 |
Updated Daily | |
|
|
||
|
       |
I know Beth Daniel and this Beth Daniel had little to do with Solheim Cup victory
Tuesday September 13, 2005 | 14:09:24 449 words, 2185 views
Back when Beth Daniel was the most dominant player on the LPGA Tour, when Annika Sorenstam was still young and throwing parking lot tantrums, I covered a tour stop in the Lansing, Michigan area for a few years. The LPGA events were actually a huge deal in Lansing, which despite being the state capital had no pro sports (this was pre minor league Lugnuts). In one of these tournaments, Beth Daniel ran away with it to such an extent that she was the only story. Which caused my editors great consternation because everyone knew in those days that Daniel was impossible to deal with. She treated reporters like mosquitoes, gave monosyllabic or sarcastic answers, caused LPGA officials sleepless nights. At least, that was her reputation. With me, Daniel could not have been more forthcoming. She told great stories, stayed for as long as I wanted to ask questions even as hovering PR types and trainers asked if she didn’t have somewhere to go. And Daniel was like that every year at the tournament, dominant win or close loss. Meanwhile, Annika Sorenstam sprinted for the parking lot, often yelling at someone along the way. So if anyone can appreciate the idea of Beth Daniel as a good example for young players, it’s me. Still with all that said, I’m not buying this argument that Beth Daniel helped push the Solheim Cup to victory by being a Buddha Loser. National Golf Editor Tim McDonald is desperate to believe this because he wants to think that Old Geezers can make a significant contribution to sports. I’d like to believe it just because Beth Daniel seemed to recognize I was just trying to get a good story when I was a young reporter. (I must admit she did blow off some hanger-on types at those Lansing tournaments, but if that gives you a rep, more athletes should have one). But the truth is athletes, especially young, great athletes, are self centered and self confident. Paula Creamer did not get where she is today by doubting her abilities. She didn’t need Beth Daniel telling her stories about the past to dominate the Solheim Cup. Like Old Man Mac’s savvy readers, I will have to point out that Creamer and the other Solheim youngsters who actually won matches sounded like they were just being nice to the Oldsters in their comments. Beth Daniel had little to do with his Solheim win. Just look at her record. Of course, Old Man Mac will probably tell you the Broncos would have killed the Dolphins last Sunday if only they’d kept Jerry Rice around to give inspiration as he futilely tried to gain separation from young, no-name cornerbacks.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Comments:
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
I saw the on-course interview of Paula Creamer moments after finishing off Laura Davies. And in her obviously excited state, one of the first things out of her mouth was how Beth Daniel helped her out with the mental side of the game. I think that in moments like that we are most honest with our reactions. There is much to learn from experience.
Besides that, Beth Daniel halving 2 matches is nothing to sneeze at. And there is certainly no shame in losing a singles match to Annika Sorenstam. I think she performed about as well as you would expect someone who didn't earn their way onto the team. Does anyone honestly think that Dorothy Delasin or Heather Bowie would've done better? Think Creamer would've listened to either of THEM? 
2005-09-13 @ 15:46
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
She played like the great champion she is, albeit in the twilight of her career. You can't put a price on leadership and I'm sure she provided plenty of that over the weekend.
2005-09-14 @ 00:47
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member]
Chris, Chris, Chris. Cute story and all that, and it's sort of nice to know a young, impetuous pup like yourself can actually look back at your halcyon days and reminisce, but once again, you're missing the point, like most of your rootless generation.
Why do you think Lopez threw Daniel up against Sorenstam? Because she knew anyone on the U.S. team would lose, and the youngsters would be psychologically crushed, and that doubt would have crept into the rest of the team. It was a sacrifice, like a home-run hitter laying down a bunt to move a runner to third, and she wisely picked a veteran to take the heat. You hot-heads from the "punk" generation see only what's in front of you. You haven't yet accumulated the wisdom or perspective to delve beneath the surface. There are other, more sophisticated forces at work here. So stop smoking your bong and popping your pills and listening to all your "rap" music long enough to try to understand what the adults are trying to teach you.
