« By blaming SI reporter, Wie Warriors, clueless caddy and (gasp!) Mario sink to new lows A Cancun Golf Trip Itinerary - By reader request »

189 comments

Comment from: mamboking [Visitor]
The big question is: Is she the female version of the next Tiger, or the next version of Ty Tryon?
2005-10-14 @ 09:54
Comment from: TT [Visitor]
So you actually expected Wie to win a pro tourney by now. That's some pretty high expectations for a recently turned 16 yr. old girl. She's great, but not that great.
2005-10-14 @ 11:37
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Chris says what new. That's what I say about his STORY. I came here expecting this, and like a good old Wie-wannabe he produced the goods (or the crap).

- first you say she melted down the stretch. I thought "down the stretch" was something that happened on Sunday. If she are claiming that she melts down the stretch every day, then you just need to have a look at some of her score cards. Does she always do badly on the last few holes in every round? I don' think so.

- then you say she has had a full season of 30 tournaments. A few tournaments each year is hardly the same. Also in her first tournaments as a young child, she wasn't even able to make the cut. At this stage she was clearly not going to win. It is different this year when she is actually competing for titles.

- as regards Bighorn playing tougher!!!! NO it was the same for every player. Michelle had a good patch, going well at 4 under and hit a few wayward shots, who hasn't? I'll judge her performance over 4 days though, there is still plenty of time to pick up places. Unlike you Chris, I'm not intent on a win. She hasn't been playing competitive golf recently so she is bound to be a bit rusty, but I still think she'll show a good account of herself over the 4 days.

- by the way Chris, did you see Annika's stumble down the stretch. She missed easy putts at 17 and 18. However instead of attacking people, like you, I would like to compliment her excellent play throughout and her wonderful pin point accuracy with her irons.
2005-10-14 @ 12:28
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Horray for Chris.

Michelle played terrible.
She's useless at golf.

The Creamer showed her how to play golf. Creamer is 4 shots ahead of golf.

Creamer is at 6 under, and Michelle is 2 under. That is 3 times better and that shows that Creamer is 3 times as good as Michelle.

Go Paula go.
2005-10-14 @ 13:58
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
The great thing about Chris is how he can be so horribly wrong, while stating something that is factually correct.

Michelle Wie is, as Chris says, winless (although I do not follow the 30 tournaments against professionals).

He is incredibly wrong in not comprehending that Michelle Wie is BOTH winless and dominant.

If she qualified for world ranking (she is two events short) she would be #2 in the world. She had the 5th best finish in the majors this year (after the winners and Gulbis). She is one of 2 women who have a winning record against the top players in the world (and she beats them nearly 70% of the time)..Annika is the only other woman to have such a record...Chris your beloved Paula Creamer is below .500. She would have the 2nd highest money per event on tour if she had not been an amatuer.

So if someone is ranked 2nd, beats the top players 70% of the time, is the only player who has a breakeven record against Annika in 2005, would have won the 2nd most money... she is definitely DOMINANT AND WINLESS. Hopefully she will drop the winless... but dominant in any case.
2005-10-14 @ 14:10
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
By the way... Wie just shot a 31 on the front
2005-10-14 @ 14:23
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
A dominant non-winner??? STOP IT, please! I'm crying over here! Perhaps you should consult Webster's dictionary on that one. Too funny ...

2005-10-14 @ 14:45
Comment from: Mark [Visitor]

The Baldwin Curse continues--

Michelle is now at the top of the leader board at -9.

Thank God he always roots for Michelle to lose.

Both times he put Creamer on a pedestal -she had a meltdown in the final round.
2005-10-14 @ 14:57
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Chris
This is the dumbest blog you have ever written and that is saying something. Wait til the end of the tournament before spouting crap. That also goes for the Creamer supporters.
Alan M
2005-10-14 @ 16:03
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
Comment from: alan

** Chris
This is the dumbest blog you have ever written and that is saying something. Wait til the end of the tournament before spouting crap. **

So does that mean Baldwin can spout crap when the tournament's over?

** That also goes for the Creamer supporters. **

Alan, it sounds like you've got something against Paula Creamer!

Maybe the big story of the tournament isn't Michelle Wie. Sounds like the big story is Annika isn't ready to be fitted for a coffin just yet.

-BAG
2005-10-14 @ 16:14
Comment from: Mark [Visitor]

Annika had 2 bogeys in the last three holes.

The final group will be Michelle Wie and Grace Park.

Next to last will be Annika and Creamer.
2005-10-14 @ 16:58
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
** Comment from: Mark [Visitor]

The Baldwin Curse continues--

Michelle is now at the top of the leader board at -9.

Thank God he always roots for Michelle to lose. **

So far, Baldwin would be right!

But unless something dramatic happens in the last twosome (as of 2 p.m. PST), check out that leaderboard.

That's the leaderboard of the near future, anyway. A Korean star, Anika, Creamer and Wie within 1-2 strokes of each other as they head to the weekend.

All the clowns like Alan or Mark who hate Creamer, or the bozos like Baldwin who hate Wie, you'd better get used to it.

Creamer and Wie are bound together by fate and will be so for years to come. In fact, will they be paired on Saturday? They could be the female Nicklaus and Watson.

And you can add Pressel and Lang to the mix, and if Gulbis ever can get her act together for 72 holes, she'll be up there too. And don't leave Christina Kim out, she's only going to get better.

You haters are truly circus acts. Just not as entertaining.

-BAG
2005-10-14 @ 17:06
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Well at the end of the 2nd round Michelle is up to 2nd place.
.... Chris do you feel like a fool for writing her off after ONE DAY?

Anyway, it's a shame Annika stumbled over the last couple of holes.
By the way Annika's round today was worse than Michelle's yesterday. Does this mean Annika "melted" down the stretch? No it doesn't, she is still a great player and is still in a position to win this championship.

Had Annika not got a couple of bogey's near the end, Michelle and Paula would have been paired together tomorrow, which would have been great to watch, but it wasn't to be.

Hopefully some of the haters will get some sense. Both Michelle and Paula are doing fantastic. After 2 days, with this elite field, they are both in 2nd place along with the worlds greatest ever female player. Fair play to both Michelle and Paula.

Unlike many of the Creamer-fanatics, if Michelle loses out, I'll be hoping Creamer can do it, despite the fact that people will be coming on here saying how much better Creamer is.

If Creamer wins, I will be delighted. If Michelle wins, I'll be even happier. One thing for sure, they will both still be great players, and a win for either will not prove that either of them are better than the other.

PS: Michelle hit a 65 today, the days best score. CHRIS, were the other ladies playing on a more difficult course? .... oh and Michelle didn't melt down the stretch.
2005-10-14 @ 17:20
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
The only problem is, Norman, that there are plenty of Creamer haters out there too at Travel Golf. I'd guess they can't stand it if any attention is taken away from Michelle.

