|
|
Post by janie on Sept 28, 2009 6:33:49 GMT -5
AND he gets a $10,000,000 bonus for ending the year on top. Now, if Dinara could get a bonus like that, it might end the pain of all the criticism. Step up, WTA!
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Aug 28, 2010 19:11:01 GMT -5
Ladies and gentlemen, golf's #1 player in action: "Tiger Woods opened the third round of the U.S. PGA Tour’s Barclays tournament with a triple bogey on the first hole"  |
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Aug 28, 2010 20:58:00 GMT -5
It's actually the winner of the FedEx Cup "Playoffs" that gets the $10M. Which isn't any better since most guys don't care about September golf.
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Aug 28, 2010 21:03:15 GMT -5
I was so confused when I read that Martin Laird would move up from 95th to FIRST in the Fed Ex Cup standings if he were to win the Barclays. But then I read that all the tournaments from this point on are worth 927204724024 times more in the standings than the tournaments which qualified people for these tournaments.
Soooooooooo...who devised this, Etienne de Villiers?
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Aug 28, 2010 21:03:40 GMT -5
Also, I was so confused when I realized there was a golfer called Martin Laird.  |
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Aug 28, 2010 21:54:06 GMT -5
I was so confused when I read that Martin Laird would move up from 95th to FIRST in the Fed Ex Cup standings if he were to win the Barclays. But then I read that all the tournaments from this point on are worth 927204724024 times more in the standings than the tournaments which qualified people for these tournaments. Soooooooooo...who devised this, Etienne de Villiers? It's actually genius marketing. 1) It gives a reason for people to care about golf after the PGA. 2) It adds fake importance to the scrub events during the year that Tiger doesn't play, by telling us about FEDEX CUP POINTS constantly as if it means something. |
|
|
|
Post by janie on Aug 29, 2010 14:19:14 GMT -5
I don't know if people do care, though. We're not the ones getting the 10 million, so why should we care if preppy golfer X or preppy golfer Y gets it.
And yeah, who's Martin Laird? Is that a real golfer name?
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Aug 29, 2010 14:20:35 GMT -5
It's actually the winner of the FedEx Cup "Playoffs" that gets the $10M. Which isn't any better since most guys don't care about September golf. Oh, okay, thanks for the correction. I hope Elin got her share of that 10M. |
|
|
|
Post by janie on Aug 29, 2010 14:35:52 GMT -5
Laird update: he's a Glaswegian, born 1982, went to Colorado State U., and is currently in the lead in the tournament that wraps up today.
|
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Aug 29, 2010 14:59:36 GMT -5
Most people knowledgeable about golf know these playoffs are bullshit and who gives a damn about some multi-millionaire making another $10M, but this is America, land of the stupid and brainwashed. Remember that Tiger's fans are the equivalent of Williams' fans, and there's a lot more of them. RAYCIST~, I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Sept 13, 2010 5:57:24 GMT -5
So now Tiger has no Slams in TWO years, AND has failed to qualify for the year-end championships. But amazingly, he's still number one.  Yet I don't see all the condemnation of the PGA ranking system that happens around WTA #1s with no Slams, all of whom qualified for the YECs in their day: www.officialworldgolfranking.com/rankings/default.spsI would like to think the lack of attention to this is because NOC, but that's not true; golf is still a disproportionately big deal in sports media. I think it would definitely be garnering criticism if it was Joe Shmoe in this position, but because it's Tiger, I think it still seems sane to people for him to be #1, even with his 90 meager points on the year and everything. |
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Oct 27, 2010 22:22:58 GMT -5
Tiger's reign will end soon. It's an example to shorten the ranking system from 2 years, but Tiger was the Lord of the sport before Elin cheated on him.
Kaymer will probably get there early next year. And 1% of America will have any idea who he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Nov 3, 2010 7:10:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jan 11, 2011 16:37:23 GMT -5
Janie, I've never liked the three year golf rankings. I think tennis has it right with the 52 week system. Tiger has been the Slamless #1 before, too.
It's points average, not total points, I think. Oh, did they switch it from three to two years? Better if they did, but still not that good.
