Wie is No. 2, and a lot of players don't like it

[Scott]

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content ... fside.html

GOLF

LPGA rankings creating a stir
Wie is No. 2, and a lot of players don't like it
By Joe Logan

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER


Friday, March 10, 2006

Whoever thought they were doing Michelle Wie a favor by coming up with a world-rankings formula that put her at No. 3 thought wrong.

Since the new Rolex Women's World Golf Rankings were unveiled a week ago, the teen phenom has been on the defensive.

Why? Because despite having played in only 15 LPGA events, and despite not having actually won anything, Wie was leapfrogged over such established players as Cristie Kerr (fifth), Juli Inkster (10th), Grace Park (11th), Karrie Webb (13th) and Meg Mallon (44th).

In last week's ranking, by virtue of her third-place finish at the Fields Open, Wie passed Paula Creamer to become No. 2.

What the rankings have succeeded in doing is add to the resentment many of Wie's peers feel because of her fat, $10 million endorsement package — and put a big target on her back.

"The debating, the head-scratching and, for more than a few players, the fuming has just begun," Dottie Pepper, a 17-time LPGA winner turned Golf Channel analyst, wrote in her weekly column in Sports Illustrated, "The Pepper Mill."

Pepper makes the case — she is not alone — that rankings use a formula that is transparent, or at least suspicious, in its attempt to push the hot-ticket Wie to the top. To wit: Only 15 appearances in LPGA events, which is what Wie had, were needed for inclusion.

At the Field Open, when questioned about the reaction of some players over her ranking, the 16-year-old Wie was understandably on the defensive. "It's not like I put myself in the No. 3 position," she said. "All I did was play golf."

It was against that backdrop that the LPGA and McDonald's LPGA Championship issued a joint statement saying they had revised the criteria for exemptions into the upcoming major, set for June 8-11 at Bulle Rock Golf Club in Havre de Grace, Md.

Beginning this year, players finishing in the top 10 from the previous year's McDonald's are eligible.

Wie finished second.

There is no question who is No. 1 in the LPGA. And Annika Sorenstam encourages all parties to give the rankings a chance.

"It's a good starting point," Sorenstam said. "Will it have to be tweaked? Absolutely. They have to work out the kinks and hope it will be an accurate measurement of who is the best player in the world."

Sorenstam, who skipped the two LPGA events in Hawaii, makes her LPGA debut this week at the MasterCard Classic in Mexico, an event she won a year ago.

"Last year I played probably as good as I can," Sorenstam said. "I had a great off-season, got some rest and have had a lot of practice for the last two weeks. I'm ready to go."

[Scott]

[808]

Why? Because despite having played in only 15 LPGA events, and despite not having actually won anything, Wie was leapfrogged over such established players as Cristie Kerr (fifth), Juli Inkster (10th), Grace Park (11th), Karrie Webb (13th) and Meg Mallon (44th).

In last week's ranking, by virtue of her third-place finish at the Fields Open, Wie passed Paula Creamer to become No. 2.

What the rankings have succeeded in doing is add to the resentment many of Wie's peers feel because of her fat, $10 million endorsement package — and put a big target on her back.

"The debating, the head-scratching and, for more than a few players, the fuming has just begun," Dottie Pepper, a 17-time LPGA winner turned Golf Channel analyst, wrote in her weekly column in Sports Illustrated, "The Pepper Mill."

I'm not saying that Michelle's ranking is justified or not, but there's one sure way for those that don't like it to get it changed -- play better golf!! It's a joke for those players mentioned -- Cristie Kerr (fifth), Juli Inkster (10th), Grace Park (11th), Karrie Webb (13th) and Meg Mallon (44th) -- to be complaining about the rankings because they haven't done anything lately. They may have been on the tour longer and have won championships in the past, but as of today, I don't think they have any claim to being ranked any higher than they are. It's not a lifetime ranking; it's based on what you've done currently, i.e, the last 15 tournaments.

[Scott]

Linkmeister of Hawaiithreads.com replied to a similar thread that I posted on their site. Here is the ranking formula for the Rolex Rankings.

http://www.lpga.com/content_1.aspx?pid=5785&mid=4

Who is eligible for the Rolex Rankings?

Any professional or amateur woman golfer who has competed in at least 15 official events over a two-year rolling period is eligible to be ranked.

What events are counted?

Official events on the five major tours (LPGA, JLPGA, KLPGA, LET, ALPG) as well as the Duramed Futures Tour, the official developmental tour of the LPGA.

How are the rankings determined?

The Rolex Rankings will share the established men's world rankings philosophy of awarding points based on the field strength and evaluate a player's performance over a rolling two-year period weighted in favor of the current year with even more importance placed on the most recent 13 weeks. A divisor is used to take into account the number of tournaments played by each ranked player.

(snip)

How are points awarded?

Points are awarded according to the strength of the field with the exception of the four majors championships on the LPGA schedule and Futures Tour events, which will have a fixed-point distribution. The number of points distributed to each player is dependant upon her finish and the scale of points allocated on the basis of the number and rankings of players in the field.

The Rolex Rankings will award points to players based on an accumulated 104-week "rolling" period, with the points awarded in the most recent 13-week period carrying a stronger value.

A player is then ranked according to her average points per tournament, as determined by dividing her total number of points by the number of eligible tournaments played during the 104-week period.

(snip)

Is it possible for a player to play a minimum number of events that may include major championships and be higher ranked than a player who plays a full schedule and perhaps even wins an official event?

Yes. If a player plays 15 events over a two-year period AND if she plays well in majors and earns a lot of Rolex Rankings points by virtue of the high finishes, the combination of the high points and the limited number of events would result in a higher average. A player's rank is based on her average points and if she plays fewer events, but earns high points in those events, her average would be much higher than a player who plays a full schedule. The number of events played would shrink the overall average points.