2005-09-14 @ 07:56
Comment from: alan metcalfe [Visitor]
Tim
I think you are right about the sacrificial lamb theory. However if she had brought Wie into the team instead of Daniel Wie would have had a better chance of beating Annika. Wie is mentally tougher than most of the ladies on the LPGA. Also, if Wie had beaten Annika which she probably would have done that would have been a massive boost to the team. Fortunately they still won even with Nancy’s crap selection. It is fortunate that most of the team is selected automatically. What would the lineup have looked like if Nancy had selected all of them? I’m surprised she didn’t pick herself. Alan M
2005-09-14 @ 12:47
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
The pairings are done via blind draw.
2005-09-14 @ 13:03
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
TIM I thought Nancy choose the order for her team, but the matchups were determined by a random draw. Could someone clarify this point?
SHANKS Give Paula Creamer some credit for being able to say something other thanb the first thing that would come to mind. I'm sure Paula was told to watch what she said after her intemperate remarks before the Cup, and Nancy's remark about Paula being young and able to say whatever she wanted was not advice for what she should do when interviewed after a match. Now about NANCY. Nancy made herself a devisive figure with her remarks about Michelle and Annika, much as she had done before at the 1998 Open. As long as NANCY was going to be the Solheim Cup captain, she should have steered clear of controversy. Said only nice things or nothing about Michelle Wie. She should have talked wistfully about the outstanding young American talent in the amateur ranks that she was unable to considered because of the rules of the competition--and then picked the players she wanted. That would have meant less pressure on her picks to justify what would then have been less controversial choices. Daniel screwed up her match with Creamer. Played well with Inkster--but it is difficult to see why Jukli Inkster needed an older partner to mentor her. Then Daniel played a poor match against Annikan on a day when Annika might have been beaten. Not great but not too bad. Her first round interview was an embarrassment, and probably the reason Nancy paired her with Juli in the fourth round--but if Nancy had not been so controversial herself there would have been less pressure on Daniel and she might have been a better mentor.
2005-09-14 @ 13:41
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Each captain submits the order of their teams or players and it is pure luck as to what the matchups are. It is this way for both the Solheim Cup and the Ryder Cup. Only in the Presidents Cup do captains do a "live" matching of contestants. One captain will propose a player and the other will select his opponent. Then they switch proposing/selecting the opponent. It's actually pretty interesting.
JC - you sure have some "intersting" positions there. To actually know what Creamer was thinking instead of believing what came out of her mouth during the thrill of victory - why, you must be clairvoyant! Or maybe you know somebody "behind the scenes" who supplied you with all of this info. You're not by any chance related to Oliver Stone, are you?
2005-09-14 @ 15:08
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
Then let us both agree we do not know what Paula was thinking--but we are not talking about what she said in the thrill of victory. We are talking about what she said in the disappointment of a match that seemed won after 16 holes winding up tied. Remember too, that in the first round, the US did not win a match and wound up down 1-3. Paula spoke well of Beth following a bitterly disappouinting first roundj for the Americans.
