« Wynn Las Vegas' $500 greens fee Fazio: Here today, gone tomorrow?Reflection Bay primed to bounce back to the upper elite after great overseed »

60 comments

Comment from: James [Visitor]
Running scared as usual ....
2005-09-30 @ 08:04
Comment from: MJ [Visitor]
Where does Wie's height come from - her mom's side? Her dad's side? Or human growth hormone?
2005-09-30 @ 08:06
Comment from: James [Visitor]

You say you can't take the bet unless both of their respective careers are over--yet you are so sure that Creamer will win more tournaments than Wie.

Don't you see the hypocrisy of what you write--
On one hand you say we can't know who will be better until the final tally of LPGA majors and tournaments when their careers are over---yet on the other hand you know that Creamer will have at least a double digit lead in tournaments than Michelle Wie.


By the way --of the 7 tournaments that Michelle and Paula have played together--she has only finished ahead of Michelle twice.---Michelle is still THREE years YOUNGER.

I agree with James -you are just running scared.
2005-09-30 @ 08:10
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

Chris can't bet the the money -he doesn't want to take away from his crack fund.
2005-09-30 @ 08:13
Comment from: June [Visitor]
All talk. no walk. Typical Chicken. Now you showed that you are a fool, liar, hypocrit and a worst of all, a coward. Keep your mouth shut from now or put your mouth where it belongs. Up in your you-know-where.
2005-09-30 @ 10:00
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
It's all about the wins, baby. When Tiger plays and does not win, do you think he cares if he finishes 4th or 5th? Annika, Els, Singh, etc? Nope. The best only think in terms of winning.
2005-09-30 @ 10:00
Comment from: June [Visitor]
Actually I think I will raise the bet. I will bet my $1000 that by the time Michelle turns 18, Michelle will match Paula's total career LPGA win. BY then Paula will be in her third full time year and Michelle will play all of 14 or 16 LPGA tournament as a part time member. YEs, I will go crazy and say Michelle will win 6 LPGA tournamnet before she turns 18 and made into top 20 finish in PGA tournament. And tragically to Chris fool, Michelle hype machine will be in even more crazy mode by then. Take this , Chris you fool.
2005-09-30 @ 10:09
Comment from: Mark Nessmith [Visitor]
>>"TravelGolf.com managing editor Mark Nessmith ... is our resident sap, a guy who's forcing his wife to watch Sleepless in Seattle over and over again, not the other way around. Nessmith is TravelGolf.com's Saint of Idiotic Causes."

===================

Don't be fooled, dear readers. I've never even seen that flick. Truth be told, I'm more of a Dirty Dozen guy. Baldwin's just still pissed at me for having the nerve to try to keep him to his word and for shattering his juvenile illusions about sneaking a peak at the topless pools in Las Vegas.
2005-09-30 @ 10:23
Comment from: Albert [Visitor]
I found this interesting piece of article. Check it out.


ORLANDO, Fla. - With all the scrutiny and criticism that is sure to accompany the career trajectory of Michelle Wie, who this week is expected to turn pro and sign endorsement deals worth upward of $8 million annually, here's a funny anecdote you haven't heard. While she has otherworldly upside, it serves to underscore the comical consequences of the impulsiveness of youth.

Remember when the 15-year-old phenom came within a whisker of making the cut two months ago the PGA Tour's John Deere Classic? Now we not only know how, but why she blew a chance to become the first female in more than a half-century to play on the weekend against the men.

As Wie played the back nine of her second round, she noticed a leaderboard indicating that Mark Hensby had finished his round at 5 under. Hensby, the defending Deere champion, had made some caustic comments before the event that Wie obviously read.

"I don't think a 15-year-old girl who's done nothing at all should get a sponsor's invitation to a PGA Tour event," Hensby said at the time. "But I don't blame the John Deere Classic or Michelle. I blame her parents, and the people running her affairs."

As she stood on the tee of her 15th hole at 3 under, a slim shot inside the projected cut line, Wie abandoned her plans to play the hole conservatively and elected to try to catch Hensby. She hammered her tee shot into trouble and made a double-bogey. She played the last four holes 3 over and ended up missing the cut.

