Win a Major or be world Number 1?

by Adam D Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:25 pm

Following on from the best player to never win a major tournament thread, I though I would throw open a question for you all to think about and discuss.

Lets imagine you are a retiring pro golfer - what would mean more to you:

Having one a major but not been world number 1
Not having won a major but you had been the worlds number 1 ranked golfer

So which would you go for? Consistency or 15 minutes? Lee Westwood or Paul Laurie?

Lets hear your thoughts.

by JDandfries Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:27 pm

I challenge anyone who votes for world number one and no major, and say they are lieing!!

by Thomond Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:28 pm

Major. Also it's "having won a major" not "one" Wink

Think,that winning a major shows that you can mix with the elite and have the ability to win when it matters.

by Davie Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:29 pm

To be honest JD I'm torn on it. To be THE BEST IN THE WORLD at anything has got to be a pretty special feeling as opposed to being the best of ~150 people over 4 particular days

by JDandfries Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:32 pm

Even if you are only the 'best in the world' for a week?

I think it is different in golf though, unfortunately the best in the world (like tennis) is not as revered and will not be remembered as much as winning a major

by Diggers Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:32 pm

How long do you get to be number one for ? And can you choose your major ?

by kwinigolfer Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:36 pm

I'll choose the PGA Champo and still rather have that on my CV than Number One.

Just call me Rich Beem.

by sharrison01 Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:38 pm

The consideration to this question is that the world rankings will always be subject to differing opinions because of the time that it is calculated over. Past form, like Tiger's a year or so ago, can keep a player at the top for longer than is maybe deserving. However, to win a major puts you in the history books amongst the greatest players without any question whatsoever.

Rightly or wrongly, players like Donald and Westwood at the top of the rankings will always have their rankings questioned whilst they have not won a major. Nobody can question a major winner's achievement.

The major's also predated the rankings, I believe, so if you are a major winner then your name will go alongside some of the truly great players whereas players like Palmer, Jack, Watson etc measure their success by majors due to the lack of rankings.

by Diggers Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:39 pm

It would be a major for me any day of the week. Always thougtht the ideal scenario as either a tennis player or golfer would be to hover around the 30-40 mark in the rankings and just come good occasionally for a few big career wins.
You could retire happy feeling like you'd overachieved and with plenty of cash and hopefully not have a humongous amount of press attention all the time.

by Adam D Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:45 pm

Going back to my OP - if they both retired now, who do you think feels more proud of their career?

Lee Westwood or Paul Lawrie?

by oldparwin Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:51 pm

For me it would be a major trophy on my mantelpiece would give me the most pleasure, and not caring which one it was

by sharrison01 Thu 07 Jul 2011, 3:57 pm

Hobo wrote:Going back to my OP - if they both retired now, who do you think feels more proud of their career?

Lee Westwood or Paul Lawrie?

The difference is that Westwood divides opinion as to his worthiness as world number 1, as seen on the countless debates on here. Nobody can question Lawrie as a major winner, despite it being the highlight in a relatively modest career.

A very good question and one that even Mr Westwood himself might struggle to answer honestly...

by Eyetoldyouso Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:03 pm

sharrison01 wrote: However, to win a major puts you in the history books amongst the greatest players without any question whatsoever.

Sorry can't agree with this statement.
In a list of the 200 greatest golfers of all time you won't find Todd Hamilton or Shaun Micheel. The only history book you will find them in is a list of major winners.

by Diggers Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:08 pm

But do people ever look back on a particular year and know who was number one, especially if there were a few. Most people know who won the majors.
If I got to be world number one and didnt win a major Id feel like Id let myself down. If I was world number 50 most of my career and bagged a biggie Id retire chuffed to bits.

by JDandfries Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:10 pm

Eyetoldyouso wrote:
sharrison01 wrote: However, to win a major puts you in the history books amongst the greatest players without any question whatsoever.

Sorry can't agree with this statement.
In a list of the 200 greatest golfers of all time you won't find Todd Hamilton or Shaun Micheel. The only history book you will find them in is a list of major winners.

i doubt you will find Lee Westwood or Luke Donald either, but one thing will split them, and that is their major wins

by sodhat Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:14 pm

I still went for major winner over world number one. I think to have that tangible elation of winning one of the biggest tournaments in the world, and to be able to lift the trophy or put on that green jacket is more elating than being number one on a list. Not that it isn't a huge achievement.

I've always thought that the Masters is the one I'd like to win. I would want me one of those jackets!

by Davie Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:15 pm

JD - are you suggesting that Westy doesn't (yet) qualify as one of the top 200 all time best?

by Adam D Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:16 pm

sodhat wrote:

I've always thought that the Masters is the one I'd like to win. I would want me one of those jackets!

