LPGA World Rankings....officially a joke....

[Rockford35]

Top 10 just announced:

Annika Sorenstam, SWE 18.47
Paula Creamer, USA 9.65
Michelle Wie, USA 9.24
Yuri Fudoh, JPN 7.37
Cristie Kerr, USA 6.94
Ai Miyazato, JPN 6.58
Lorena Ochoa, MEX 6.10
Jeong Jang, KOR 4.91
Hee-Won Han, KOR 4.49
Juli Inkster, USA 4.11


I can't believe that Wie is ranked #3. That's absolutely ridiculous. I thought rankings were earned, not estimated based on "potential".

I'm officially throwing any world rankings out the door. Sure, Annika is #1 and Tiger is #1, but after that, it's all bullshit.

R35

[Chas]

The LPGA is great. I think The Golf Channel has done alot to help the popularity and visability of the LPGA. In any event, the playing ability of LPGA players is more human-like than the near perfect PGA men's play. Hence, I can relate to the LPGA ability a tad better; my wife enjoys the LPGA as well, natch. As far as Top Ten lists, they can be amusing. I think for 2005, the PGA list had Arnold Palmer as seventh on the list with $25 million... Although he only earned $7,000 on the course!

[VtDivot]

You still pissed that you didn't make the top 30?

[Scotty01292]

I'm amazed that I can't see Laura Davies anywhere on that list and that Wie is 3rd!

[Rockford35]

My post had no bearing on my feelings about the LPGA whatsover. So I don't really know where you're going with that, Chas. If there's anyone here that has stuck up for the LPGA as a Tour, it's been me. Check through the old posts, you'll see me blathering on about how the LPGA gets shafted with the sponsors and how they should be sponsored better.

I agree that the Golf Channel has done a good job lobbying for the LPGA.

But that has no bearing at all on why Michelle Wie, who's played in what, 5 tournaments, is in front of 100 others that have been playing alot longer than she has.

I thought these rankings were based on performance, but I guess their based on TV appearances.

Weak.

I still love the LPGA, just not the crappy ranking system.

I was 31st, VT.

R35

[token_hottie]

I could have told you that list was crap as soon as I didn't see my name on it.

Wait, I just looked at it again and apparently it's the top 10 best players.... that explains a few things.

[Butcho22]

I agree this is absolutely terrible. Michelle Wie hasn't done anything that should place her anywere near the top 25.

In any event, the playing ability of LPGA players is more human-like than the near perfect PGA men's play. Hence, I can relate to the LPGA ability a tad better

This makes almost zero sense to any golfer who has a good amount of skill. Most players on the LPGA tour, are automatic off the tee. The don't produce as much clubhead speed as the men, hence straight shots more consistently. I agree that the overall talent doesn't match that of the PGA tour, but unless you played highly competitive college golf or something along those lines..you are no closer in relation to the women as the men.

[Augster]

You guys need to take a reality check. Wie is the 3rd best Woman in the world because she flat out BRINGS IT against the TOUGHEST competition.

The LPGA World Rankings are based about the same as the men. It is based on your performance, against strength of field, over the last TWO YEARS. Michelle has 15 events. I could only find her last 12.

For those that DON'T know, the LPGA also has 4 majors. The Kraft/Nabisco, The LPGA Championship, The US Women's Open, and the Women's British Open.

The Evian Masters is pretty big also from what I've gathered, and usually has a pretty deep field.

This is important, because USUALLY, these have the TOUGHEST FIELDS. Much like the men's tour.

2005, Women's British, Wie T-3. 3RD!

2005, Evian Masters, Wie T-2. 2ND!

2005, US Women's Open, Wie T-23 (in final group and threw up on herself)

2005, LPGA Championship, Wie 2nd 2ND!

2005, Kraft/Nabisco, Wie T-14th

2005, Safeway, Wie T-12

2005, SBS in Hawaii, Wie T-2 2ND!

2004, Samsung, Wie T-13

2004, Wendy's, Wie T-6th

2004, Evian Masters, Wie T-33

2004, US Women's Open, Wie T-13

2004, Michelob, Wie T-12

As you can plainly see, she's getting better. Where are all the MISSED CUTS? Where are all the T-50's??? Simply, they aren't F'n there.

All of her missed cuts and "terrible play" have happened in MENS EVENTS on 7200+ yard courses with Men's setups.

Against the Women, she is EASILY 3rd in the world. It really doesn't matter that she hasn't "won anything". If she did turn the T-2's and 3's, and the unfortunate 82 on Sunday at the US Open, into W's (which she eventually will) she'd be at least #2. She does have to win. Everyone under Wie are also-rans.

How many top 20's, top 10's and top 5's does she have to put up to get the respect she deserves.

In the 4 majors last year she T-14, 2nd, T-23, and T-3. If that isn't getting it done, I don't know what is.

Comparably, Singh (#2) went T-5, T-6, T-5, and T-10

Goosen (#3) went T-3, T-11, T-5, T-6.