So instead of playing strategically in order to make history and almost certainly advance to the weekend, she was trying to add two birdies to match Hensby's 36-hole total.

When you are 15, why not go for it, right?

"She wanted to play with Hensby," said her swing coach, Orlando's David Leadbetter, laughing. "So she got a little too aggressive there and it cost her. Typical mistake of youth

2005-09-30 @ 15:04
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
You are right Chris. Paula is better than Wie but why mention Wie at all.
Paula is simply the best.
There isn't anyone who comes close to her.
Next season she is going to wipe the floor with Annika. If they are in contention together Puala will win every time because she is the proven winner.
Poor Annika would be lucky if she wins even a grand slam event.
Paula has a good chance to win all four major titles.
If Paula plays her best golf, then the others might as well not turn up for the majors.
2005-09-30 @ 16:20
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
When Paula hits her peak, the LPGA will be embarrassing to watch because Paula will be so far ahead.
2005-09-30 @ 17:18
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Who cares about the comparison with Paula Creamer. Consider the bet the following. Someone is willing to make a bet that Michelle Wie will become the youngest player to ever win a multiround LPGA Tournament. Aside from the Paula Creamer comparison, you supposedly believe that Michelle Wie is overrated. That she hasn't won anything. Why are you afraid that a player who hasn't won anything would break an all time LPGA winning record as the youngest multi-event winner?

2005-09-30 @ 18:31
Comment from: DL [Visitor]
Yeah, Chris, I didn't think you would.
2005-09-30 @ 18:48
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
It is worse than I thought. Chris is on record as saying a 5 year old Tiger Woods would know more about winning than Wie ever will. Isn't that a guarantee by Chris that Wie will never win--certainly never win a pro event. What is Chris afraid of?
2005-09-30 @ 18:52
Comment from: June [Visitor]
Cuase $1000 is about one thirds of what Chris makes for a year.
2005-09-30 @ 20:48
Comment from: Andrew James [Visitor]
the proof will be in the pudding so to speak, why waste time with this useless speculation? One thing is certain; Michelle Wie will be a hell of a lot richer than your average! jaja
2005-09-30 @ 23:43
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Okay. I was joking!!!!
I do like Paula Creamer a lot but I am trying to show how stupid Chris, and some other posters such as Shanks are, in thinking that Paula is walking on water and Michelle is useless.

I'm just taking there silly argument to the next level to show how stupid they actually sound.

I believe Paula will win at least a couple next year, but not surpass Annika. I think Michelle will break through sooner or later. She'll probably win next year but I wouldn't bet on it, due to the fact that she will be playing so few LPGA tournaments.

I think Michelle is very sensible in her career path. She is choosing all kinds of tournaments, against all kinds of players, on all kinds of different courses. This will probably delay her first victory and future early victories, but at the end of the day it will help her game, and help her win more in the long term.
2005-10-01 @ 14:38
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
oops
that last post was supposed to be in another topic.
2005-10-01 @ 14:44
Comment from: George Mitchell [Visitor]
Re: Paula Creamer better than Michelle Wie now, will always be better than Wie I believe the folowing are true: 1. Michelle Wie has a better golfweek/sagarin rating. 2. Wie has finished ahead of Creamer more often than not. 3. Wie's per event "virtual earnings" are greater than Creamer's. Since it will be years before Michelle Wie plays a full LPGA schedule, comparing totals is of little value.
2005-10-01 @ 15:58
Comment from: brad [Visitor]
How can you compare Michelle and Paula as of now? Michelle doesn't even play half the events that Paula does. You should wait to compare them until they they play the same amount of tournaments.
2005-10-01 @ 16:21
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Sorry Brad NO.

Then Michelle will actually have a fair chance of beating Paula.

We Ice-Creamer fans need Paula to have a great big unfair advantage of playing in way more events. That way we can seay Creamer is the best.

Horray for Creamer.
2005-10-01 @ 16:27
Comment from: Chad [Visitor]
Creamer is sucking big time at the Office Depot Championship...she's currently 36th right now.
What was Michelle's worst finish- wasn't it tied for 23rd with Annika at the U.S. Open ??

Oh what is Baldie to do!
2005-10-02 @ 22:02
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Creamer finished 23rd, but before any of you Wie-warriers say anything Paula is still the best.