If you had the cash that being Number 1 brings, you could most probably buy Sandy Lyle's off him.

by JDandfries Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:17 pm

Davie wrote:JD - are you suggesting that Westy doesn't (yet) qualify as one of the top 200 all time best?

that is exactly what I am saying

by SmithersJones Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:17 pm

This loaded question is of course meant as a veiled dig at Lee and Luke, but in all honesty, I'd say the very fact that there are major winners who've never won anything else, but no World No.1s who've then quickly disappeared from the top 10 (while still fit and playing) speaks volumes.

Or to put it in cliched terms for the simpler minded; form is temporary, class is permanent.

by Davie Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:21 pm

JDandfries wrote:
Davie wrote:JD - are you suggesting that Westy doesn't (yet) qualify as one of the top 200 all time best?

that is exactly what I am saying

Fair enough - I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. I'll have to disagree though

by Adam D Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:21 pm

SmithersJones wrote:This loaded question is of course meant as a veiled dig at Lee and Luke, but in all honesty, I'd say the very fact that there are major winners who've never won anything else, but no World No.1s who've then quickly disappeared from the top 10 (while still fit and playing) speaks volumes.

Or to put it in cliched terms for the simpler minded; form is temporary, class is permanent.

I assure you its not a loaded question! I hope that one of the two you mentioned wins this month. I just thought it was an interesting question.

by JDandfries Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:23 pm

I really can't believe that this is an even vote!!

What is going on!!

by Eyetoldyouso Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:39 pm

The fact that they haven't won a major only rankles with players who have multiple other wins. So we debate endlessly about whether Lee Westwood or Monty or Sergio or some other multiple winner would rather have a major.
100% of professional golfers have the dream of winning a major knowing full well that they will never be Numero Uno. Winning a major is a lot easier than being the worlds best golfer.

by JDandfries Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:41 pm

Maybe that is not the case......

So far this year there have been 3 world number ones, but only two major winners!!

by sodhat Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:48 pm

JDandfries wrote:Maybe that is not the case......

So far this year there have been 3 world number ones, but only two major winners!!

I think the fact that being number one relies on consistency does make it the bigger ask, and harder to achieve. Despite there being 3 this year, I'd say it shows the relative strength of the game -- or at least the lack of a dominant force like Woods.

Winners can come from left field in majors, and it takes four great rounds to win one, whereas you need a consitently high standard of performance to reach the top of the rankings.

In the end though it's still more career defining to have majors on the CV...

by JDandfries Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:50 pm

If it is easier to achieve a major, why have neither of the current top 2 won one??

by sodhat Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:53 pm

Didn't say easier per se, just it requires less consistency than it does to reach the upper echelons of the rankings.

Don't get me wrong, it is hard to win any major. Donald and Westwood will have to keep plugging away. There are only four per year and there can only be one winner...it all has to come together for those rounds.

by JDandfries Thu 07 Jul 2011, 4:56 pm

It require a more concentrated consistancy, and while a lot of major winner come from left field they play the BEST for one week and while that is not two years like world number 1, the greats win majors (some none greats do too) but no greats ever failed to win at least 3 IMO

by Diggers Thu 07 Jul 2011, 5:00 pm

Eyetoldyouso wrote:The fact that they haven't won a major only rankles with players who have multiple other wins. So we debate endlessly about whether Lee Westwood or Monty or Sergio or some other multiple winner would rather have a major.
100% of professional golfers have the dream of winning a major knowing full well that they will never be Numero Uno. Winning a major is a lot easier than being the worlds best golfer.

Im not sure I agree totally with the last part of what you are saying. They can all dream of being number one, I dont think 5 years ago at the age of 33/34 too many people would have bet their house on Westy being the number one ranked golfer. And Even a year ago Donald looked like a guy who might flatter to decieve rather than one who would put in an incredibly consistent run of finishes.
Id say its realistic to think that anyone in the worlds top 50 could dream of being number one, its a very even playing field. And by and large most of the people who win majors will come from the top 50 players in the world.
But thats just the scenario now, certainly not always the case as in the past we have had more dominant players at the top of the rankings who are clearly the stand out guys.

by NedB-H Thu 07 Jul 2011, 7:15 pm

SmithersJones wrote:This loaded question is of course meant as a veiled dig at Lee and Luke, but in all honesty, I'd say the very fact that there are major winners who've never won anything else, but no World No.1s who've then quickly disappeared from the top 10 (while still fit and playing) speaks volumes.

David Duval?

Point still taken, but I'm still voting for the major winners. The rankings have been around for what, 25 years, and been for the most part fairly ignored for most of those. The majors have far more history behind them, and I'd want to be a part of that history.

by sharrison01 Thu 07 Jul 2011, 7:42 pm

Ned, I completely agree and am amazed that the voting is so close.