2005-09-14 @ 16:38
Comment from: George [Visitor]
-- shanks --
* JC - you sure have some "intersting" positions there. To actually know what Creamer was thinking instead of believing what came out of her mouth during the thrill of victory - why, you must be clairvoyant! Or maybe you know somebody "behind the scenes" who supplied you with all of this info. You're not by any chance related to Oliver Stone, are you? ** Or Michael Moore. Hey, James, are you still writing the script for your 'Solheim 911' movie? It's also funny that James was able to read Paula's mind about being glad that Michelle Wie was left off the Solheim Cup (never mind that pesky old rule about being an LPGA tour member) We are blessed to have someone like James who is an Amazing Kreskin of Golf. Hopefully, the alternative is not true. I hope we are not seeing a James C. who has an unhealthy obsession with Michelle Wie that has destroyed his ability to reason or function in the real world. I'm sure it's nothing like that. Bottom line: Paula Creamer had a great weekend. Therefore James is sore about that. Even worse for James and the other Wie Warriors, Creamer is having a great rookie season. To be sure, all fame is fleeting, as the slave told the conquerer. But for the current real world, Creamer's accomplishments have made her the phenom -- and the young face -- of American women's golf. Perhaps worst of all for James, Paula's success has paved the way for the other teenagers to follow. Paula has pointed the way to glory and profits. It's Paula who is the trailblazer in this new century of American women's golf. Not...
2005-09-14 @ 16:50
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
You are correct with your last word. Not.
2005-09-14 @ 17:30
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George Said:
*************** Paula Creamer had a great weekend. Therefore James is sore about that. Even worse for James and the other Wie Warriors, Creamer is having a great rookie season. To be sure, all fame is fleeting, as the slave told the conquerer. But for the current real world, Creamer's accomplishments have made her the phenom -- and the young face -- of American women's golf. Perhaps worst of all for James, Paula's success has paved the way for the other teenagers to follow. Paula has pointed the way to glory and profits. ************************** Paula has not paved the way to PROFITS. Even you will have to admit that Michelle win probably make more money before hitting a golf ball as a professional then Paula has made in her career so far. I don't think that's fair, I'm just showing how wrong your statement is. As regards Paula being the phenom, that is just ridiculous. Trying to steal the title which Michelle Wie is constantly refered to as "The Phenom", is just sad for you. And for girls growing up, no they won't be watching Paula trying to be like her. I hope some do, but unless you lack any sense whatsoever, you will know who the real story in golf is at the moment! MW. Paula will never be good enough to take on the men.
2005-09-18 @ 16:39
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
As regards Beth Daniel, she played bad pure and simple.
Tim got it wrong when he talked about her being put up against Annika because she is "a good loser" haha. & yes when Nancy picked the team, she didn't know who Beth would be playing.
2005-09-18 @ 16:42
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Creamer is a fantastic player but not a phenom.
A phenom is a person of phenomenal ability or promise. Wie obviously is a phenom. Alan M
2005-09-19 @ 21:17
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
I think that's an untrue statement about Daniel ... on the whole she played OK, not bad. Don't forget that she played 2 matches that were halved. And there is certainly no shame losing to Annika, who is only the BEST female golfer on the planet! Who else would've beaten her head-to-head that day? Before you say Creamer or somebody else, remember that it's one thing to play extremely well as a few of the Americans did and say they might have beaten Annika had they played her. But it is quite another thing to actually face her head-to-head and do that.
2005-09-20 @ 09:41
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Horray, Shanks .... words of wisdom, about facing Annika being different. I don't think Paula would have played so great, if she had played Annika.
2005-09-20 @ 16:29
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Wonder how Michelle would've done? Oh no, I did NOT say that ....
2005-09-23 @ 10:35
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
For the record, I don't think Michelle wouldn've beaten Annika.
Sure if they played 10 times, she'd beat her some, but Annika is the better and best player at this point in time and still the best by some distance. The next brigade of Creamer, Wie, Kerr, Pressel etc. have a way to go to catch her. But I do believe Wie and Creamer will catch her in the coming years. Proably Creamer first, and Wie maybe a year later.
2005-09-23 @ 17:53 Leave a comment: |
 |
My Latest posts
Check it out!
Misc |
||||||||
 |
Add GolfPublisher.com articles/headlines to your web site |
| © Copyright 1997-2008, WorldGolf.com, LLC. For questions, comments or suggestions on any of our network publications, Contact Us! |
|
The Daly Golf Show:
Ron Mon:
Golf for Beginners:
Dot Wong:
William K. Wolfrum:
