SONY rankings a waste?

Do you wish that the SONY world rankings for professional golf had never been invented? For ten years it was simple; Tiger was Number One, Phil was Number Two, and the rest of the world didn't matter!

With Tiger's misstep with his personal life in late 2009, it has become a joke with too many TV commentators introducing this guy as "world number one", this guy as "world number three", and the next guy as "world number two". The following week they are all mixed around again anyway.

When Tiger was Number One, he had around 17 points to 8.64 points for Phil, then 8.53 points for number three, 8.51 points for number four, and so on down the line.

Today, whoever is Number One for the next day has 8.67 points, Number Two has 8.64 points, etc.

To listen to some commentators on the European Tour, if one player is about to putt a 20 footer, he announces within the next twenty seconds which five players will change position at the top if that player makes the putt! It's turning into a joke!

Johnny Miller hit the nail on the head when he announced during one recent tournament how embarrassed Lee Westwood looked when he was Number One. I agree with Johnny. Westwood, in my opinion, never should have made it to the Number One position. Whenever he even got within two stokes of leading a major, he'd fold like a cheap tent.

This morning I was watching the "European Tour" event in Kuala Lumpur (I know; it's not in Europe!). The commentator was talking about one player about to putt on one hole, and then saw a crowd of people running to another hole. He commented, "Look at all those viewers running over to hole number 5. Maybe Martin Kaymer is playing that hole. Wouldn't we all want to watch the World Number One play if we had the chance?"

Come on, really? The day to day, no I should say the hole to hole, change in who's Number One, Two, Three, Four, Five, etc. is getting ridiculous.

I suggest that whoever runs the SONY rankings change its policy and only make changes to their scoreboard every three months, or every six months. Once a year would be just fine with me.

But this daily update between players whose points are decimal points apart is ruining the major reason they set up the system in the first place. Once a player is out of the top five, or top ten, it doesn't amount to a pile of beans what position he is in.

I suggest they only list, or announce, who the top five players are once every six months or so. One tournament's outcome does not change anything, so why pretend it does?