It looks like that if Lee Westwood is able to limp his way around St. Andrews tomorrow to a top-ten finish, then hang his clubs up for the year, he'll claim the World Number One Golfer crown next week (because of the way the ranking system works), something that with him, Woods and Mickelson all then unlikely to play again until 2011, he'll keep until the year end.
He'd not be the least deserving world number one of all time, by any measure - indeed, by finishing second (twice) in majors this season, he'll have done more in the big championships than some previous world number ones have done in the years they finished on top (Greg Norman in 1995 and 1996, for example) and furthermore, at the end of the day, the world number one is exactly that - the player who has, consistently, finished higher than their peers in the most tournaments over a 2-year period.
But Westwood would be only the fourth player in history to become world number one before actually winning a Major - the other three, Woosnam, Couples and Duval, all won their first Majors in fairly short order straight after their annointment as world number one (Woosnam, indeed, the very next week). With Lee Westwood, there's a very real possibility that he will become number one next week, and still be number one in six months' time (depending on whether Tiger Woods can be bothered to pick up a club in the meantime) and not, actually, ever win a major. He'd be like some of the men and women who've held the top tennis ranking in similar circumstances over the years (hell, we've got one now, in Wozniacki).
I know I'm a bit of a puritan about this subject, but it does get to me. I like world number ones to be the players who are demonstrably the best players at that moment in time. Westwood isn't that. Not right now. When you come back to write the story of 2010 in golf, it will say that Mickelson won the Masters by outplaying Westwood head-to-head, then pretty much no-one else did anything other than have one particular moment in time during the rest of the year. And Westwood ultimately finished top of the rankings mainly by then also being outplayed (this time by a complete outsider) for the Open title. It just seems ... weird.
He'd not be the least deserving world number one of all time, by any measure - indeed, by finishing second (twice) in majors this season, he'll have done more in the big championships than some previous world number ones have done in the years they finished on top (Greg Norman in 1995 and 1996, for example) and furthermore, at the end of the day, the world number one is exactly that - the player who has, consistently, finished higher than their peers in the most tournaments over a 2-year period.
But Westwood would be only the fourth player in history to become world number one before actually winning a Major - the other three, Woosnam, Couples and Duval, all won their first Majors in fairly short order straight after their annointment as world number one (Woosnam, indeed, the very next week). With Lee Westwood, there's a very real possibility that he will become number one next week, and still be number one in six months' time (depending on whether Tiger Woods can be bothered to pick up a club in the meantime) and not, actually, ever win a major. He'd be like some of the men and women who've held the top tennis ranking in similar circumstances over the years (hell, we've got one now, in Wozniacki).
I know I'm a bit of a puritan about this subject, but it does get to me. I like world number ones to be the players who are demonstrably the best players at that moment in time. Westwood isn't that. Not right now. When you come back to write the story of 2010 in golf, it will say that Mickelson won the Masters by outplaying Westwood head-to-head, then pretty much no-one else did anything other than have one particular moment in time during the rest of the year. And Westwood ultimately finished top of the rankings mainly by then also being outplayed (this time by a complete outsider) for the Open title. It just seems ... weird.
Comment