If you're not insane like the Creamer haters are, that's a good thing.

For instance, there's Mark, up above...
** Both times he put Creamer on a pedestal -she had a meltdown in the final round. **

Sounds like Mark is a Creamer hater. That could be one reason you get people snickering during Michelle's winless streak.

Anyway, last time I checked, they determined the winner after 72 holes, not 36.


But like I said above, the current Top 4 leaderboard is the kind of leaderboard you'll be seeing a lot of in the near future.

OTOH, it doesn't mean any of them will win.

After all the hype, the winner will probably be Lori Kane or Christie Kerr or Catriona Matthew and the rest will finish over par!

-BAG
2005-10-14 @ 17:36
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]

C'mon guys--Take it easy.

You'll make Baldwin cry...
2005-10-14 @ 17:41
Comment from: Claire Voyant [Visitor]
Let's look at our crystal ball again.
In five years Michelle will be a dominant player in the LPGA and will have placed respectably on the men's tour as well. Chris Baldloser, in the meantime, if he's not forced from his job for his obvious stupidity, will only be known as the idiot who wrote Michelle off in an inexplicably violent way when she was a teenaged amateur. Let's hope there's just a little bit of accountability around here ...
2005-10-14 @ 18:26
Comment from: joe [Visitor]
What is the origin of Baldwin's hatred for Michelle Wie? Looking back at his old entries, this guy is obsessed! I hope the security detail at these tournaments are given photos of this clown before Michelle hits the tees. Jesus. Shame on this site for giving this guy an amplifying system for his shameful and personally prejudiced views.
2005-10-14 @ 18:30
Comment from: Stormin Norman [Visitor]
"What is the origin of Baldwin's hatred for Michelle Wie?"

I give up. A small penis?
2005-10-14 @ 18:34
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Shanks-- Tiger Woods is the most dominant winner on the history of the PGA tour (you always like to bring up the best players on the planet). He wins 1/4 tournaments he enters (the percentage in history). If the best ever (by winning percentage) wins only 25% of the time... and loses, by your definition, 75% of the time...how can winning determine dominance?? IF Tiger had the same number of wins and missed the cut the rest of the time..would he still be dominant??

He dominates because he is in position time after time (and because he closes). Michelle has not closed but she dominates positionally.
2005-10-14 @ 19:27
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Chris she's an amatuer because she didn't get paid...not because of her schedule. Do you understan the rules??

Still waiting on the 25 LPGA events she played.
2005-10-14 @ 19:34
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
How can you call look yourself in the eye Meetoo and not know Michelle Wie's LPGA history? Here are the 25 LPGA tournaments Wie has played in her pro career, numbered in reverse order, so you can follow it.
Or maybe you've simply "lost track" of how many she's played because there have been no wins. Hard to imagine, huh?
Don't worry. The concept of winning's unexplainable to Michelle as well. A win? What's a win?



Wie in LPGA
2005


25). Samsung World Championship Palm Desert, Calif. Oct. 13-16

24). Weetabix Women's British Open Southport, England July 28-31 75-67-67-69—278 (-11) T3

23). Evian Masters France July 20-23 75-70-68-68—281 (-7) T2

22). U.S. Women's Open Colorado June 23-26 69-73-72-82—296 (+12) 23rd

21). LPGA Championship Havre de Grace, Md. June 9-12 69-71-71-69—280 (-8)

20). Kraft Nabisco Championship Rancho Mirage, Calif. March 24-27 70-74-73-71—288 (E)

19.) Safeway International Superstition Mountain, Ariz. March 17-20 73-67-73-71—284 (-4) T12

18). SBS Open Turtle Bay Resort Feb. 24-26 70-70-70—210 (-6) T2


2004
17). Samsung World Championship Palm Desert, Calif. Oct. 14-17 74-72-67-70—283 (-5) T13

16). Wendy's Championship for Children Dublin, Ohio Aug. 19-22 73-69-71-69—282 (-6) T6

15). Evian Masters Evian-les-Bains, France July 21-25 71-71-76-69—287 (-1) T33

14). U.S. Women's Open South Hadley, Mass. July 1-4 71-70-71-73—285 (+1) T13

13). Michelob Ultra Open Kingsmill, Va. May 6-9 72-67-73-72—284 (E) T12

12). Kraft Nabisco Championship Rancho Mirage, Calif. March 25-28 69-72-69-71—281 (-7) 4th

11). Safeway International Superstition Mountain, Ariz. March 18-21 72-67-70-77—286 (-2) T19


2003
10). Sports Today CJ Nine Bridges Classic Jeju Island, Korea Oct. 31- Nov. 2 85-78-70—233 (+17) 69th

9). Safeway Classic Portland, Ore. Sept. 26-28 69-72-73—214 (-2) T28

8). Jamie Farr Kroger Classic Sylvania, Ohio Aug. 14-17 73-72—145 (+3) Missed Cut

7). U.S. Women's Open North Plains, Ore. July 3-6 73-73-76-76—298 (+14) T39

6). ShopRite LPGA Classic Galloway Township, N.J. June 27-29 71-72-72—215 (+2) T52

5). Chick-fil-A Charity Championship Stockbridge, Ga. Apr. 25-27 72-70-71—213 (-3) T33

4). Kraft Nabisco Championship Rancho Mirage, Calif. March 27-30 72-74-66-72—288 (E) T9


2002

3). Wendy's Championship for Children Dublin, Ohio Aug. 2-4 77-75—152

2). Asahi Ryokuken International Augusta, S.C. May 8-11 81-75—156 (+12) Missed Cut

1). Takefuji Classic Waikoloa Feb. 28-March 2 72-74—146 (+6) Missed Cut
2005-10-14 @ 19:58
Comment from: brad [Visitor]
Pretty sure she shot a -7, 65 today! Now tied for 2nd....wow!
2005-10-14 @ 21:19
Comment from: brad [Visitor]
Guys, Guys, Guys! Stop picking on Chris. He's obviously hit his mid-life crisis. I mean he has to be what 50? He is bald, and doesn't know anything about current issues in golf. He needs to take out his anger on someone, he's just stupid enough to take it out on a 15 year old girl.
2005-10-14 @ 21:23
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Chris, I am appropriately chastised. I should have known the tournaments. It does seem disingenuous to mock Michelle for the 17 tournaments she played BEFORE SHE WAS EVEN 15! I mean COME ON! A 12,13,14 year old is being mocked for not winning on a professional tour. You have got to be kidding!!!

I would also add that Michelle Wie shares something with Jones, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Woods, Zaharias, Wright, whitworth, Lopez, and Sorenstam.

ZERO WINS ON THE PROFESSIONAL TOUR AT AGES 12-16!!!!!!!