If she finished 23rd it's because she wasn't trying. She wants to give the others a chance.

Go Paula Go.
2005-10-03 @ 15:11
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Natalie Guilbis finished 4th. This was another top 10 finish, her 10th top 10 finish this season I believe. Fair play to Natalie.

However, why is it that nobody gives out that Natalie hasn't won a tournament yet, but lots of people constantly moan about Wie?
& Natalie has vast LPGA experience.
2005-10-03 @ 15:14
Comment from: Jim Nugent [Visitor]
Wie will play 6 or 7 LPGA tournaments next year. They will be the toughest, most prestigious women's events in the world. Chris wants her to win 2 of those tournaments or he won't bet.

Courageous stand, Chris. You really got cojones. No matter. Everyone now knows your true beliefs about Wie. You can try to dodge and weave. But partner, you ain't Muhammad Ali.

BTW, you hung yourself (again) when you say, "Creamer hasn't been a pro in everything but official status since age 15. She happened to be 18/19 during her first extended run in pro golf."

Creamer played plenty of LPGA events as an am. At age 17 she played seven events. Did well, though nothing close to Wie's performance this year. At 16 she played three events. By Baldwin logic, Creamer just finished her second or third year as a pro.
2005-10-04 @ 08:21
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

Actually, Chad and Jeff you're both wrong--Paula Creamer didn't finish 36th or 23rd--SHE GOT DISQUALIFIED!!!

From the Associated Press--

Rookie Paula Creamer shot her second straight 72 for 212. She was disqualified, however, for improperly changing clubs during the round. She removed a 5-iron from her bag Monday and replaced it with a 3-wood.


Poor Baldie is probably suicidal by now....
2005-10-04 @ 09:53
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Creamer turned herself in, reporting the infraction when she realized it AFTER the round was over. With integrity like that, it's no wonder she's as tough as she is.
2005-10-04 @ 11:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks, if she's so TOUGH, why did she do so badly in the tournament?
2005-10-04 @ 13:21
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Kyle said:
*************
Actually, Chad and Jeff you're both wrong--Paula Creamer didn't finish 36th or 23rd--SHE GOT DISQUALIFIED!!!
*************

When Chad posted his comment, he said she is CURRENTLY in 36th and he was right. I guess when Jeff posted his, she had finished at 23rd. She was LATER disqualified.

So both comments were in fact correct.
2005-10-04 @ 13:24
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Oh, my bad, I didn't realize that finishing 23rd was "doing badly". Maybe she was distraught after the seeing that her nail polish was peeling off ...
2005-10-04 @ 15:12
Comment from: NorCal Golfer [Visitor]
I have questions for all:

Jeff: Are you capable of reading?
Shanks has said several times -- and Shanks can correct me -- to paraphrase: "Michelle Wie is a fantastic talent but does not have the emotional maturity to close a tournament at this time. Paula Creamer is a fantastic talent, and has proven she has the emotional maturity at this time to close a tournament."

I agree with Shanks. Those are the facts, or at least an informed supposition about Creamer and Wie.

So don't say something as ill-informed as saying Shanks has called Wie useless.

Paula has won three professional tournaments this year, two in the LPGA. Michelle has yet to win a pro tournament so far. Any of those numbers can change whenever another weekend of LPGA or pro play arrives.

What are you guys called, the "Wie Warriors."? That's a good name for you, as good as any. Especially when you pronounce it phonetically. You Wie Warriors detract not only from Michelle but from all of women's golf when you constantly imbibe the Wie Kool-Aid.

For example, Jeff said this (I know, you were trying to suggest that the Creamer fans are as maniacal as the Wie Warriors).

Jeff: "Paula has a good chance to win all four major titles."

But in reality, one of the Wie Warriors, Jim Coulthard, in a Travel Golf thread at the end of July, predicted that he expected Michelle Wie to win "two or three" majors in 2006! And Coulthard was being serious! Let's see if that prediction comes true for that Kool Aid drinker

So Jeff, your parody about being a fanatic hits close to home -- but only for the Wie Warriors.

