WEETABIX WOMEN'S BRITISH OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP

August 3, 2006

Chris Higgs

PAUL ROVNAK: We'd like to welcome Chris Higgs, chairman of the Rolex Rankings Technical Committee to the interview area. Many of you were present when Chris announced two slight modifications to the way the Rolex rankings are calculated. For those of you that were not present, Chris, if you would not mind going over those modifications briefly and we'll take questions.

CHRIS HIGGS: Be happy to. As you know when the rankings first came out with a minimum number of events required to be ranked in the rankings, that number was 15. As a result of our biannual meeting of the Technical Committee and the Board of the World Rankings, we decided to make two modifications to the ranking system.

The first is the elimination of a minimum number of events, and the second is the addition which is similar to men's golf, of a divisor.

The easier way to describe that is beginning with the conclusion that of this week's Weetabix Women's British Open, any player on any eligible tour who scores points will now be eligible to be ranked. Depending on the number of events they have played, their points will be decided either by 35, or a larger number.

So, for example, if the young English amateur who is playing this week, and this is the first time she has ever played in an eligible event, if she scores one point, her total will be divided by 35. A player who has played 25 events throughout the last 104 week period, her total will be divided by 35. Some of our LPGA events who play over 60 events, their total will be divided over the actual number that they have played.

We think these changes allow more women to come into the rankings sooner, but they are fairer to all competitors because our analysis shows that within the top 200 players who are currently ranked, on average, 40 to 45 events are played by those top 200 players. And hence, we reached a number of 35 as the minimum divisor.

Q. What was the response

CHRIS HIGGS: When we first launched the ranking system in February, there was some initial feedback not only from from what I would call the three primary constituents, the player body, the golf media, and fans at large. And one of the questions raised particularly by the player body was: Is 15 truly a reflective number of performance in golf over a two week period. And we described to them the history of how we got to that number and it was really based on the tours from Australia, Korea and at the time the LET, where those players didn't have much of an opportunity. Well, they didn't have a large opportunity to play 30, 40 weeks over a two year period.

So in the initial run, that's why we had selected that 15 number. But as the results came through, as we started analysing, we saw that in the first two to six months, there were people that had played 40, 45, 47 events all the way through the top 200, it became very obvious that 15 was a number that could easily be modified without being unfair, hence the change.

Q. Was there resistance by players who played fewer events?

CHRIS HIGGS: No. I think one of the interesting things about the six representative groups on this issue was there was quite a collaborative decision. When you analyse it on a player by player basis with very, very few exemptions, because so many of the whether it's the KLPGA or JLPGA or LET and they play on multiple tours, they are not restricted to just one opportunity of playing; so we were able to reach a unanimous decision on that.

Q. So is it encouraging players to play more?

CHRIS HIGGS: What it does I think is encourage players to play in a broader level of competition, wherever that may be. And it not necessarily tour specific. Because it might encourage LPGA or LET players occasionally to play in Japan or it might encourage a JLPGA player to play in the U.S. What it does is it fosters some playing opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic or Pacific.

Q. So for Michelle Wie when they first

CHRIS HIGGS: When the rankings were first released, she was ranked third. I think any time you have a prominent player, there's always discussion. Anyone who you ask, whether there's resistance or discussion, that's up for debate.

Q. Was the debate about that

CHRIS HIGGS: I think the only debate about any one player's performance is she being, whoever 'she' is: Is she being measured fairly amongst all other players.

And so if any player, and again, avoiding using a specific player, if somebody consistently finishes in the top three, five, seven competitors of numerous events that are very strong field events, that in and of itself should be evident of that individual as a great player.

We had an instance last year where there were a couple of the young American amateurs who played extraordinarily well at the U.S. Women's Open, and by virtue of the large number of points that are available in a major championship, that gives somebody a head start in terms of points. The new adjustment factor of 35 will reward that, but also bring it into balance with everybody else in the world of professional golf who is playing over 40 times over a two year period.

Q. What is the difference for amateur and professional, do they still count before you turn professional?

CHRIS HIGGS: Well, the points system does not recognize amateur or professional. If you play in an eligible event, you make points. But yes, her points that she scored when she finished second at the U.S. Open last year did count.

Q. Probably more problematic for following off the ranking

CHRIS HIGGS: One of the things we recognized and this would have come in effect for some of the non exempt members of the smaller tours who don't have as many events, would be players who on some occasions have fewer playing opportunities, and these will be lower ranked players are in essence, anyway. But they would go on and off the World Rankings if they maintain that minimum number of events. So that's one of the reasons why it was easy to eliminate that.

Q. So before this week where would Michelle Wie be ranked using the new system?

CHRIS HIGGS: If you were to use this week's current rankings, pre British Open, and apply the new 35 divisor, I believe Michelle would now be ranked seventh.

Q. Will the USGA now rely more on the Rolex Rankings?

CHRIS HIGGS: Specifically the USGA, when we had our initial conversations with David Fay, and I think all of you know the USGA are fairly conservative group in how they make changes and introductions to their field eligibility. David said that what he would love to do is once the rankings are announced, he would like to observe them for at least a year or two years, and then depending on his and the committee's thoughts, he would look very favourably at using it as a criteria. But he was very clear to say that, you know, he would look at it at least for a year and a half or two years.

Q. Inaudible?

CHRIS HIGGS: No, it went on a split of ADT Money List and World Rankings.

Q. Inaudible?

CHRIS HIGGS: Again, some of that is sponsorship driven, and so it's their election.

PAUL ROVNAK: Thank you, Chris.

End of FastScripts.