What is "of the moment" after all? This year? this month? this week? the last 10 minutes?

Surely golf fans and journalists are better qualified to judge the best players in the world than a computer ranking system?
-------------
No.

People have opinions but always differing criteria, there will almost never be a consensus on a #1 if you let people judge, even during Tigers most dominant periods there were a few idiots who claimed this guy or that guy was only a fraction away.

Kaymer should get it, he has been the best player in the world this year and will only get better, he is going to go on and win many more majors. Will become a great.

Lokking forward to seeing what Tiger does next year.

@#20 the voice of reason.

Kaymer is on the road to greatness. In my opinion, he will outshine McIlroy as the leading figure of European golf over the coming years. I think the next great rivalry in the game will be Kaymer v Johnson (if it is not the great rivalry already).

Westwood is a tremendously consistant golfer. Quite amazingly so. But his legacy is likely to be the same as Montgomerie's: an excellent golfer, but not quite good enough in any particular week to win a major. If Westwood gets to number 1 it will a temporary blip before Kaymer takes over.

Tiger will get himself sorted out and make a comeback eventually, but I'm convinced that he'll never dominate again like he did before.

Iain, perhaps you could have a chat with Jonathan Overend about the way things are done in tennis - because it seems to me that they seem to be a fairly accurate reflection of things, and there are some real similarities I think.

#1 - Nadal - winning majors for fun. Very clearly the best player overall, but still prone to occasional loss (rarely over 5 sets).
#2 - Federer - has the claim to be one of the all time greats in terms of outstanding pedigree and record, but recently coming up just short in the big tournaments
#3 - Djokovic - has won a major and always consistent, but very little to separate from...
#4 - Murray - no majors, but a couple of near misses (a la Westwood?) and seems to hoover up in the smaller competitions - very consistent in terms of semis reached etc...

#22: Quick_Single:
Perhaps Jonathan Overend will tell Iain Carter that Kim Clijsters dropped in the WTA rankings following her US Open win, overtaken among others by Zvonereva who she thrashed. I understand why that was, but it illustrates that even the tennis rankings throw up some idiotic weekly variances from time to time.
And: Exactly how many Majors have Safina, Wozniacki, Jankovic won between them? All recent number ones.

Despite the media's focus with Westwood being number 1, we should all remember that Kaymer was also the best player in Europe last year until an injury prevented him from playing half of the year. Even with this, he ended up 3rd (I believe) and did that through a combination of winning tournaments and being up there when he does not win.

Unfortunately, Westwood will need to chalk up that first major to be seriously considered the best golfer in the world. His major performances in recent years have been exceptional and surely next year he will get over that finish line.

Kaymer's the man of the moment for me though. Best player in the world over the past couple of years even with a lengthy spell on the sidelines. (Interesting that all 4 battling for the number 1 spot have not played consistently for the past couple of years?!?)

Interesting article, but you don't spell "loth" like that. As a respected journalist I would expect better from you.

22, you could probably apply this example to golf...

1 - Kaymer, lots of wins over past 2 years. Will prob start winning majors for fun now the seal is broken.
2 - Woods, all time great that is going through a tough patch
3 - Mickelson, major winner but maybe not consistently good enough
4 - Westwood, no majors but consistent finishes

#25, #27:
Surely, Iain, Your dictionary also contains "loth" or "loath": "Unwilling, was loth to depart".

What we have here people is the battle of the Adjective vs The Verb, and the confusion this battle creates!!. The following was taken from Encarta dictionary (link supplied at end of message).

loath, loth, or loathe? Do not confuse the spelling of loath (or its variant loth) and loathe. Loath (or loth) is an adjective meaning "unwilling or reluctant" and is usually followed by to, as in I was loath [or loth] to admit it. It is also occasionally encountered in the fixed phrase nothing loath (or nothing loth).

Loathe is a verb meaning "dislike intensely": I loathe this kind of music.

The world ranking system is compromised by dividing by the number of tournaments played. It penalised players that play more. If it just used total points won over the two-year period, the top 4 would be Westwood, Kaymer, Mickelson, Woods. That seems to be more representative.

For me, it is Kaymer who should just nick it for 'Best Golfer In The World'.
Results over last 2 years:
2009 - three top 5 finishes and 2 wins
2010 - two top 5 finishes and 4 wins

Compare this to Westwood:
2009 - four top 5 finishes and 2wins
2010 - four top 5 finishes and 1 win

These two, along with the rising of the likes of Dustin Johnson, Rory McIlroy, Rickie Fowler...I think we've seen the end of 'The Tiger And Phil Show'...