Anyway, there's another factor here, I think, which is that the PGA really de-emphasizes the world rankings. They prefer to talk about the money list and who is winning the majors or whatever. Tennis regards the rankings as far more important than golf appears to.
Going back to the 90s, wasn't Norman #1 constantly without really ever winning majors?
I know I don't really follow the sport, but I think most people just care about the majors. I'm not watching the Milwaukee Budlight Open or whatever, but I will watch the Masters. I think most people are that way. So I think NOC about the rankings, yes, and they make it that way as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jan 11, 2011 18:06:59 GMT -5
It was changed to two years a while ago, although I can't profess to understanding the system. It's very complicated.
The PGA does de-emphasize the rankings because most Euros end up wanting to play in the US for more money. Thus, it's the best tour, and how can other tour players be ranked so high?
There's also that people remember majors and winners. We don't care if you consistently finish in the Top 10, Adam Scott.
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jan 11, 2011 19:42:35 GMT -5
Correct. In fact, I think professional tennis is the only non-collegiate sport that cares even a whit about rankings.
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jan 11, 2011 21:26:56 GMT -5
Well the other big sports are all team sports, and they do care about standings, which is the same thing as a ranking in an individual sport. Although standings are more of a means to an end, to get into the playoffs, etc.
Anyway the sports media does harp on about golf's #1, even if the players themselves don't care all that much. But I think they only rave on about it when it's Tiger who's there. And of course they'll make a big deal of it if Michelle Wie ever reaches that height in golf, or maybe any USian, at least if she's "pretty".
|
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jan 11, 2011 23:07:19 GMT -5
#1 has always been made a big deal. But, it's only been Tiger, Norman (w/ the US slam choking), and Faldo (likable lad). We'll see what happens if Westwood holds on to it for a while since most of the tour doesn't really care for him. Although, he's been quite the choker in slams himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jan 13, 2011 16:58:17 GMT -5
One other factor may be the occasional anonymity of golf's Slam winners. Sometimes anonymous khaki-clad golfer may win the Masters but not really be in anyone's mind better than the computer #1. But in tennis usually the Slam winners have pretty good claim to be the best because they have to beat the best to win one. Usually.
Also, golf isn't really head-to-head so ... an average over a long period makes a lot of sense for determining the #1. Although I do think one year is long enough. Tennis is head-to-head, though, and it's generally accepted that if there's a few players you just can't beat, especially in big matches, you probably shouldn't be #1.
But regardless of any of this, everything wrong in women's tennis rankings is the fault of Kim, Justine, Serena and Venus. If they would quit retiring all the time or playing part-time we would never have had all these #1 controversies.
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Feb 6, 2011 13:06:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Feb 6, 2011 17:57:45 GMT -5
"2011 Waste Management Phoenix Open"  |
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Feb 6, 2011 19:05:55 GMT -5
Amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Feb 6, 2011 19:32:47 GMT -5
I know. It's like having a Kotex Minipads Tournament -- doesn't exactly psych you up to attend.
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Feb 27, 2011 16:08:54 GMT -5
Finally -- we have a #1 holding a Slam!!! It's been a while!
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Mar 27, 2011 12:18:16 GMT -5
As for Tigre, right now he is like one of the old players, say 45+ : they can have a great round, they can even have 2 or, rarely, 3 great rounds. But they can never do 4. I hope Tigre will stay like this until he actually IS old, and that he'll go downhill from there.  |
|
|
|
Post by janie on Mar 4, 2012 17:15:35 GMT -5
Ewww, Tigre had a horrible "charge from the back" today, like old times: he hit a 62!  How I have enjoyed these couple years of Choking Tiger Outed Asshole! If Rory doesn't let him win today, the damage can still be somewhat contained, but I'm afraid my very special months of Tiger-free golf championships has come to its end. Oh, well, it was a fine treat that I never expected to have in the first place, and I'm glad I made sure to enjoy it to the hilt while it lasted. |
|
|
|
Post by janie on Mar 4, 2012 17:54:42 GMT -5
Rory doesn't flinch. Wins and becomes #1 without an asterisk!  |
|
But I don't get the system at all. Total number of points is clearly not what determines who's on top. 
