World Golf Rankings

[GolfWRX]

1 Tiger Woods USA (13.38)

2 Vijay Singh FIJ (12.10)

3 Ernie Els SAF (10.98)

4 Phil Mickelson USA (9.49)

5 Retief Goosen SAF (7.98)

6 Adam Scott AUS (5.69)

7 Chris Dimarco USA (5.47)

8 Padraig Harrington IRE (5.39)

9 Sergio Garcia SPN (5.00)

10 David Toms USA (5.00)

 

11 Stewart Cink USA (4.64)

12 Mike Weir CAN (4.61)

13 Luke Donald ENG (4.59)

14 Davis Love-Iii USA (4.43)

15 Darren Clarke NIR (4.36)

16 Kenny Perry USA (4.24)

17 Stuart Appleby AUS (4.12)

18 Miguel Angel Jimenez SPN (3.66)

19 Chad Campbell USA (3.61)

20 Tom Lehman USA (3.40)

 

21 Scott Verplank USA (3.39)

22 Fred Funk USA (3.21)

23 Justin Leonard USA (3.14)

24 Stephen Ames T&T (3.06)

25 Peter Lonard AUS (3.05)

26 Jim Furyk USA (2.97)

27 Shigeki Maruyama JPN (2.88)

28 Nick O'Hern AUS (2.79)

29 Craig Parry AUS (2.77)

30 Tim Clark SAF (2.76)

 

31 Thomas Bjorn DEN (2.76)

32 Choi Kyung-Ju KOR (2.74)

33 Angel Cabrera ARG (2.72)

34 Lee Westwood ENG (2.67)

35 Todd Hamilton USA (2.65)

36 John Daly USA (2.56)

37 Zach Johnson USA (2.56)

38 Charles Howell-Iii USA (2.50)

39 Jay Haas USA (2.49)

40 Rod Pampling AUS (2.48)

 

41 Paul Casey ENG (2.47)

42 Fred Couples USA (2.45)

43 Tim Herron USA (2.45)

44 Graeme McDowell NIR (2.44)

45 Jerry Kelly USA (2.42)

46 Mark Hensby AUS (2.39)

47 Robert Allenby AUS (2.38)

48 Ian Poulter ENG (2.35)

49 Rory Sabbatini SAF (2.31)

50 Thomas Levet FRN (2.30)

 

51 Jonathan Kaye USA (2.30)

52 David Howell ENG (2.22)

53 Steve Flesch USA (2.18)

54 Trevor Immelman SAF (2.17)

55 Colin Montgomerie SCO (2.16)

56 Richard Green AUS (2.15)

57 Jeff Maggert USA (2.09)

58 Joe Ogilvie USA (2.09)

59 Jose M Olazabal SPN (1.93)

60 Kirk Triplett USA (1.93)

 

61 Geoff Ogilvy AUS (1.92)

62 Arron Oberholser USA (1.88)

63 Thongchai Jaidee THA (1.85)

64 Paul McGinley IRE (1.83)

65 Alex Cejka GER (1.83)

66 Chris Riley USA (1.81)

67 Tim Petrovic USA (1.80)

68 Henrik Stenson SWE (1.79)

69 Loren Roberts USA (1.76)

70 Yang Yong-Eun KOR (1.71)

 

71 Bart Bryant USA (1.67)

72 Nick Price ZIM (1.66)

73 Greg Owen ENG (1.62)

74 Joakim Haeggman SWE (1.62)

75 Scott McCarron USA (1.62)

76 Bob Tway USA (1.59)

77 Duffy Waldorf USA (1.58)

78 Toru Taniguchi JPN (1.58)

79 Brian Davis ENG (1.57)

80 Fredrik Jacobson SWE (1.57)

 

81 Bernhard Langer GER (1.57)

82 Shingo Katayama JPN (1.56)

83 Brad Faxon USA (1.51)

84 Justin Rose ENG (1.50)

85 Stephen Leaney AUS (1.50)

86 Raphael Jacquelin FRN (1.48)

87 Jesper Parnevik SWE (1.46)

88 Stephen Gallacher SCO (1.45)

89 Kevin Na USA (1.45)

90 Jyoti Randhawa IND (1.45)

 

91 Brent Geiberger USA (1.42)

92 Mark Calcavecchia USA (1.39)

93 Niclas Fasth SWE (1.38)

94 Joe Durant USA (1.37)

95 Bob Estes USA (1.35)

96 Carlos Franco Ev (1.35)

97 Joey Sindelar USA (1.35)

98 Shaun Micheel USA (1.35)

99 Steven Conran AUS (1.32)

100 Dudley Hart USA (1.32)

[Hifade]

Nice post and great info but still a mystery to me. VJ and Ernie have both won since the Masters and "his hinus" hasn't even played yet little to no ground has been gained on the #1 primadonna. Not cool if you ask me. IMHFO it's an IMG based ratings system for marketing purposes only. And...I don't even like VJ but he does deserve to be the number 1 player.

[DemolitionMan]

I agree it should be closer between TW and VJ. Even PM should be in the mix more. But that is taking into consideration VJ's stellar 2004.

 

If we just go by this year alone TW won the Buick, Doral, and the Masters. VJ won the Michelle Wie Classic and the John Daly Water Snipe Open. So the rankings look alright.

[Hifade]

Demo,

 

I guess I agree but my problem is more with the silly formula. I mean VJ plays every frickin' week and contends almost as much. Tiger plays half the number of events and complains about that. It's almost like a guy is rewarded for not playing. I understand it's based on the strength of the fields and all, but playing should score you points and not seem to work against you. Hell, the #1 ranked college football team in the pre-season poll doesn't stay there if they cancel a few early games and don't play (bad analogy).

