Tiger Woods out of world's top 100? Don't believe a word of it

If you read on in the stories doing the rounds you'll see that Woods had been in the top 100 since the second month of his career, when he won the Las Vegas Invitational in only his fifth tournament as a professional golfer.

That victory lifted Woods to 75th in the world - and until February of this year, that was the lowest his ranking had been.

Now, however, Woods has dropped below that mark - and as of Monday, is officially ranked 104th in the world. That puts him one spot behind Thorbjorn Olesen, and one ahead of Jason Kokrak.

Yet in no way does this mean that Woods is not among the 100 finest golfers on the planet. Far from it.

The issue is simple. The Official World Golf Ranking works on a clear basis: give each player a number of points depending on how well they play in a particular tournament, then divide up their total points by the number of tournaments they have played.

It all works very well. The number of points available at each event depends on the strength of the field (e.g. far more are available at Majors than at a normal PGA Tour event; though the PGA Tour event will generally have more points up for grabs than events on the European or Asian Tours).

So far, so simple: but there's one wrinkle. What if a rookie player bursts onto the scene and wins their first or second event as a professional? It's unlikely and unusual, but perfectly possible - and would instantly launch that rookie to the top echelons of the rankings (the average PGA Tour event carries about 50 points for the winner, while Rory McIlroy's current points-per-tournament average is 11).

The OWGR's answer is simple: average out each player's points over two years, assuming an average of 40 tournaments a year. Even for those who play a limited schedule - as Tiger Woods has always done, throughout his career - 20 tournaments a year is a perfectly feasible minimum.

There is one down-side: injury breaks and suspensions count unfairly against players.

And Woods, who spent much of last year out of action, now has his points total of 58.44 divided by that 40-tournament minimum, despite having played just 24 events in that time.

If we ignore that 40-tournament stipulation and divide his points by his actual number of tournaments, Woods's average rises from 1.46 to 2.44, good enough for 47th in the world. It's still not great for a legend of the game, but is a much more realistic assessment of his ability.

Incidentally, Woods isn't the only player to fall foul of these rules: Jason Day (through injury) and Dustin Johnson (through his controversial sabbatical) have also played less than their 40-tournament minimum. In their cases the difference is less marked, given that they have both played 39 events.

Day, fifth in the world, would have a 6.67 average instead of 6.5 - and would still be fifth in the world.

Johnson, seventh, would similarly see his average rise to 6.14 from 5.99 - but would also stay put in the table.

There is one player, aside from Woods, who would really benefit from a tweak to the ranking system, incidentally: Steve Stricker.

The American veteran is semi-retired, and has played just 22 events in the last couple of years, but is still 75th in the world.

His true average over those events is actually 3.38, however - which would make him world number 23.

There's one final thing to add: last time an injury-related break forced Tiger Woods down the world rankings was in late 2011, when he dropped out of the world's top 50 (hitting a low of 52nd). He roared back the year after, winning three times in 2012 and five times in 2013, almost winning a Masters and two Opens in that time, and climbing to the top of the rankings once more.

Only time will tell if, at the age of 39, he still has that ability to silence the doubters and get back on top the world.