She stands alone from each of these (the greatest players ever in the game) in one respect

7 TOP TENS BEFORE THE AGE OF 16!!! (INCLUDING 3 IN MAJORS)

So here's the question--- which stands out to you... the zero wins at 16 (which she has in common with every great player) or the top 10's (where she stands as the greatest pre-16 in history????

Perhaps it would be wise, instead of holding her to the 0-30 standard to wait until she actually falls behind a SINGLE great.

17 non wins before she could drive....

COME ON!!!



2005-10-14 @ 23:29
Comment from: AhhSoo [Visitor]
meetoo, you've got some irrefutable logic there. Best analysis of Michelle's accomplishments to date that I have ever seen in print. It sure places the proper perspective on this GIRL golfer and how she stacks up against the Legends of golf when they were pre-16. Don't pay any attention to MANLY Baldy as he may be afflicted with the SP syndrome.
2005-10-15 @ 01:33
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I think Chris post of all the tournaments she has entered is very helpful.

It shows the ever improvement on Michelle's part.

Starting with missing cuts, moving on to higher finishes, then last year she got a single top 5 finish. This year her results have moved up ever further with 3 top 5 finishes.

Could I guess we may well have another top 5 finish here.
It is possible she could win, as it is for Creamer, Park or Kerr, but if Annika hits form only she can win, because she is better (laser irons).
I just hope that if Annika turns it on, people will admit that it is just because of her being the better player, not any inability on anyone else's part to win.
2005-10-15 @ 07:52
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer, I think the only reason you have Creamer-haters here is because of Chris Baldwin.

It is his put down of Michelle by overblowing everything Creamer does, that annoys Wie fans. That is why some of them end up attacking Creamer to defend Wie.
It shouldn't be about that, it's not a competition. They can both do great. There is enough tournaments!!

As regards the winner being determined after 4 days, not 2. Yes I agree totally I was making that very point. Chris seemed to think the tournament was over after 1 days, and I was just saying what a difference a day makes. Who knows how much of a difference two more days will make!!
2005-10-15 @ 07:58
Comment from: Ann [Visitor]
Chris... ahh, okay... that's for reiterating that fact that you don't make sense.

It was way too early to attack Wie like that. I mean a bogey-free, highest score of the round says something. But, it is way too naive now to make predictions about the winner. We're only half-way there. Although, the leaderboard is the most exciting thing about the future of the LPGA. You basically have two great veterans in Sorenstam and Park and two great rising stars in Creamer and Wie. Now that is something we're all looking forward to.

And I must admit, had it not been for the attention Wie is getting. I never would've read this column. Although, I will be disappointed if Michelle does not win, I'd be satisfied that she's shown she's got game.

meetoo, great point about Wie and other greats when they were young.

Baldwin, thanks for the chart. It really does she Wie is improving, huh?
2005-10-15 @ 08:28
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Metoo, there is no argument here about Michelle wie being the best female golfer at age 16 in history. I agree with that.

But "dominates positionally"???? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. I take it that you didn't use my advice - go take a look at Websters. Any player who does not win can NEVER be considered dominant.

And any player who does NOT win can NEVER be considered to have had a better year than a player who WON at least TWICE against the same opposition.
2005-10-15 @ 10:46
Comment from: Chuck [Visitor]
TravelGolf is genius. I can see them in their board rooms saying, "How can we drive web traffic to our site? I know! Let's hire a doofus that everyone hates, someone who will get the most comments on a stupid blog, etc., etc."

TravelGolf's contempt for their readers is unconscionable. I, for one, will go out of my way NOT to engage the services of carolinagolftravel.com...
2005-10-15 @ 11:03
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks said:
And any player who does NOT win can NEVER be considered to have had a better year than a player who WON at least TWICE against the same opposition.
************************

How's about this argument?
Any player who has played 21 tournaments, can not be compared to a player who has played 7 tournaments, with regard to number of wins.
2005-10-15 @ 11:53
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
A third of day 3 is over.

Michelle Wie is gone 6 shots behind Sorrenstam. What a swing in a few holes!

Oh no Paula Creamer is following Michelle, Paula is +2 for the day so far. This is like a repeat of the final round of the US womens open.
2005-10-15 @ 13:17
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
How can you look up old blogs by these writers.

I think I remember seeing old blogs from months ago, but I don't know how to find them. If I click on Chris Baldwin's name it gives me about the last 5 or so blogs, but how can I find older blogs.
2005-10-15 @ 13:23
Comment from: TT [Visitor]
Except for Friday's round, Paula Creamer will always be better than Michelle Wie.
2005-10-15 @ 13:25
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
A third of day 3 is over.

Michelle Wie is gone 6 shots behind Sorrenstam. What a swing in a few holes!

Oh no Paula Creamer is following Michelle, Paula is +2 for the day so far. This is like a repeat of the final round of the US womens open.

A good analogy, Jeff -- except for the part where it's completely wrong.

How *did* Anika do in Round 4 of the USWO?

And is Birdie Kim tied for the lead in this tourney?

-George
2005-10-15 @ 13:50
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
** Comment from: alan [Visitor]

** Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer,
I totally agree with Norman with respect to so called Creamer haters,
which you suggested I am.
I personally think Creamer is a very good golfer and have nothing against her **

Really? What did this comment mean, then?

Chris
[...]
Wait til the end of the tournament before spouting crap. That also goes for the Creamer supporters. **

Some reason why the Creamer supporters are supposed to keep their traps shut, Alan?

So maybe you have something against the Creamer supporters, but you like Creamer. If that's true, is it possible that maybe some people have something against the insane Wie SUPPORTERS -- and NOT AGAINST WIE?

Also, to MeeToo...

You said Michelle is "positionally dominant." Sure you don't want to re-think that phrase or come up with a new one? 'Cause if you're an adult, for you to call a teenager "positionally dominant" is ... creepy. ---> ;)
2005-10-15 @ 14:02
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer, for you to turn the phrase "positionally dominant", which was meant as positions in golf tournaments, into a "adult" phrase, makes you creepy.
2005-10-15 @ 16:19
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer
Yes I am having a go at Creamer supporters but not Creamer herself.
The only golfer I really object to is Pressel. I think she should keep her comments to herself, and smile once in a while. It is sad how someone can be so bitter.
Alan M
2005-10-15 @ 16:24
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, we have been discussing who had the better year. It cannot be helped who plays how many tournaments. For instance, Tiger typically plays a smaller number of tourneys than most of the competition on Tour, yet judgements are made by who had the best results on whatever events that they did play in, regardless.

I understand completely the argument you are trying to make but it doesn't hold water. Your girl Wie played consistently well in those events that she did play. But she did not win any and that does not compare favorbly to a player who won 2 LPGA events. Sorry.
2005-10-15 @ 17:01
Comment from: brad [Visitor]
*Michelle Wie in 3rd place. Where is Creamer?
2005-10-15 @ 17:13
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
Creamer is sitting there with her two LPGA wins this year. While Michelle Wie's no-win, no-way streak rolls on. 0 for 30. Say it again.