 

I don't know...just seems a bit skewed and while Tiger has had a few good events this year so far, VJ has outplayed them all over the past 24 months IMHO.

 

The debate goes on, huh???

 

 

I agree it should be closer between TW and VJ.  Even PM should be in the mix more.  But that is taking into consideration VJ's stellar 2004.

 

If we just go by this year alone TW won the Buick, Doral, and the Masters.  VJ won the Michelle Wie Classic and the John Daly Water Snipe Open.  So the rankings look alright.

2989[/snapback]

[Golfchicago]

Cool to see some of the old war horses hanging around like Calc and Faxon. I didnt realize that Daly was ranked so high!

[DemolitionMan]

I used to think the formula was flawed, now I just don't care. When you break it down, I suppose someone is going to get left out. And it's kind of hard to knock a system that finds a way to get the most popular player to the #1 position. Clearly having TW #1 is much more important to the industry of golf than VJ being #1.

 

At the beginning of the year I just thought it was lame when it was reported that "if TW wins 1 event, he's back to #1...." or something like that. How ridiculous that VJ has one of the best year's ever in 2004, and that's following a really good 2003, basically busts his Word not allowed to perform at the level he did taking forever to catch TW as #1 and after wrapping up 2004 with a major win, what's his reward??? Thanks VJ, but if TW wins once, you are out.

 

What kind of ranking system so easily displaces #1 with 9 wins to TW's 1 win in 2004? In another thread at another board I tried to equate the nonsense with 'what if the NE Patriots start the NFL season this year at 1-3? Does that mean they should slip out of #1 or #2 in the power rankings?' Of course the TW lovers drowned out any logic on the subject.

 

The funny thing is a lot of public complaining when it took VJ so long to catch TW resulted in a change of the formula that backfired on VJ when it comes to holding on to #1. Here is the crux of the problem from WGR...

 

"The World Ranking points for each player are accumulated over a two year “rolling” period with the points awarded in the most recent 13-week period doubled – ranking points will then decline in eight equal quarter-year intervals."

 

So it is a 'what have you done lately' ranking system now. In the last 13 weeks, yes, TW should easily be #1. On top of all that, winning the most recent major gives you a huge boost because not only is it double ranked, but your point total for the 2 years gets a 50 point bonus. When you divide the 50 points by the approx 40 events TW plays in 2 years, that's an extra point pop on the average.

 

All that being said it is tough to find a middle ground of placating those who play less, but play extremely well, and not rewarding a win over a weak field. So for the same reasons an Asian Tour win means almost nothing, a win on the PGA Tour against a lot of journeymen is nowhere near the win at TPC or something like that.

 

Wow, a lot of typing for something I really do not care about.....

 

Demo,

 

I guess I agree but my problem is more with the silly formula. I mean VJ plays every frickin' week and contends almost as much. Tiger plays half the number of events and complains about that. It's almost like a guy is rewarded for not playing. I understand it's based on the strength of the fields and all, but playing should score you points and not seem to work against you. Hell, the #1 ranked college football team in the pre-season poll doesn't stay there if they cancel a few early games and don't play (bad analogy).

 

I don't know...just seems a bit skewed and while Tiger has had a few good events this year so far, VJ has outplayed them all over the past 24 months IMHO.

 

The debate goes on, huh???

3002[/snapback]

[dadriver]

I used to think the formula was flawed, now I just don't care.  When you break it down, I suppose someone is going to get left out.  And it's kind of hard to knock a system that finds a way to get the most popular player to the #1 position.  Clearly having TW #1 is much more important to the industry of golf than VJ being #1.

 

At the beginning of the year I just thought it was lame when it was reported that "if TW wins 1 event, he's back to #1...." or something like that.  How ridiculous that VJ has one of the best year's ever in 2004, and that's following a really good 2003, basically busts his Word not allowed to perform at the level he did taking forever to catch TW as #1 and after wrapping up 2004 with a major win, what's his reward???  Thanks VJ, but if TW wins once, you are out.

 

What kind of ranking system so easily displaces #1 with 9 wins to TW's 1 win in 2004?  In another thread at another board I tried to equate the nonsense with 'what if the NE Patriots start the NFL season this year at 1-3?  Does that mean they should slip out of #1 or #2 in the power rankings?'  Of course the TW lovers drowned out any logic on the subject.

 

The funny thing is a lot of public complaining when it took VJ so long to catch TW resulted in a change of the formula that backfired on VJ when it comes to holding on to #1.  Here is the crux of the problem from WGR...

 

"The World Ranking points for each player are accumulated over a two year “rolling” period with the points awarded in the most recent 13-week period doubled – ranking points will then decline in eight equal quarter-year intervals."

 

So it is a 'what have you done lately' ranking system now.  In the last 13 weeks, yes, TW should easily be #1.  On top of all that, winning the most recent major gives you a huge boost because not only is it double ranked, but your point total for the 2 years gets a 50 point bonus.  When you divide the 50 points by the approx 40 events TW plays in 2 years, that's an extra point pop on the average.

 

All that being said it is tough to find a middle ground of placating those who play less, but play extremely well, and not rewarding a win over a weak field.  So for the same reasons an Asian Tour win means almost nothing, a win on the PGA Tour against a lot of journeymen is nowhere near the win at TPC or something like that.

 

Wow, a lot of typing for something I really do not care about.....

3044[/snapback]

 

Yes it was a lot of typing but you explained well. Thanks.

 

I'm of the same mind as many others, including the pros themselves, it doesn't really matter. The guy who last won is playing the best right now. Who is the best--or shold that be "who WAS the best--over the last 2 years? I don't know...let's go have a beer and debate it.

[Hifade]

Demo,

 

I'm with ya...I really don't give a sh!t either......'cause nothing I say or do will ever change it. Interesting conversation and reading, I guess.