Jack, Palmer, Watson, Hagen, Player, Jones, Hogan, Snead, Locke etc were all not world number 1's. They did, however, win a lot of majors between them and I'd rather have my name alongside them than on some website that is updated every Monday.

by Davie Thu 07 Jul 2011, 8:12 pm

sharrison01 wrote:Jack, Palmer, Watson, Hagen, Player, Jones, Hogan, Snead, Locke etc were all not world number 1's.

They were all World number ones - just no one had invented the system yet.

by NedB-H Thu 07 Jul 2011, 9:14 pm

Davie wrote:
sharrison01 wrote:Jack, Palmer, Watson, Hagen, Player, Jones, Hogan, Snead, Locke etc were all not world number 1's.

They were all World number ones - just no one had invented the system yet.

Exactly my point!

by McLaren Thu 07 Jul 2011, 9:46 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:I'll choose the PGA Champo and still rather have that on my CV than Number One.

Just call me Rich Beem.

+1

I would even take the Kraft Nabisco.

by Noshankingtonite Thu 07 Jul 2011, 10:03 pm

JDandfries wrote:If it is easier to achieve a major, why have neither of the current top 2 won one??

Over the past 20 years there have been less No 1s than major winners. Would you rather have the career of Big John Daly or Lee Westwood? Answer you need the major wins AND the other successes as well. That's what gives you a balanced career imho.

by drive4show Thu 07 Jul 2011, 10:34 pm

JDandfries wrote:I challenge anyone who votes for world number one and no major, and say they are lieing!!

JD, you have to say I'm lying then raspberry

Winning a major is top drawer but there have been much fewer #1's than major winners, even in the same time span as the OWGR have been around.

As Davie stated, to win a major you only have to play the best out of 150 guys for 4 days. To be #1 you have to play consistently well over a long period of time.

There have also been quite a few 'freak' major winners but no freak #1's.

by Diggers Thu 07 Jul 2011, 10:38 pm

So are you a freak number one if you don't win a major , 2011 may tell us the answer.

by baboo800 Thu 07 Jul 2011, 10:41 pm

I'd rather win a major

by baboo800 Thu 07 Jul 2011, 10:42 pm

drive4show wrote:
JDandfries wrote:I challenge anyone who votes for world number one and no major, and say they are lieing!!

JD, you have to say I'm lying then

Winning a major is top drawer but there have been much fewer #1's than major winners, even in the same time span as the OWGR have been around.

As Davie stated, to win a major you only have to play the best out of 150 guys for 4 days. To be #1 you have to play consistently well over a long period of time.

There have also been quite a few 'freak' major winners but no freak #1's.

Luke Donald is a bit of a freak #1

by drive4show Thu 07 Jul 2011, 10:52 pm

Diggers wrote:So are you a freak number one if you don't win a major , 2011 may tell us the answer.

Certainly not! You are the most consistent player in the world over the past two years.

I could name quite a few unlikely major winners but no unlikely #1's. They have all got there through being the best at that particular time.

Rich Beem, Jeff Sluman, Larry Mize, Chip Beck, Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton, Wayne Grady etc etc the list goes on. Hardly giants of the game. But there have only been 15 world number 1's since the system was introduced in April 1986.

by kwinigolfer Fri 08 Jul 2011, 2:37 am

Strange thing about that list is that most of them won their Major fair and square, except Ben Curtis who lucked into his. And Chip Beck who's still waiting.

Others such as Cink and Ogilvy certainly were fortunate winners, but still a Major is what I'd prefer, Number One can wait!

by drive4show Fri 08 Jul 2011, 8:11 am

Sorry, thought Bob Tway but typed Chip Beck.

Put it down as a senior moment.

I'd still take #1 though Wink

by Noshankingtonite Fri 08 Jul 2011, 8:22 am

Definitely No 1 for me too, as long as it is achieved with a consistent string of victories over a two year period thumbsup

by Adam D Fri 08 Jul 2011, 9:13 am

Whilst surfing the superhighway, I found this article which might throw some more details on number 1 in the world and this topic in general:

Lee Westwood has regained the number one spot in the world rankings within the space of a few months following his victory at the Indonesian Masters. This has caused a flurry of debate in golfing circles as to whether or not he really deserves the honour.

It all stems from the fact that Westwood has never won a major title in his career, leading some to question the world rankings system as a whole.

It is the Americans in particular who are unhappy with him taking the top spot, with the general consensus being that he did it by "defeating a bunch of nobodies".

This is perhaps a harsh way to put it but they do have a point. Second place at the Indonesian Masters was taken by Thailand's Thongchai Jaidee who is placed 75th in the world rankings. Many others playing at the event wouldn't even factor in the top 300.