And Kyle, who reported with glee:
** Paula Creamer didn't finish 36th or 23rd--SHE GOT DISQUALIFIED!!! **

Be sure to clean up the mess around your keyboard unleashed by your excitement. Looks like you are one of those who is so crazed about Wie that you'll root against Paula Creamer and just about any young ladies phenom like Creamer.

But be careful for what you wish, Kyle & Co. In golf, the easiest thing to do is root against somebody. The hardest thing to do is root for somebody.

Why? Golf is even more humbling than baseball: No matter how great you are, Tiger, Jack, Arnie, Phil, Retief, Vijay, etc. -- most of the time you're going to fail. The best hitters get hits about one every three at bats. The best golfers win only a fraction of the tournaments out there.

So when you start rooting against a player like Creamer -- who has had a superb and historic year, won three tournaments, backed up her Solheim Cup prediction by being the leader of that squad and playing great -- don't get upset if people someday respond by rooting against Michelle.

That's because until Wie wins an LPGA event or plays on Sunday in a men's event, the existence of that chink in the armor drives the KoolAid-drinking Wie Warriors absolutely batty.

.....


BTW, I have a prediction for Michelle. Not about tournament wins or finishes. But about her strategy:

Michelle will NEVER play a full schedule on the LPGA tour, probably by her own choice. Is Nike the company that says "Just do it?" I can't remember.

Anyway, Wie's plan is this, in no particular order:

-- Play in high-profile LPGA events until she reaches her max.
-- Attempt to make the cut in men's tournaments
-- Stay in high school, then go to Stanford University or some other prestigious school full-time
-- Get a degree in business administration so she can operate her empire herself
-- Become a media icon.
-- Focus on movies, book deals, TV shows, paid acting, that's where the real money is.
-- Use the LPGA -- and maybe even the PGA -- as just a stepping stone.


Michelle doesn't need to win anything to get fabulously wealthy. All she has to do is "just do it." It's the attempt at the journey, the path less taken, that is the bulwark of Michelle's strategy. Michelle could earn $30 million in the next few years and never win a tournament. Anybody dispute that? She's already one-third of the way there.

Wie simply has to be unusual. And she is.
2005-10-04 @ 15:56
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
First of all "NorCal Golfer", I don't think you should ask, if "Shanks" will correct you, since it is pretty obvious you are Shanks, and are just using a different name.

As regards saying that 23rd isn't doing bad in a tournament "Shanks", now you have really shot yourself in the foot. You have stated on many occasions how bad Michell is for finishing 2nd and 3rd etc and yet when Princess Paula finishes 23rd, that suddenly becomes a good finish.

Back to the alias "NorCal Golfer", there is so much horse manure in that post, that it's difficult to get through.
- once again mentioning the 2 wins is yet again pointless. Paula plays more tournaments. She has played 20 this season, Michelle has played 6. So to win a couple of tournaments is good, but so is lots of top 10 finishes like Natalie Guilbis.
- At the end of the day, the majors are the most important thing, those are the tournaments to win, that you will have to beat all the top players. Michelle has finished 2nd and 3rd in a major. Paula finished 3rd once, right behind Michelle at the LPGA, and her next best finish was 13th. That doesn't measure up too well.
I still like Paula but must admit that her performance hasn't been as good as Michelle.

- As regards Jim predicting Michelle will win 2 majors next year. That is his business and good luck to him. I personally think she will do well to consolidate her terrific performances in majors of this year. If she has exactly the same results in majors next year it will be brilliant and once again probably only second to Annika.

- As regards rooting against Paula Creamer I haven't noticed any place where a "Wie-warrier" has gone against Paula in particular. All people have done is defend Wie and it is usually Chris Baldwin who chooses to insult Wie by saying Creamer is so much better. All Wie-fans do is give facts to show that Creamer is not infact better than Wie. That doesn't mean we don't like Creamer too.

---- The comment "In golf, the easiest thing to do is root against somebody. The hardest thing to do is root for somebody". That comment is so true, yet used exactly the wrong way around. Wie fans root for Wie. It is you who constantly tries to belittle Wie in order to make more of Creamer.