I love how all you Wie Warriors got so excited on Friday. And then the reality and the excuses start filtering in again.

And Jeff, to look up old blogs, you click on the blogger's name and then go down to the right hand side where the months are listed. Click on a past month and you'll get all the blogs written that month.

2005-10-15 @ 17:28
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Chris,
I for one didn't get over excited. As I said at that point (after day 2), I was hopeful of a top 5 finish. That is still the case.

I am also hopeful (but not as much) for a top 5 finish for Creamer.

Also, at half way I stated that if Annika turns it on, nobody else stands a chance. I think I have been proven right in this case too. Annika has turned it on.

Michelle is doing great. She is in 3rd place in the high pressure situation of her first pro tournament.
She still has a slim chance to win, but given it is Annika in the lead, it is highly unlikely. Annika needs to have a day like Friday and I just don't see that happening.

As logic dictates, there is one day left, so final analysis should be postponed, but if it finishes in her current position, she should be very proud.

As regards, Creamer's 2 wins, that is two from 22 ie one in every 11 events. Michelle hasn't played 11 events.
2005-10-15 @ 18:03
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks, I take your arguement, that Tiger SEEMS to play fewer events, but lets look at the stats.

Here are the top 15 on the PGA money list along with how many events they have played this year:

1 Tiger Woods 19
2 Vijay Singh 27
3 Phil Mickelson 20
4 David Toms 23
5 Jim Furyk 24
6 Kenny Perry 22
7 Chris DiMarco 22
8 Retief Goosen 15
9 Sergio Garcia 19
10 Fred Funk 27
11 Justin Leonard 22
12 Padraig Harrington 13
13 Adam Scott 17
14 Luke Donald 17
15 Davis Love III 21

Tiger has played 19 events.
Of the top 15 players, 11 of them have played 22 tournaments or less.
Comparing someone who has played 19 events versus someone playing 22 is fair enough.

Comparing someone who played 7 events versus someone who has played 21 is not the same.
Tiger has played pretty much the average number of events. The average is 20.5 events. Tiger has played 19.

Therefore the Tiger analogy just doesn't wash.
2005-10-15 @ 18:22
Comment from: Cary [Visitor]
Whatever happened to that bet. Did Baldie ever respond?
2005-10-15 @ 18:59
Comment from: brad [Visitor]
So Chris, what exactly are you going to write about WHEN Michelle wins a LPGA event?
2005-10-15 @ 20:03
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
** Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer, for you to turn the phrase "positionally dominant", which was meant as positions in golf tournaments, into a "adult" phrase, makes you creepy. **

Jeff, you need to get a sense of humor, for once in your life.

You did see this in my original post, right?

---- ;) -----


Or do you need to find an emoticon definition Web site?

2005-10-15 @ 20:18
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
** Comment from: brad [Visitor]
Michelle Wie in 3rd place. Where is Creamer? **

Uh, oh, Brad. You're letting your Creamer-hate bile spew out again. Better get a new pot to catch your droppings!

-BAG
2005-10-15 @ 20:22
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
HEY BALDBOY...you are one sad..sad...little man. Even Dottie Pepper, who has always been a Morgan/Paula supporter and always a harsh critic of michelle, has come out and said that under this week's circumstance, Michelle is doing really well. This IS her pro-debut...give her a break, and do i need to remind you of your favorite sexual fantasy's pro debut result???

SBS OPEN 2005
T40 Paula Creamer 73-73-74 220 +4

This is just my opinion, but i think Michelle Wie is doing MUCH better in her pro debut than Paula...
2005-10-15 @ 20:49
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
For Michelle Wie's round today, which was a 71, she was put in a position where she could have shut down, mentally and physically. She made a bogey then double-bogey in the beginning of her round, and it looked like she was gonna go down like she did in the final round of the USWO, BUT she turned her round around to make 4 birdies after that.

Anytime a golfer can turn their round around like that, it shows poise, heart, and mental toughness...Michelle has come a long way from the disasterous final round and today's under-par round reflects that.

Even Tiger has said that whenever you start out horribly, it's so tough to get back into the groove. Especially if you're not swinging well, and you are not having the best of luck...so CONGRATS MICHELLE IN TURNING THAT POTENTIALLY HORRIBLE ROUND, AROUND TO SHOOT UNDER PAR...(you've taken away another topic for mr. baldy to write about)
2005-10-15 @ 20:56
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
Alan:

** Bay Area Golfer
Yes I am having a go at Creamer supporters **

Sauce for the goose, then.

It would follow, therefore, that you have no problem when people have a go at the more insane members of the Wie Wargs. (Or maybe there is no subset in the Wie Wargs group.)

You do understand, don't you Alan, that if there is any taunting going on WRT Wie, that barbs are aimed at the Wie Wargs, and not Wie.

Why do you think Baldwin writes what he writes? He know you'll crawl out of the woodwork at the drop of any comments about Wie that don't involve sucking down the KoolAid.

** but not Creamer herself. **

Sure, Alan, if you say so.

** The only golfer I really object to is Pressel. **

I can't believe you would be so gross as to attack a a girl WHO IS ONLY 17 YEARS OLD. She's ONLY A GIRL whose mother died at a tragicaly young age. Pressel IS ONLY A GIRL who should not be attacked just because she said a few things about another golfer. It's an outrage that you would disparage in any way someone WHO IS ONLY A 17-YEAR-OLD GIRL. You must really be sick to attack someone who NEVER DID YOU ANY HARM. Why would you show so much hate against a girl WHO IS ONLY 17 YEARS OLD? You must be FAT, BALDING, NEVER BEEN ON A DATE, AND HAVE A SMALL HOO-HOO if you would attack MORGAN who is JUST A TEENAGE GIRL.

(let's see if Alan figures it out the above comments all by his lonesome. And no fair getting help from your intellectual peer, Baldwin)

** I think she should keep her comments to herself, **

Umm, Alan, if Pressel kept her comments "to herself" they wouldn't be comments, would they.

You got to admit, though, that if and when Pressel and Wie are full-time members of the LPGA tour, that would be a pretty cool mud-wrestling event.

** and smile once in a while. It is sad how someone can be so bitter. **

And it's sort of sad to see the Wie Wargs get bitter because one prominent teenager won three times in her rookie year. Then to top things off, that teenager guaranteed victory and then backed it up by leading her country's charge to a stirring victory in the Solheim Cup. It's sad to see that bitterness solely because another prominent teenager is still looking for win #1.

Relax, Wie Wargs: Both prominent teenagers are likely to win an LPGA event in the future.

Creamer's Commandos can afford to be at ease: Creamer's already won three times as a pro.