It has been suggested that the generous appearance fee he received was his main reason for playing in the tournament.

Westwood's case would not have been a one off either. It was between him and Luke Donald, and, if Donald's play-off with Brandt Snedeker at The Heritage had gone in his favour, it would be him defending his top spot despite having never won a major.

Some contend that if Donald had taken the number one title, at least he would have done so after beating a better field of players.

With it having been between Westwood and Donald, some have concluded that the system must be flawed. This was certainly the view of Garry Smits of the Florida Times-Union who suggested that "there's something wrong with the system".

While the Charlotte Observer didn't mince its words: "What's interesting is how the number one spot is now getting traded like bad stock but don't ask me to explain how the rankings work other than to say they're based on a rolling two-year period."

It's not just the Americans however who take issue with the ranking system. Even fellow Englishman Nick Faldo (six-time major winner and himself a former world number one) is critical. As Donald played his final round at The Heritage, Faldo couldn't help tweeting his feelings on the matter.

"Nothing against Luke Donald and Lee Westwood as No.1 - that's the system - but I think system should give extra points for a major win."

Leaving the mathematical complexities of the official world golf rankings aside, it should be said that winning a major does actually award 20 more points than other tournaments. However this, according to Westwood, is missing the point: "The world rankings and majors are separate things."

Is it possible that Westwood's critics merely long for the days when Tiger Woods dominated the rankings? Westwood's first ascent to the top of the rankings in November last year ended Woods' record 281-week lead and since Woods' fall from grace, the opportunity for any other professional golfer to grab the top spot has been blown wide open.

Perhaps the on going supremacy of Woods has skewed people's perception of what makes a golfer great. With 34 professional wins under his belt, Westwood's accomplishments are not to be sniffed at, yet many in America have questioned his decision not to become a member of the PGA tour.

Westwood sited family commitments as the reason, though others are sceptical.

The current official world golf ranking system has been in place since 1986 and whether you approve of it or not, for the foreseeable future it is here to stay. No one really believes that every tour holds equal standing and, despite the reservations of some, the points system does actually reflect this.

Westwood has had to defend his ranking in recent days but in his view it is a player's overall performance that should ultimately count.

"I've had a lot of chances to win majors recently and it just hasn't happened. The world rankings are about consistency and playing well week-in, week-out, which I tend to do," he said.

The criticisms heaped on Westwood are unfair. Whatever you think of his ranking as world number one, he is undoubtedly a very talented player and chances are he will at some point claim that major title that has so far eluded him

.

It was written by Jenny Longmuir and can be found here - http://www.leaderboardgolf.co.uk/golf-news/feature-world-golf-rankings-debate.html

by MustPuttBetter Fri 08 Jul 2011, 9:14 am

This is tricky, and a good question

If you offered me one of the Masters, the Open or the US Open i'd be tempted to take that over number one. I think if you offered me the PGA i'd rather be world number one in all honesty.
On balance i think i'd rather be number one than be a Major winner.

I can definitely see the logic beghind those who would rather be number one. I think it's along the same lines as improving your handicap. Would you rather be a 28 handicap and win a few medals a year when you shoot 20, or would you rather be as good as you can be, get a low handicap but know you're hardly ever going to win a medal. I know which one i'd take

I think if you're one of those that say high handicappers should practise more, having a low handicap is better than winning medals etc, it's difficult to sustain the argument that you'd take a Major over number one, as essentially that's surely the same thing on a more elite scale

by Diggers Fri 08 Jul 2011, 9:18 am

It also depends whether being " the best" is important to you or whether specific moments in your life, like say Harrington and his lad and the Claret Jug episode , would mean more. It would be the moments for me.

by MustPuttBetter Fri 08 Jul 2011, 9:25 am

Agreed Diggers
People are different that's for sure. I'd take being the best over the special moments. A highlight career rather than a career of highlights

by Diggers Fri 08 Jul 2011, 10:45 am

Fair do's MPB, there is no right or wrong answer to this question, is purely about personal preference.
The obvious thing for most people I'd guess would be to have both, and thats what Id like for Westwood and Donald, but its not what I would want for myself if I was a pro golfer. Im actually almost laughing hysterically even typing the words "if I was a pro golfer" after the shocking debacle of my last round. Some lessons needed for Diggers methinks.

by JPX Fri 08 Jul 2011, 11:40 am

If I could have an Open, Masters or US Open, it would have to be a major for me.

To hole a winning putt when the whole world is watching (i'd want it to be a shortish say 10 footer, winning putt, to prove I have the balls to finish off the tournament) knowing that you have beaten the best in the world over 4 days, that beats a run as number 1 for me.

by Sponsored content

Which would you rather have done?