Nobody is disputing these guys are the best in the world.

Mickelson had a win and went, 10th, T-33, T-60, and 1st.

Until his win, he really wasn't in contention. There are NO T-60's on Michelle's CAREER Record.

You haters should all have to email Michelle and apologize.

[VtDivot]

Originally Posted by Augster

Mickelson had a win and went, 10th, T-33, T-60, and 1st.

You haters should all have to email Michelle and apologize.

Yes, but Mickelson has a nicer rack.

[Kilted Arab]

I may be wrong on this, but I believe the LPGA decreed that the minimum number events required to qualify for world rankings is 15 over two years. Just happens to be the number Wie has played in. Could be coincidence, but seem the criteria are fitted around her a little bit. Then again, that's understandable given the publicity and interest she generates.

Good post from Augster, though. Food for thought in there.

[Augster]

I sat down for an hour or so to cool off, couldn't get myself off tilt, and decided to run a comparison between Wie and the other top LPGA gals.

Let's have my gal Wie go first, then the others can be presented:

Running from left to right, 2005 Kraft, 2005 LPGA, 2005 US Open, 2005 British, 2005 Evian, 2004 Evian, 2004 Women's Open. Wie didn't get to play the Nabisco, LPGA and the British in 2004.

Wie: T14, 2nd, T23, T3, T2, T33, T13.

Sorenstam: 1st, 1st, T23, T5, 12th, 2nd, 2nd.

Creamer: T19, T3, T19, T15, 1st, No Evian, T13 Amateur 2004 US OPEN

Kerr: T3, T33, T10, T5, T44, T21, T27

Ochoa: T35, T5, T6, CUT, T2, 3rd, 4th

Ochoa was up there, but being cut in the 2005 British can't help her.

Creamer beat Wie(T2) in the Evian Masters in 2005, and snuck ahead of her in the US Open on account of Wie throwing up on herself and shooting an 82 on Sunday. Without Creamer's win, Wie would be 2nd in the world.

Fudoh and Miyazato who are on the list, God knows who they were playing against overseas in order to rack up points. The only thing I could find on them is they both played the 2005 British Open and one T11 the other T15. If you'll notice, that's worse than Wie's T3.

In order to be the best, you have to beat the best. Can you put Creamer ahead of Wie? I guess, only because she won the LPGA's "5th" major. She didn't beat Wie by much, and the rest of her results are POOR compared to Wie.

WHO ELSE WOULD/COULD you POSSIBLY PUT in that 3rd spot???

Wie plays big in the big tourneys. She's 16 years old and loathes playing against the women. Frankly, for her, I'm sure it's boring. She KNOWS there is better competition out there, namely men. She consistently gets her ass kicked by the men and misses cuts. Then she plays against the ladies and a top 10 is almost guaranteed. If she can keep from falling asleep playing 6400 yard tracks.

Driver, SW, Driver, SW gets kind of boring wouldn't you say? Then you don't concentrate enough, and start getting a bit loose with your SW, and pretty soon she's, GASP, tied for 5th! LMAO!

Nike and Sony gave her enough money to let her chase her dreams without financially killing her parents. When she gets sick of chasing down $3000 paydays on the Nationwide tour, and decides to start taking home $200,000 checks each week on the LPGA, those checks will soon be worth double, or even triple that.

She is #3 in the world because she is damn good and proves it every time she plays against the women. It's not a poll or popularity contest. How a player plays in the Majors ultimately define him or her. And the world rankings acknowledge that by weighting points based on strength of field.

And VT, you are right, once Wie gets tits like Phil, WOW is she going to be HOT!!

(they have Phil listed at 6'2", 190lbs on PGA.com. Must have been before he got pregnant.)

[Kilted Arab]

Wie tends to suffer from judgements based on opinion, not fact. I recall a thread last year about her sponsorship deals...may be worth dragging that up again for an airing...

[dave.]

Augster

Wei 'getting better' isn't the same as earning the right to be called world number 3.That list is rubbish and is simply a reflection on the need to attract sponsors,advertisers and any other such revenue.

[Kilted Arab]

Originally Posted by dave.

Augster

Wei 'getting better' isn't the same as earning the right to be called world number 3.That list is rubbish and is simply a reflection on the need to attract sponsors,advertisers and any other such revenue.

Augster has taken the time and effort to look into the facts. Dismissing it with a cry of "rubbish" is childish at best.

Who would you put above her, and why? Have you got facts and figures to back up your opposition?

[Rockford35]

But, Aug's "facts" are based on her as an amateur. She has almost ZERO staus as a professional, of which the standings SHOULD be based on.

I have ZERO problem with Wie. NONE. In fact, I hope she knocks Annika off the top of the list.

My feelings towards Wie have nothing to do with why I brought this up.

My efforts are based on the way things are created based on "potential" rather than "actual results as a pro".

Call me level headed I guess....

Wie will be 3rd soon enough, but when it happens it will be based on her performances as a pro, not as an amateur.

R35