((There is certainly one thing Creamer and Wie have in common, BTW.

They both remind me (although they lack the skills, obviously) of the 'tude that Nicklaus and Woods have and/or had in their prime (And from what I hear, Palmer, too): That swing from the heels, go for broke, smash-mouth approach to golf. Screw going for one side of the green or the other. There's the pin. Let's stick the ball on the flagstick.))

-BAG
2005-10-15 @ 20:59
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer said:
********************
And it's sort of sad to see the Wie Wargs get bitter because one prominent teenager won three times in her rookie year. Then to top things off, that teenager guaranteed victory and then backed it up by leading her country's charge to a stirring victory in the Solheim Cup. It's sad to see that bitterness solely because another prominent teenager is still looking for win #1.
********************

sorry...but I thought paula only won two tournaments...if she won three, please tell me what the were, cause i obviously missed it...and if she did win three, I am SO MAD THAT I MISSED IT!!!!!!!!!!!
2005-10-15 @ 21:08
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer said:
*********************
I can't believe you would be so gross as to attack a a girl WHO IS ONLY 17 YEARS OLD. She's ONLY A GIRL whose mother died at a tragicaly young age. Pressel IS ONLY A GIRL who should not be attacked just because she said a few things about another golfer. It's an outrage that you would disparage in any way someone WHO IS ONLY A 17-YEAR-OLD GIRL. You must really be sick to attack someone who NEVER DID YOU ANY HARM. Why would you show so much hate against a girl WHO IS ONLY 17 YEARS OLD? You must be FAT, BALDING, NEVER BEEN ON A DATE, AND HAVE A SMALL HOO-HOO if you would attack MORGAN who is JUST A TEENAGE GIRL.
********************

Bay Area Golfer, don't you think that even though Morgan is a teenager, which Michelle is too (younger even), that she should not have said those comments about Michelle? It makes her seem really bitter and actually hate Michelle. In terms of management, I think her grandfather and father should have taught her that comments like those should not have been said...because it makes her look really bad to the public...

And if Morgan being a teenager, and losing her mother are exuses to be very rude and immature, then my friend who's lost both his parents and who's only 17...can say much more immature and snide comments and be forgiven...but i think not
2005-10-15 @ 21:14
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer said:
********************
You must really be sick to attack someone who NEVER DID YOU ANY HARM. Why would you show so much hate against a girl WHO IS ONLY 17 YEARS OLD? You must be FAT, BALDING, NEVER BEEN ON A DATE, AND HAVE A SMALL HOO-HOO if you would attack MORGAN who is JUST A TEENAGE GIRL.
*******************

Isn't what Alan said about Morgan, the same thing as what Chris says about Michelle...he's attacking a GIRL who's only 16!!!
2005-10-15 @ 21:17
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
Uh, Patrick. That was sort of Bay Area Golfer's point. In your zeal to make up any excuse for the 0 for 30, you Wie Warriors do the exact same things you criticize others for doing to longtime pro Michelle Wie.

That's what makes you guys so humorous and lovable.
2005-10-15 @ 22:04
Comment from: TT [Visitor]
Except for Friday and Saturday's rounds, Paula Creamer will always be better than Michelle Wie.
2005-10-15 @ 23:14
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Chris. There is a big difference in objecting to a golfer making negative comments about another golfer, and harping about a golfer for not winning. Alan wasn't saying Morgan Pressel was a bad golfer, he was rather making the same type of criticism that was so often leveled against John McEnroe for displaying an unsportsmanlike attitude.


Oh by the way, it sounds like you expect a long wait for Michelle's first win--does that mean you are ready to accept Jim Nugent's bet? Or do you still expect the loser Michelle Wie to set an all time LPGA record as the youngest winner ever in a multiround tournament?
2005-10-16 @ 00:50
Comment from: Scott [Visitor]
To the author: Why are you so biased against this young lady? What are you trying to prove? What's your point? That she hasn't won? Brilliant. How many tournaments should she have won by now in your opinion? You are entitled to your opinion...even if you show your a$$ when you share it.
2005-10-16 @ 01:35
Comment from: AhhSoo [Visitor]
Ummm Scott, Chris Baldie is just trying to prove that he is NOT afflicted with SP syndrome.

Prove it to us Wie Wargs he must but success is not his future made.

The SP syndrome virus has moved higher and is now assaulting his brain causing his hair to fall out. :)
2005-10-16 @ 01:52
Comment from: Asur Bekanan [Visitor]
Don't feed the Baldwin troll.

2005-10-16 @ 03:06
Consciouse: All these hateful comments about me are really hurting my self-esteem.

Bald brain: Shut up conscious… Focus dammet. Think of the positives. Even though everyone thinks im a moron they make me feel so special when they reply to my blog, even if what i write about makes as much sense as the raining frogs in magnolia.(there's a little dennis miller obscure comment for you Chris, since its the only form of communication you seem to get)

Conscious: But you don’t understand Mr Pauly Shore for brains. Every time you open your mouth about golf you’re slowly......

Bald Brain: Shut-up!! Shut-up!!
Don't you know how the world works?
All you need is people's attention. Do you think that because Bush is president he knows how to run the country?
No, of course not.
Everyone knows by now that i don’t have any ability to reason and that my sole purpose in life is to reflect on all the negative attributes of people. Its what makes me happy.

Conscious: Isn’t the guy writing this blog entry doing exactly what he criticises everyone else on?

Guy who's writing this blog entry:
Yes you are right conscious. Im acting like a real pagan. You see its a disease that you get when you read the crap that Baldwin puts out. Some people even start calling themselves Shanks....or Meetoo. Its frightening.

Bald Brain: naaa ha another sucker!!



2005-10-16 @ 09:16
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Shanks- Why does the PGA (again you like the best) Keep track of top 10's?? Why do they keep track of money won??? Why do the track scoring average)Why do they stress performance in the majors?? Why do they keep track of consecutive cuts?? Why do they note top 3's"".

The answer to all of this is in a sport where the most dominant winner ever..loses 75% of the time, they need other means of reviewing quality of play.

Look at the world rankings... 20 seconds would have you ranked MUCH higher than 10 wins and 10 missed cuts. (consistency of performance or "positional ranking" (the person who consistently finishes the highest) is how they rank the best player (absolutely NOT the most wins... Vijay has 12 wins over the ranking period to Tiger's 6.. yet do to the strenth of Tiger's finishes and where they happen..he has a commanding lead )

In 1998 David Duval had FOUR wins, Mark Omeara had 2 (both majors) Omeara was player of the year. 1996 Phil Mickelson had 4 wins..Tom Lehman 2 (1 major) Lehman was voted player of the year...The number of wins is not what delinates dominance or greatness.

On the LPGA, the world rankings keep track of head to head finishes (a way of winning within the tournament) ...