- Wie's chink in her armour is definetely not the mental side of her game. Her weekness is her youth. She is still improving as is Creamer and Pressel. The only difference between them is that Wie is undoubtedly and undeniably the best 15 year old by far. In my opinion she is also better than the other two players on current form also.

- As regards your prediction for Michelle, I think it shows how much you actually know about her. A more accurate prediction is that she will concentrate mainly on golf, but like Tiger she will indeed be astute in her earning power. Why would she not be? Tiger has the best of both golf and endorsements, so can Michelle.
2005-10-04 @ 16:22
Comment from: NorCal Golfer [Visitor]
** Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
First of all "NorCal Golfer", I don't think you should ask, if "Shanks" will correct you, since it is pretty obvious you are Shanks, and are just using a different name. **

Gee, Norman, you must really be B.J. Wie posting as Norman, since you're blowing so hard to toot Michelle's horns.

You sound like one of those sore Wie Warriors who have gone bonkers because Michelle has yet to win a tournament.

2005-10-04 @ 18:43
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
In spite of what Chris claims, Michelle Wie has been an amateur up to now. As a professional things will change. There will be no more BJ carrying the bags. A first class caddy will be found who can work well with Michelle, and will be well paid to do so. The caddy will probably do work with Michelle during at least some of her practice rounds as well as in tournaments. With her money set, there will probably be less pressure on her. These factors in addition to her expected improvement with age were the basis for my prediction of at least two Majors next year. She has had top 5 finishes in 3 different Majors over the last two years. Combine a year older with what will NOW REALLY BE a first class professional team behind her and my prediction is not unreasonable. It will, of course, be harder if ANNIKA regains her form, but that has yet to happen in spite of the one win last week.
2005-10-04 @ 21:38
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

NorCal golfer--

You need a serious humor infusion---

I like Paula Creamer and Michelle Wie equally -my comment was toungue in cheek to infuriate Chris Baldwin.

Chill out would ya! :):)
2005-10-04 @ 21:45
Comment from: NorCal Golfer [Visitor]
Coulthard:

** at least two Majors next year ** for Michelle Wie

How many majors do you believe Tiger Woods will win in 2006? How many will Annika Sorenstam win?
2005-10-04 @ 21:49
Comment from: NorCal Golfer [Visitor]
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

** I like Paula Creamer and Michelle Wie equally **

Riiiiight. Methinks thou doth protest too much, Wie Warrior. ;)

2005-10-04 @ 22:01
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Hey NorCal Golfer,

You paraphrased my posts very well. I'm guessing that you are now shaking your head like I am. It's amazing to me how people - like this Norman - turn your words into something you did not say. What's even scarier is that they might reproduce.
2005-10-05 @ 08:09
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

Not protesting-just stating a fact-

Trust me if I was -you'd know it.
2005-10-05 @ 08:34
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
This quote from Tiger - which underscores what I have been posting - is in the 10/5 USA Today:

"I'd much rather keep having the highest total for wins every year."

'Nuff said.
2005-10-05 @ 08:45
Comment from: NorCal Golfer [Visitor]
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]

*****
Hey NorCal Golfer,

You paraphrased my posts very well. I'm guessing that you are now shaking your head like I am. It's amazing to me how people - like this Norman - turn your words into something you did not say. What's even scarier is that they might reproduce.
*****

Or even worse: that they might have already. And maybe some of them are driving cars.
2005-10-05 @ 16:09
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks said
****************
This quote from Tiger - which underscores what I have been posting - is in the 10/5 USA Today:

"I'd much rather keep having the highest total for wins every year."

'Nuff said.
****************

Typical quote from Shanks. If you read the Tiger Woods interview he was extremely complimentary towards Michelle right though it.
He also said that Michelle "kept doing what she did this year, then everything would be alright".

Nuff said.
2005-10-05 @ 17:48
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
... and I have been extremely complimentary towards Wie, you knucklehead! Also pointed out the truth - that she needs to learn how to win. Don't freak out. It's natural. Most child prodigies go through it. Think Nicklaus won everything as a kid?

Tiger said essentially the same thing, meaning that if she keeps going the way she is, she'll get to where she wants to go. Left unsaid in his comment is that she's not there yet. As an adult, you are supposed to understand that. Unless, of course, you're not an adult.
2005-10-06 @ 08:27
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
What we are consistantly actually disagreeing on is basically, you think she has a problem in winning and I don't.

