Luke Donald - Great article

Iain Carter from the BBC has written a great article on the World number one. What's everyones thoughts on what has been banded around the US press that he shouldn't be World number one because of his lack of strokeplay wins or a major win? Should it matter?

There are a number of players over the years who have picked up a major title, and done bugger all after the win.  Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton spring to mind, they have both won the Open but I  would not say they are better golfers then Lee Westwood or Luke Donald who have not won a major, The fact of the matter is that Lee Westwood and Luke Donald play excellent golf almost every time they tee up at a tournament, so for me their game is of a higher quality more often, making both player's worthy of the world number 1 spot. If it was an american in the number 1 spot this point probably would'nt have been raised.  Thats my opinion.

All you got to do is look at Luke's record this year, how many top 10 finishes???

Tennis player Caroline Wozniacki has the same thing levelled at her.  She is world number one but has never won a grand slam event and there are thse who are bitter about it - mainly her rivals.  Truth is the rankings are not based on 'most majors in last 3 years' or similar, they are based on points accumlated.  They reward consitency and that is the sign of a good player in any sport

Think about it.  Do you think you are playing better if you card 10 consecutive rounds within 2 shots of your handicap, or 1 round two shots below it and 9 six shots over it?

Have just been reading some of the comments on the blog and, to coin a phrase, 'the stupid, it hurts'. Basically a lot of halfwits people on there think that Donald can't possibly be the worlds No 1 because he hasn't won a major.  So, you just need to understand exactly what are the world ranking for - it's beloved by the Americans because it's basically a statistical exercise and heavily weighted towards US tournaments and they are just jealous because it's now being dominated by 'international' players.  All this does is highlight the paucity of talent in the US game at the moment.

And if Donald isn't the world No 1, exactly who is?

The thing is, World No.1 never got mentioned when Tiger was at his best because it never changed for years. Now it's a talking point because it does change. The Yanks now talk about the top 50 players ( top 50 qualify for tour card/ or exempt) and leave the world rankings well alone.

No doubt in my book, Luke is the best player in the world at the moment, and I don't see any better out there. 

Maybe I'm being a little cynical but maybe the Americans want to rejig the system on a yearly basis just so an American is always no.1??

If an assumtion is made that the current system is flawed, just what should it be changed to? At the end of the day the rankings are based on performance, and just who has been the most consistent in the last year or two? If the answer is to give a greater weighting to Major winners, which Major should carry the most weighting?

I agree that the current system is flawed but only from the perspective that the weighting given to US tournaments 'v' the tours from around the world is out of date. If the US tour was so good why haven't they been dominating the Ryder Cup in the last 20 years?

Best we have with or without a major go luuuuke!!!

Not that I'm geographically located bias but I do hope Westwood comes good this year with a Major!