Michelle Wie beats the top 10 player 70% of the time... like it or not that is dominant!!!
2005-10-16 @ 09:17
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
By the way Shanks-- I went to WEBSTER'S (see below)

Check out definition number 2 (and remember number 2 is not less correct ..that's not why they are numbered..i.e. #1 under HOT.. might be temperature, #2 might be ANGELINA JOLIE (both are equally correct)
**************************************

From Websters:

2 entries found for dominant.
To select an entry, click on it.
dominant[1,adjective]dominant[2,noun]

Main Entry: 1dom·i·nant
Pronunciation: -n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin dominant-, dominans, present participle of dominari
1 : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others
2 : overlooking and commanding from a superior position
3 : of, relating to, or exerting ecological or genetic dominance
4 : being the one of a pair of bodily structures that is the more effective or predominant in action

As I said you "positionally dominant (don't mention use of words with me again PUHLEAZE). Finishing higher 70% of the time is positionally dominant.

I would go further and state that #1 NEVER applies (except in a single tournament) "prevailing over all others is impossible when the best "prevails over all otherS" 25% OF THE TIME! This is why they track finishes/position, scoring avaerage, finishes in majors, money won, etc. That is what "positional dominance" means since the websters definition, you like to refer to, does not apply to golf where winning (even for Annika and Tiger" happen less often than losing.
2005-10-16 @ 09:36
Comment from: AhhSoo [Visitor]
Ahh meetoo, more irrefutable logic. You da MAN (or WOMAN). Keep it coming... I love it. But its wasted on Baldwin & his Baldie Wargs cause their afflicted with SP syndrome too.
2005-10-16 @ 10:10
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Does anyone think Annika can be challenged today?

If so, by who?
2005-10-16 @ 10:11
Comment from: steven [Visitor]
whoever it is baldwin will say that he predicted it.
2005-10-16 @ 11:58
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Just checked the score, it looks like everyone is trying to give Annika a little breathing space. Michelle drops a shot to go 6 behind (after 2 holes). Gloria drops a shot to go 6 behind (after 2 holes).

Please girls ... Annika doesn't need the help.
2005-10-16 @ 14:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I meant Gloria dropped two shots.

She was just 4 behind, at the start (before her 2 holes).
+2 for 2 holes sounds bad.
Creamer is +1, Michelle +1.
Matthew (Michelles's playing partner) is +2. So everyone in the last couple of groups doing bad. Annika just easing couple of pars.

There'll be a twist in this yet.
2005-10-16 @ 14:08
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Creamer is still going to win this.
Just wait and see.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS.: Thanks Chris for info on how to get old blogs.

2005-10-16 @ 14:20
Comment from: jason [Visitor]
Mr anonymous who wrote the inner monologue of Chris Baldwin....you are a genius!! Thanks for the comedy man. That was hilarious!!!
2005-10-16 @ 14:50
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
chris....is a douchebag
(sorry for my language, but im only 16)
2005-10-16 @ 15:40
Comment from: jason [Visitor]
I would call chris a scumbag...but that of course will be a insult to bags filled with scum
2005-10-16 @ 15:52
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
As any intelligent person would have expected, when Annika brings her A game, that is that.
She is half-way through her final round, at a rain delay, and has all but won.
The anti-Wie brigade will, as usual, try to make this a failure on Wie's part. The reality is, when Annika is at her best, everyone else is playing for 2nd place.

Still a good chance of 2nd place for Michelle as there is for Paula.
2005-10-16 @ 16:09
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
GRACE PARK is now 3rd last.
She was leading after two days, 2 shots clear at -11.
Now she is at -3 near the back of the field.

If this had happened to Michelle, how many comments would there be, but it's Grace Park and has got no mention.

PS.: Grace Park is LOVELY.
2005-10-16 @ 16:14
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
grace park is very elegant and classy...but i would take michelle/paula/natalie any day! (they're more my age) =D
2005-10-16 @ 16:19
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
Grace isn't exactly over the hill.
She's GORGEOUS.

The others are hot too, and Christie Kerr too.
2005-10-16 @ 17:37
Comment from: Doug [Visitor]
Without regard to relative talent, it is a shame that Michelle continues to denigrate the fine players of the LPGA, for whom I have great admiration and respect. Even during her recent transition she continues to relegate them to the position of second class golfers by continuing to express her desire to play with the "best", the men. For all those women who have fought for respect, sponsorship, TV coverage and tour money this must be a bitter pill. If she is indeed the "phenom" that her hypesters would have everyone believe, what a wonderful opportunity lost for women's sports legitimacy. I guess Nancy, Annika, Paula, Natalie and other ladies will just have to carry the banner without her. They can do the job !!! Michelle does seem to be a talented golfer (I wish I could do even close). Few 15-16 year olds have any view of the world that isn't self centered. Those who advise her either have no sense or have no influence. It's not her fault.
2005-10-16 @ 17:55
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]

Doug-

I have no idea what world you're living in, but I have never once seen or heard Michelle Wie denigrating anybody in the LPGA. She has been extremely respectful of everyone in the LPGA. If anything, its been a few LPGA players who have been disrespectful and resentful of her.

When she says she wants to play the best players in the world she means the best golfers in the world male and female. In reading numerous interviews with her-she has always stated as such.

You're reading way too much negativity in what Michelle Wie does.

I think the question should be why you feel so threatened by Michelle trying to play against men.
Young girls should be proud of having someone like her as a role model who doesn't just sit back and accept the status quo and dares to dream and be different.

I know my daughters will be looking up to her.
2005-10-16 @ 18:03
Comment from: Doug [Visitor]
Thanks for your concern. She's no threat to me.
2005-10-16 @ 18:39
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
Bay Area Golfer said:
********************
Bay Area Golfer:

You must really be sick to attack someone who NEVER DID YOU ANY HARM. Why would you show so much hate against a girl WHO IS ONLY 17 YEARS OLD? You must be FAT, BALDING, NEVER BEEN ON A DATE, AND HAVE A SMALL HOO-HOO if you would attack MORGAN who is JUST A TEENAGE GIRL.
*******************

Patrick:

** Isn't what Alan said about Morgan, the same thing as what Chris says about Michelle...he's attacking a GIRL who's only 16!!! **

Swoosh! (That's the sound of it going right over Patrick's and Alan's respective -- or collective -- heads)

-BAG
2005-10-16 @ 18:57
Comment from: Bay Area Golfer [Visitor]
Back here,

Permalink 2005-10-14 @ 16:14

I wrote in this thread:

** Maybe the big story of the tournament isn't Michelle Wie. Sounds like the big story is Annika isn't ready to be fitted for a coffin just yet.

-BAG **

And that's how it turned out. You may have young guns like Paula and Natalie, and the hoopla surrounding Michelle, but Annika still has her Winchester to fire back.