Simply put, you look at a one tournament in which she was in contention to WIN, at the US womens open and say she FAILED.

I look at it, as she was in contension with about 20 other players, all within a couple of shots. If there was 20 players, 19 of them had to lose. Two of them were Michelle and Paula Creamer. No shame for either of them. It was simply one of those days and saying that she lacks emotional maturity, based on one days performance, is in itself emotional immaturity on your part.

I don't think we will ever agree.

Let me ask you one question:
Suppose at the Samsung, going into Sunday if she is in a 5-way tie for the lead, but someone else wins. Does that mean she lacks emotional maturity.

Since you seem to have difficulty understanding I will explain my point further, as if talking to a child:
- At a PGA tournament earlier this year. Padraig Harrington and Vijay went to a playoff. In the first hole, Padraig made par, Vijay had a putt for birdie. Vijay missed his putt.
- Harrington won at the next hole.
- Now suppose for one second, that Vijay had made his putt (and that was out of Padraig's control), then Vijay would have won. Would that mean that Padraig LOST it by lack of emotional maturity?

So much in golf depends on how your opponents score. If someone shoots a 64 on the final day, it doesn't matter how much emotional maturity you have, it will be much more difficulty to beat 64, then if your opponent hits a 72, no matter how much emotional maturity you have.
2005-10-06 @ 18:57
Comment from: AJF [Visitor]
I'm with baldwin on this one: We are both waiting for someone to offer us our 10 million sponsorship deals before we take this bet.
2005-10-06 @ 23:33
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, Wie played very well and you've correctly pointed out how many high finishes she had. So if she is near the lead often and NEVER wins, what does that mean? Two times this past year she was really in great position to "win". Now, at the Womens US Open she was in the lead going into the 4th round and totally came unglued, shooting an 82 which was the 2nd worse score in the entire field on Sunday! And you're telling me that pressure had nothing to do with it? If you are, you have no idea what I'm talking about. And you also dismiss her playing the last 3 holes at the John Deere in 3-over to miss the cut. When a top player is cruising along beautifully then stumbles as they approach the finish line, it is almost always because of pressure getting to them. That is THE difference between playing well and winning. Once she learns to handle that - and, unlike Baldwin, I believe it COULD be soon - she will be on her way to greatness. But until she proves she can come through when the going is tough, she hasn't learned the lesson. Creamer has proven with 3 pro wins and an awesome Solheim performance that she already knows how to handle those situations. So she had a much better year by any standard - except those of the Wie Warriors.
2005-10-07 @ 08:13
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks said:
Norman, Wie played very well and you've correctly pointed out how many high finishes she had. So if she is near the lead often and NEVER wins, what does that mean?
*********************

To repeat what YOU said in earlier comments. When Michelle had her high finishes she was not in contention to win. Therefore by your reasoning, she was not in a position to win in those high place finishes. Therefore in her high finishes she did not throw it away. So you cannot say she threw away these events since she was never in a position to win.
eg LPGA championships behind Annika.
eg Evian behind Paula.
2005-10-07 @ 14:17
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks said:
Now, at the Womens US Open she was in the lead going into the 4th round and totally came unglued, shooting an 82 which was the 2nd worse score in the entire field on Sunday! And you're telling me that pressure had nothing to do with it?
****************************
Michelle shot 82.
Paula shot 79.
What is the difference in these scores. Basically both were within a shot of the lead and both were in contention along with many other players. Both of these players shot themselves way out of contention.

I don't think it really makes a difference between 79 and 82, the end result was the same, they both had bad final days and ended up down the field.

Now the crunch point is, why is it that you focus on Michelle's score as a failure, but Paula's wasn't?

They were equally bad, but both have shown on many occasions that they are terrific players.
2005-10-07 @ 14:25
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks again:
Creamer has proven with 3 pro wins and an awesome Solheim performance that she already knows how to handle those situations. So she had a much better year by any standard - except those of the Wie Warriors.
*************************

Creamer has 2 lpga wins, the other was a lesser win.
Of her two wins the Evian was a good win, she led from front to end.
However it can be said that the very top players were thinking of next weeks British Open. How many players win two weeks in a row. Most are trying to just play well but not use up all their energy going all out for a win the week before the open.

