golfrewind.com

Interesting Rankings. Probably not what most people thought they would be, except for Annika. I thought Park, Jones and Gulbis would be higher.

Rank First Last Country Pts Avg Tot Pts Events
1 Annika Sorenstam SWE 18.47 757 41
2 Paula Creamer USA 9.65 338 35
3 Michelle Wie USA 9.24 139 15
4 Yuri Fudoh JPN 7.37 369 50
5 Cristie Kerr USA 6.94 333 48
6 Ai Miyazato JPN 6.58 362 55
7 Lorena Ochoa MEX 6.1 317 52
8 Jeong Jang KOR 4.91 290 59
9 Hee-Won Han KOR 4.49 256 57
10 Juli Inkster USA 4.11 173 42
11 Grace Park KOR 3.89 194 50
12 Karrie Webb AUS 3.69 185 50
13 Sakura Yokomine JPN 3.59 169 47
14 Shiho Ohyama JPN 3.46 211 61
15 Pat Hurst USA 3.44 165 48
16 Rosie Jones USA 3.4 136 40
17 Kasumi Fujii JPN 3.39 186 55
18 Natalie Gulbis USA 3.38 193 57
19 Catriona Matthew SCO 3.38 192 57
20 Soo-Yun Kang KOR 3.3 178 54

The new Women's Golf World Rankings were unveiled this morning, and to no one's surprise, Annika Sorenstam was #1. Paula Creamer came in at #2, but the interesting one was Michelle Wie at #3. Coincidentally, the minimum divisor for women's events is 15 (unlike the mens' 40) and it just so happened that Michelle has played 15 LPGA events in the past two years. The younger crowd is pretty well represented, with Creamer, Wie and Ai Miyazato in the top 6.

1. Annika Sorenstam, SWE 18.47
2. Paula Creamer, USA 9.65
3. Michelle Wie, USA 9.24
4. Yuri Fudoh, JPN 7.37
5. Cristie Kerr, USA 6.94
6. Ai Miyazato, JPN 6.58
7. Lorena Ochoa, MEX 6.10
8. Jeong Jang, KOR 4.91
9. Hee-Won Han, KOR 4.49
10. Juli Inkster, USA 4.11

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2337875

Just merging two threads on the same topic.

I have to say (I know, I know, here we go again ) that ranking a player - any player, not just limited to Michelle - who has never won a professional tournament over multiple winners and recent/past major champions is just plain silly. It just makes no sense.

"The 16-year-old from Hawaii, who turned pro in October, checked in at No. 3 and could move ahead of Creamer depending on what happens in the Fields Open in Hawaii this week on the LPGA Tour."



It is just plain silly. Little stupid too .

You know why she's ranked third? Because they didn't think they could get away with ranking her second!

Yeah, So they decided to slip her in range of 2nd within the week .

I mean, is it me, or is this a complete joke?

"The Rolex Rankings make nationality, tour membership and amateur or professional status virtually invisible, providing a definitive answer to the question, 'Who are the best women golfers in the world?"' LPGA Tour commissioner Carolyn Bivens said.

Professionals and amateurs can appear in the women's world ranking because anyone can earn points by competing in official events on the LPGA, European, Japan, Korean and Australian women's tours, along with the developmental Futures Tour in the United States.

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/new...v=ap&type=lgns

And if this is the case, how can someone with no wins be within striking distance of someone with 4 wins worldwide in the past year, which Creamer has?

I can't find any justification for ranking her in the top 20 at all, much less in the 3 spot.

They need to figure out a way to give a win more weight, other than that it looks about right and to all of Michelle's detractors.. get used to it.

Spot on comment. Agreed .

What's the difference between a "Michelle detractor" and someone who's realistic?

Take Christie Kerr, for example. 22 top-10 finishes and 5 wins in the last two years, and she's 5th to Wie's 3rd?

Or Grace Park. 4 top-10's in '05, 2 wins - including a Major - in '04, and she's 11th to Wie's 3rd?

Or Lorena Ochoa - 3 wins, 4 runner's up, 25 top-10's (including 2 top-10's in Majors in '05) in the past 2 years, and she's 7th to Wie's 3rd?

These are 3 examples of people who, with the standard of accomplishments judged over the past 2 years, are clearly ahead of Wie. The numbers speak quite clearly.

I'm not trying to be a "detractor," but it's really hard to justify her (or anyone else with her stats) being ahead of these 3.

Again, just examples, but I think they illustrate a legitimate point.

(and no attack on you, Waz, just happened to be your post that set up my rant )

Are they secretly using the same people to rank the lady golfers that they use to rank NCAA football??????

Well Gulbis is ranked 18th and has never won anything, nor had anywhere near the relative success of Michelle, yet you want to push Michelle below her and out of the top 20. That illustrates the difference between a Michelle detractor and someone who's being realistic. As I said, they should adjust the criteria to give more weight to tournament wins, but Michelle is worthy of being in the Top 10 based on her short yet impressive record, IMO. Do you really think there are 10 female golfers in the world better than Michelle ?

I'd be interested to read Bivens answer to your post. We all know that Wie will soon be highly ranked, but for her to be ranked this high based on what she's done (as compared to those you listed) sounds suspiciously like promotion and not reality. I know it's not Wie's fault she's ranked that high.....but who's fault is it?

I think you may have stumbled onto something! Instead of the BCS we have the WieCS!