-BAG
2005-10-16 @ 19:13
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Looks like Paula is the top American golfer for the LPGA of 2005. Pretty darn good for the rookie -- three wins this season.

The latest list had Creamer a few thousand ahead of Christie Kerr before Samsung and Creamer finished comfortably ahead of Kerr and Wie this weekend. She was tied with Gloria Park with Park on the 18th hole as of about 4 p.m. PT. So that would be a 2nd place finish for Creamer. I believe this is the last LPGA event for 2005, right?

I caught Paula's eagle on the tube. The shot of the day, no doubt about it.

So the rookie overcame her struggles of rounds 3 and front nine of round 4 with two birdies and an eagle. Evidently Annika and Gl.Park both bogeyed the last hole.

Paula got 2nd place by herself. Great finish, rookie, and congrats!

With a new spirit of determination on the part of Annika Sorenstam; Paula Creamer as potentially Annika's toughest foe, along with Creamer seeking her first Major; Christie Kerr and Christina Kim being formidable; the never-count-them-out Korean ladies; along with Natlie Gulbis and Michelle Wie trying to find that first win, 2006 should be quite entertaining!

And it looks as if Chris Baldwin will have at least until February to needle the Wie Warriors.

It's not Michelle who's annoying. She is just fine. Wie is doing what any free-marketeer should do, and I fully support her: Wie is making as much money as she possibly can as quickly as possible. And she is a very fine golfer.

It's as simple as this: Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michelle Wie and Paula Creamer are NOT RICH ENOUGH. Neither am I. Neither are you. And neither is anyone in America. I believe we should all be richer tomorrow than we are today and we should do whatever we can legally and ethically to get richer.

It's the Wie Warriors who bring misery on themselves. They more than anyone else cause the bickering and bad feelings with their fanatical hyper-sensititivy.

All Baldwin has to do is dangle a morsel of red meat, and the Wie Wargs react as predictably as sunrise. Baldwin knows his audience and knows how to induce the Wie Warriors to crawl out of the woodwork. It's like watching a carnival.

If the Wie Warriors want to blame somebody for the skepticism, they need only look in the mirror.

Their looney antics only discredit Michelle Wie.

-George
2005-10-16 @ 19:37
Comment from: Ann [Visitor]
I agree with you George, 2006 would be very entertaining.

Annika was great as always.
Paula's phenomal eagle shot was amazing.
Michelle, who although came in fourth, disquieted everyone that disagreed with her decision to turn pro. If we had to learn anything from this, it is that Wie was more than right to turn pro and is ready for it. I mean if you've already played several tournaments with the players and placed atop consistently, and if someone was willing to pay you $10 million, the question really is why wouldn't you.

I really don't get this Creamer/Wie/Pressel bashing. They're just playing their games. They might have good days and bad days, but FEW people (Baldwin, very well included) here feel the need to attack the golfers personally, as if they know them. Baldwin, this is really "first" event as a professional, so techincally the record she has playing as an amateur in professional events do not matter. We don't all go back to how Tiger did when he was an amateur playing in professional events. Even so, this being atop in a field of the 20 best golfers, that's somthing.



Too bad Chris won't get anymore readers until Febuary, right?
2005-10-16 @ 20:12
Comment from: Cheryl [Visitor]
Good points Ann and George...although I have a feeling Baldwin will be gloating for the next week.He'll look like a prize idiot but gloating nonetheless.

Michelle has absolutely nothing to feel bad about -she placed in the Top 5 in her first pro tournament for goodness sakes !

Every pro golfer talks about how nerve wracking their first pro tournament was and they were full grown adults by then. Can you imagine someone who just turned 16 that week ?? ( The great Annika was 38th in her 1st pro tournament and she was already in her twenties)

What every golf commentator on NBC agreed upon was that Michelle will get a better feel for courses as she competes in more tournaments. Achieving this will be much more difficult for her because she can really only compete over her summer vacation and a few holidays, while the rest of the LPGA pros get to compete year round.

Nevertheless, Dottie Pepper gave her an A for the day for withstanding all the focus and pressure on her, although she's been critical of Wie in the past I'm glad she put Michelle's record in perspective--the young lady just turned 16 and no other golfer of that age has fared as well as she has against professional golfers.

2005-10-16 @ 21:04
Comment from: Melanie [Visitor]


Bad news guys--Michelle just got disqualified for an illegal drop yesterday.

That was shown on TV the whole time, and none of the golf commentators said anything about it.

Man-she has to give up a 4th place finish!
2005-10-16 @ 21:14
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
Oh man --that sucks!!!

Somewhere, Morgan Pressel and Baldwin are getting an evil kick out of it.
2005-10-16 @ 21:16
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

LPGA officials said the video was inconclusive, but after talking to the caddie and Michelle they decided that she dropped the ball a bit closer.

The unfortunate thing is the guy who noticed this Micheal Bamberger from SI should have said something the day it happened.

He waited until the last day after Michelle already signed her card, and now she got disqualified. They could have straightened out her card before she signed it yesterday and everything would have been fine.

Maybe the guy hates Michelle Wie or something so he made sure to not do anything until the tournament was over.
2005-10-16 @ 21:57
Comment from: SI [Visitor]
well what do you expect from a reporter who earn living by cooking up stories by themselves. funny thing is he is reporting news he made !!!!!

i wonder why there are no many baldies out there....
2005-10-16 @ 22:10
Comment from: SI [Visitor]
Michael Bamberger, a reporter for Sports Illustrated, told tour officials Sunday afternoon that he was concerned about the drop. Rules officials Jim Haley and Robert O. Smith reviewed tape from NBC Sports before taking Wie and caddie Greg Johnston to the seventh green after the tournament ended Sunday.

----
real funny.. he was concerned!
2005-10-16 @ 22:14
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
SI's Bamberger -certainly had an agenda in mind when he turned Michelle in.

As a sportswriter convering the Michelle beat- I'm assuming he knows the ins and outs of the golf rules.
He had to know waiting until the last day after Michelle signed her card would lead to disqualification.

He doesn't realize he is making himself look bad when he keeps proclaiming that he noticed it Saturday on the 3rd round. If he was so "concerned" why didn't he notify officials then ?
They would have added the 2 shots on Michelle's card BEFORE she would have signed it the next day.

Michelle definitely did not realize what she did- even LPGA tour officials said the video was inconclusive.
2005-10-16 @ 22:21
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
If Bamberger had an agenda, that would be a pretty dumb way to act on it. I can imagine the conversation when an executive at Nike calls SI management.

Than again, maybe Bamberger wants to switch to covering mini-golf.
2005-10-16 @ 22:51
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Make all the excuses you want. Wie has no wins in 2005. That's zero, zippy, nada, zilch, goose-egg. NO WAY can her year be better than Creamer's, who won 3 times, including 2 LPGA events. It's not a knock on Wie. It's just the way that it is. Better luck next year for all you fanatic Wie-Warriors. Maybe she'll be able to actually win a tournament.