I still want to say well done to Paula though. She played beautifully that weekend, as did Michelle the following week, WINNING the gold medal for top amatuer.
2005-10-07 @ 14:29
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, I did not say Wie threw away anything more than the US Open & the John Deere cut .... those were her BEST chances and she was definitely in position, then came unglued. My point was that with her very good play she was consistently near the top but never managed to get over the hump and into the winners circle. It's a lot more than just playing well. It's dealing with the emotions of it at that level.

As far as the difference between Wie & Creamer's last round at the Womens Open, the difference is this: Wie was in the final group, in the lead and played the absolute worse round of her year by far. Pressure had everything to do with it. Creamer played poorly too and pressure no doubt had something to do with it too. BUT she also came through 2 other times on the LPGA Tour and once in Japan, all against professionals. Wie never once came through ANYWHERE. Like I've been saying over & over, Wie needs to prove (to herself, mainly) that she can handle that intense pressure. Nobody can do it all the time and very, very few can do it a lot of the time. Those few are the ones we call the great ones. I look forward to watching how it turns out. Time will tell.
2005-10-07 @ 15:49
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Since you've truly narrowed it down to 2 tournaments you think she "came unglued".

Will you at least admit, that by your argument at least 20 other players also came unglued on the exact same day?

You cannot keep going back to Creamers 2 victories. It is 2 out of 20. That is one in every 10.

Michelle didn't even play 10 times this year, so even by your standards she would have another 3 events to win one, just to be equal with Paula.

As regards consistantly being at the top, I think that is the sign of great emotional maturity. I would have thought that someone so young would be more irratic, with a great display one day and a heap of mistakes the next. I think Michelle has probably been the most consistant of all players, in the limited events she played in.

If Creamer played the 7 events that Michelle played this season I do not believe she would have won any. Do you? Keep in mind the time delay between events. Creamer's 20 appearances give an overwhelming advantage when it comes to wins simple as that.

Give any player 20 tournaments versus 7 for another and call it fair to base the better player on total wins if you like, but the men in white coats will be coming for you if you do.
2005-10-08 @ 10:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Paul doesn't get the headlines because she is just another very good female golfer.

Michelle is different because she can hold her own in a PGA tournament.
2005-10-09 @ 08:27
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, you keep talking about if, if, if ... but the fact is Creamer won 2 LPGA events and another professional event overseas. In fact, she DOMINATED the field in one of the wins, and that field included Wie. Wie did not win any, period. Not against amateurs or pros.

Creamer had the better year - end of story.
2005-10-10 @ 08:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Good point Paula DOMINATED the field at the Evian and Michelle was in that. Well said. Great week for Paula.

However in most of the other events Michelle beat Paula. Lets not pretend they only played in one event together. They've played together a number of times and Michelle has finished ahead on the big majority of those occasions.

Michelle has had the better year.

By the way, I like the way you always ignore the question.
Give Tiger 20 tournament.
Give Vijay 7 tournaments.
Decide who is better, based on the number of wins? Is this fair?

You cannot answer, simply because you would need to admit that you are wrong.
2005-10-10 @ 13:23
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Many people here try to confuse the issue of better player Wie or Creamer.
Here is the undeniable truth for the season of 2005.

In the 7 tournaments they have played together:
Top 10's Paula 2, Michelle 4.
Top 15's Paula 3, Michelle 6.
Finishes: Michelle has finished ahead of Paula 5 times. Paula has finished ahead 2 times.

Pretty overwhelming stats. They speak for themselves.
2005-10-10 @ 14:06
Comment from: George [Visitor]
RESPONSE TO NORMAN...

Regarding the Vijay-Padraig if-is-for-children playoff scenario ...

Padraig H's bio includes the following..


Won his first tournament in 1996,
Had to wait until the 2000 season for his second victory but since then has become more than accustomed to success,
winning twice in 2000,
once each in 2001 and 2002,
twice in the 2003 season and
twice again in 2004 victories in the Omega Hong Kong Open and the Linde German Masters.

Norman, see the key word there? "won".

