McIlroy back on top spot

[MOAB]

Anyone else see Rory winning the Masters this year?

[MMB1500]

He says that every year. And every year the pressure gets to him.

[idrive]

I agree with Brooks having a major drought, actually a win drought in general. Hope he enjoyed his time at #1 because it won't happen again.

Waaaaa - It's because he's played like crap. Have to remember he only cares about Majors. The rest are just tune ups.

[MidwestGolfBum]

I can see it happening if he has both a good week putting and will admit and understand the fact that this isn't "just another tournament" like he tried to talk about during The Open last year.

[mosesgolf]

Good for him and anyone who has reached #1 is obviously monumental. But Tiger & Greg Norman held #1 for such long periods that the recent revolving door of #1's makes it seem almost trivial.

[MidwestGolfBum]

I guess I see it differently: I see their respective reigns as #1 that much more impressive given that it becomes more obvious to even the more casual golf fan just how hard it is to maintain a level of play that keeps you in that spot for an extended period of time. I do completely understand your perspective on it, as well.

[mosesgolf]

Or perhaps one can see it as Tiger was that much better than the field and he played so good for such a long period that no one could come close until he came back to earth. He was on another planet for such a long time playing other worldly golf.

[Brock Savage]

That is objectively true. The other #1's, including Norman, typically had averages of 9 to 12 OWGR points. Once in a while, you would see them get up to 13 or 14. Rory is currently 9.2.

At his peak, Tiger's average was over 32 points.

[grm24]

While what you've posted is correct the OWGR rankings are calculated differently now than late 2001. The calculation change at the start of September of 2001 lowered every players ranking average significantly. Easy information to find. There have been tweaks to the OWGR calculation since then.

[RareSight]

Very true, and also the calibre of competiton Tiger was competing against back then was far weaker than todays.

[Brock Savage]

While what you've posted is correct, the huge gap between #1 and #2 wasn't because of the way they calculated the rankings, it was because Tiger won 20 of the 41 PGA events he played over a two-year period. His worst finish in a stroke play event was T23 at the 2000 Western Open; everything else was in the top 20, and 35 of the 41 were top tens. And they weren't cupcake events -- he won five majors, 3 WGCs, a Player's Championship, a Tour Championship, 2 Memorials, 2 Bay Hills, one Western, among others. Five majors and 20 wins is a Hall of Fame career, way better than any current player's career but Phil's, and Tiger did it in two years.

He also had three wins, a second, a third, and a sixth in Euro Tour events (other than majors and WGCs) during that period.

Even well after the calculation change, and even when he was only amazingly dominant (rather than unbelievably dominant), Tiger still typically had double or more the point average of the world #2 by the fall of the season, except during swing changes.

Oct 2006: #1 Tiger 23.46, #2 Furyk 8.77

Oct 2007: #1 Tiger 23.36, #2 Phil 9.46

June 2008 (out the rest of the season with injuries) #1 Tiger 21.14, #2 Phil 10.08

And note that during that period, he was playing 15-16 events per season, while the minimum divisor was 40 (20 events per season), so his calculated average was artificially low.

What started all this were the comments about how hard it is to stay on top after you've reached #1. How well you have to play to keep that ranking -- if you're an earthling. If you're pre-injury Tiger, you can take nine months off, as he did after the 2008 US Open, and still not lose your #1 ranking.

[Vindog]

Why go back as far as 3 years? OWGR is only 2 years. If you're going to go further than that, then why stop at 3 years?