Tiger Woods

Lee Westwood Takes World No.1 Rank From Tiger Woods

| by

Ah, the OWGR.

Much debate regarding the significance of an Official World Golf Ranking.

Does it earn you more money? Attract women? Come with a jacket you can wear during your reign? What does the moniker really mean? Depends who you ask. I'd say most reasonable folks agree that the two year window from which the ratings are calculated is much too long. How about a one week window? Then Ben Crane's #1. Or perhaps it's Graeme McDowell.

On the other end of absurd, what if the window was 50 years? Anyone doubt Jack being #1? A perfect example of the ratings meaning very little about nothing is that the most current rankings have Steve Stricker 5th and Graeme McDowell 10th. So, let me get this one straight. The reigning US Open champ is rated below a player who's riding the results of two years ago. Thought so.

Count Tiger Woods, who has held the #1 ranking since 2005, among the least surprised at Westwood's ascension. "As far as the world ranking is concerned, yes, I'm not ranked No. 1 in the world," Woods said Monday. "In order to do that you have to win and I didn't win this year." The aforementioned McDowell as well as Jim Furyk, Ernie Els and Martin Kaymer may also have reasonable arguments for the #1 spot. 

If ratings are your thing then pay close attention to the upcoming HSBC Champions event. Westwood, Woods, Kaymer, and Phil Mickelson all have a shot at being #1 at the end of that tournament.

So what does being #1 really mean? Not much in this average golfer's opinion. How about yours?