So your argument linked to whether Shanks would be forced to say that Padraig or Vijay would lack emotional maturity depending on who missed a putt or made a putt in a playoff falls apart. Again.

Padraig has demonstrated emotional maturity by WINNING A PROFESSIONAL GOLF TOURNAMENT.

Got it?

Padraig had already proven himself by winning tournaments in recent years.


That nasty little detail about winning applies to how Paula Creamer has won three professional golf tournaments, including two on the LPGA.

BTW, Norman, is Samsung one of those "good" tournaments you mentioned? I thought somebody said a while back that Samsung tends to have a weak field. Is that the case? Maybe somebody knows for sure.

So if, say, Michelle Wie wins Samsung, does that one count or not count in her totals? I recall how some of the Creamer detractors try to dismiss the Sybase and the Japanese tournament as not being worthy of consideration for suggesting that Creamer is a pretty fair golfer. I think most level-headed folks would see Creamer as having won three pro tournaments, including two LPGA tournaments, this season.

And did some people once call Phil Mickelson the best golfer to have never won a major? So were those people foolishly obsessed with whether Mickelson had WON a particular category of tournament? Could it be that the vast majority of folks out there figure that in pro sports they keep score because they want to find out who WON?

-George
2005-10-10 @ 19:18
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Amen, George.
2005-10-11 @ 08:14
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
RESPONSE TO GEORGE:

You completely ignored or else hadn't the sense to see the point made in the Padraig v's Vijay case.
The point was that Padraig winning depended on Vijay missing. THAT IS A FACT. Therefore it was out of his control. The point is that this OFTEN happens in golf tournaments. You are depending on someone else to miss. That is why you and Shanks are so wrong about placing all this emphasis on winning every time. All you can do is shoot yourself into contention and then try to play your best. It won't always work out.

PADRAIG HARRINGTON since you mentioned his wins, must have one of the highest 2nd place records ever. HE has finished 2nd on about 30 occasions, so I agree with you about how great her is, but you should have the cop on to admit that he had to shoot himself into contention, about 10 times to win each golf tournament. He has lots of 3rd, 4ths etc.

Therefore you can't dismiss Michelle having shot herself into contention to win on ONE occasion, along with about 15 other women (inc Creamer) who were in the same boat.
2005-10-15 @ 08:27
Comment from: Pat [Visitor]
Thanks Norman, for listing the stats of the same games Michelle played w/Cramer showing Michelle's lead over Cramers.

People don't consider how "FEW" tournaments Michelle has played in. With her school also, she is not able to play or practice like the others. If Paula Cramer had the talent, she would be in the spot light. If she really had the talent, she would have been endorsed by top companies before Michele Wie. Maybe it is because she has not been as consistant as Michelle from the beginning and did not show as much potential.

Michelle also does her own thing and does not talk bad about anybody. Creamer has made negative statements in the past as to Michelle having all the attention and not them. Michelle is very talented, handles all the negative comments, and listens to everyone trying to make decisions for her future. Michelle still remains independent and holds nothing against all the talk or who talks but says "its good everybody has their own opinion".

Michelle still does what she thinks is right for herself. Howmany 15 or 16 year olds or even adults could handle that and try to be at a competitive level of golf with all the experienced players? Not too many. She is a special girl and deserves all the hype. Even with the disqualification, she is a fighter, she will come back even stronger, just watch!!
MICHELLE WE ARE SO PROUD OF YOU!!!!!
2005-10-17 @ 00:39
Comment from: Pat [Visitor]
By the way, you all should check the stats of each golfer that turned Pro and what their first tournament result was. Michelle Wie's 4th place was better than Annika's and Tiger Woods along with many others. It was listed on tv today, wish I had the list to print it for you all.
2005-10-17 @ 00:44

Comments are closed for this post.

Simply select where you want to play, find a tee time deal, and golf now!

Dates: July 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
Treat yourself to 2 Nights at the luxurious Bellagio Resort & Casino and enjoy 2 rounds of championship golf at GolfWeek's "Top 100 Resort Courses", Bali Hai Golf Club and the Royal Links Golf Club. This unique and first-class golf experience is priced from just $649 per golfer.
Price range: $649