FanDuel - WFBC

February 21, 2006

First Ever Womans Golf Rankings: Michelle wie was determined to be no. 3 in the world. Is fifteen tourneys enough to determine how good one really is? I smell a marketing scheme here to get Wie into the US Open without having to qualify, lol.

posted by panteeze to golf at 05:37 PM - 12 comments

Look at her finishes in majors. She has proven she can hang around par on any layout. When this kid learns to go low, watch out !

posted by mjkredliner at 06:00 PM on February 21

The PGA Tour uses 40 tournaments to decide their rankings. Michelle Wie played in 15 tournaments. The Women's Golf Rankings didn't just pick that number out of their hat. Wie may BE the 3rd best women's golfer, however this ranking is, IMO, cash driven. Michelle herself said she was "flabbergasted" by the rank. Nuff said.

posted by stockman at 06:22 PM on February 21

Imagine that, a professional sports entity making a decision that should affect their bottom line positively. Unheard of!

posted by mjkredliner at 07:46 PM on February 21

wow, i guess you don't have to win anything to be "one of the best women golfers". I am going to have my grandma start playin golf, she might be ranked in the top 10.

posted by chuy at 08:07 PM on February 21

The 15 is pretty fishy, but I think whether it is money driven or not, It actually is fair to give Wie, even at this early stage of her career, her due. She has been Phenomenal in a good deal of her pro events, and the numbers that put her at three are objective (except for the 15 tourney limit of course). What will be interesting to see is whether she maintains that place, or if she gives Sorenstam a little bit of competition in the next few years. Women's golf is starting to look like it may be becoming the most commercially viable women's sport in the US. Only time will tell of course.

posted by everett at 09:19 PM on February 21

Wie's tournaments were all done with her being an amateur. How can you give her a ranking of 3rd without being a professional? If she is that good, it wouldn't matter if she started last and worked her way up. I can guarantee they have really pissed off some other golfers by ranking her so high.

posted by dbt302 at 10:30 PM on February 21

I did a little research and found out Tiger started his pro career 509th. He finished the year at 33rd. Now explain to me why Wie is # 3?

posted by dbt302 at 10:01 AM on February 22

The old SONY Mens rankings needed a lot of tweaking before they got it right- and it appears the Rolex Womens does as well. Back then, Jumbo Ozaki gained points in weak fields when HE showed up, because his presence made the field more competitive. He would show up, beat a weak field, and gain in the ranks. Anomalies like that make it difficult to compare players that don't compete against each other. Currently, Morgan Pressel is unranked because she does not have enough appearances. How much is the US Amateur weighed in this scale. THAT will be interesting to see, when she comes eligible for ranking. Based on the Wie rank, Pressel should be a lock for #2 in the world.....or does Rolex want Wie higher? Sadly, the current US Open Champion, Birdie Kim, checks in at #51. I smell sex appeal, marketing and endorsement potential as ranking criteria.

posted by Leominster at 10:04 AM on February 22

They couldn't wait to get her on the list, plain and simple. But, who's to say she's not deserving of this spot? After Annika, it's all pretty much a crap-shoot anyways.

posted by dyams at 11:10 AM on February 22

I agree Dyams, who is to say? Its an objective points system. Now explain to me why Wie is # 3? Maybe DBT, Wie is more capable against her own field than Tiger was when he started. The issue is not where she'd start anyway, but how many tourneys she should have under her belt when she gets considered for ranking. Who's to say that if she had 25 more tourneys under her belt she wouldn't be ranked 2, or even first? Leominster: Funny shit!

posted by everett at 12:35 PM on February 22

Also this makes it a bit more clear.

posted by everett at 12:45 PM on February 22

Being capable isn't the issue either. She hasn't won anything. She can't even beat people her own age, much less anyone in the LPGA. If she had won a tournament or two, that would be different. As far as I'm concerned, being # 3 is way too high for her until she proves herself.

posted by dbt302 at 12:46 PM on February 22

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.