It's a shame about the DQ ... erased another display of positional dominance. I can't even imagine how rough Balwin is gonna be about this gaffe.
2005-10-16 @ 22:52
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]

The agenda I'm talking about is not any Bamberger agenda against Michelle Wie personally, but more of an agenda to make a name for himself.

He's a nobody SI reporter and now he's all over the news--all for a completely BS ruling now that more facts are coming out about it.
2005-10-16 @ 23:14
Comment from: Fred [Visitor]
I don't understand how you can be so stupid. You said it yourself, she's only sixteen. So why do you keep harping on the fact that she hasn't won anything yet? I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't win for the next two or three years. I'm pretty impressed by what she's done. What did you do when you were sixteen? It's pretty sad when a grown mad is so envious of a sixteen year old girl.
2005-10-17 @ 01:22
Comment from: Fred [Visitor]
One other thing, shut the fuck up about Natalie Gulbis.
2005-10-17 @ 01:38
Comment from: Blazer [Visitor]
Chris is spot on about the "marketing" of Michelle Wie. In the Sony Open I followed on PGA.com's Tour Pass while watching on TV. On several occasions the announcers (can't remember their names) raved about 290, 300 yard drives into the wind while shotlink showed yardages like 260, 270. Hmmmm....

MW has had and will probably continue to have a tremendous impact on golf, but IMHO if she doesn't win in the next year or so she'll be quickly brushed aside for another phenom.
2005-10-17 @ 02:31
Comment from: joie [Visitor]
We can all be critical of MW, but look at her pockets now!

From our perspective, MW is still immature in a lot of aspects of golf in order to win a tournament; but I believe, in her own perspective, it doesn't matter what we think or what the critics say, its all about the "MONEY!!!!"

A lot of pros and ignorant critics are just jealous of where she stands now, because they don't make money, create noise and get media attention like MW does.

So, for those of you who are critical of her --- suck it up and drive on !!! Just enjoy the game! Support your favorite player(s) without creating any gap and friction against other person. Otherwise, you gonna end-up a "constant looser" and the millionaire MW is just laughing at you (critics).

Fairways & Greens,
jg


2005-10-17 @ 03:19
Comment from: George [Visitor]
See, this is what I've been talking about for weeks (months?) now. It's not Michelle Wie who's the problem. She's the talent.

It's the Wie Warriors who are the problem. They are lunatics, infected by paranoia, twisted by hate, fanatical in their need for Michelle Wie to win THIS VERY INSTANT.

Here's a sampling of their comments today, and one from a month ago. It's an ugly picture.

*****

Kyle
Somewhere, Morgan Pressel and Baldwin are getting an evil kick out of it.

Kyle
Maybe the guy hates Michelle Wie or something so he made sure to not do anything until the tournament was over.


SI (kind of an ironic handle, considering the circumstances)
well what do you expect from a reporter who earn living by cooking up stories by themselves. funny thing is he is reporting news he made !!!!!

Mike
SI's Bamberger -certainly had an agenda in mind when he turned Michelle in.


Mike
The agenda I'm talking about is not any Bamberger agenda against Michelle Wie personally, but more of an agenda to make a name for himself.
He's a nobody SI reporter and now he's all over the news--all for a completely BS ruling now that more facts are coming out about it.

Fred [Visitor]
I don't understand how you can be so stupid.
[...]
It's pretty sad when a grown man is so envious of a sixteen year old girl.

Fred [Visitor]
One other thing, shut the fuck up about Natalie Gulbis.

Jimmy Coulthard
(from around mid-September -- After I mentioned that I preferred to root for Northern California-rooted golfers such as Tiger Woods, Paula Creamer, Natalie Gulbis, Christina Kim, Pat Hurst & Dorothy Delasin, but that I would also pull for golfers such as Michelle Wie, Morgan Pressel and Christie Kerr against non-Americans)

Jimmy replied:

** OK guys. Ever hear of the word RACISM or the word RACIST. I am white and I am from the Bay Area. I am far more impressed by what Michelle Wie HAS ACCOMPLISHED than by what Paula Creamer has accomplished, although Paula Creamer's accomplishments are impressive. If George's views are anything more than just RACISM, it should be possible to find a Korean American from Hawaii who shares them. Good luck with your search. **

*****

I'm pretty sure, Jim, that Tiger Woods, Christina Kim and Dorothy Delasin are non-white. Or maybe you were accusing me of being a racist because I hate whites. Wait. I also root for Paula Creamer. Gosh, it's so hard to keep your ravings straight.

With few exceptions, the Wie Warriors are loopy fanatics. Anyone who questions their sanity is not out of line.

-George
2005-10-17 @ 03:28
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Anne:
** Too bad Chris won't get anymore readers until Febuary, right? **

All Chris Baldwin has to do to get readers and posters is to type the words "Michelle Wie" in the title of a blog and he will ensure that the Wie Warriors crawl out of the woodwork like cockroaches that scurry after a bit of red meat Baldwin left out on the kitchen floor.

Baldwin knows his audience, he is toying with his audience, and has them acting as predictably as rats in a maze.

Maybe the silliest ones are the posters who plead "don't feed the Baldwin troll, or don't respond to Baldwin" -- when that very comment just extends the thread even further.

The Wie Warriors are almost as entertaining as the Feed the Clown game at the county fair. Almost.

-George
2005-10-17 @ 03:36
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Lost in the Wie Warriors' lunacy, you've gotta love this comment from Paula, proving yet again how classy she is...

**
Creamer, whose two victories this year include a seven-shot win in France, holed a wedge shot for eagle on the 12th hole and shot 70 to finish second.

"I know what it feels like now to be just crushed,'' Creamer said. ``Annika was probably just sending a statement to the world saying, 'I'm still here. I'm still the best player.'"
**

Congratulations, Paula, on a great rookie year. Paula Creamer, with her prize winnings this year finished ahead of Christie Kerr. Which means Paula is the LPGA's best American golfer.

-George
2005-10-17 @ 03:56
Comment from: George [Visitor]
And don't cry for Michelle. The $53,000 she forfeited is 0.53% of $10 million.

-George
2005-10-17 @ 03:58
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Comment from: brad [Visitor]
* Michelle Wie in 3rd place. Where is Creamer? *

2nd place?

Always best to wait until AFTER hole #72, Brad, before you insert that foot in your mouth.

-George
2005-10-17 @ 04:47
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]

Talking about lunacy George--you just posted 5 times in a row- now who's obsessive compulsive here.
2005-10-17 @ 05:44
Comment from: AJF [Visitor]
Someone ask what the difference with the other tourneys since Michelle didnt win this one.

You dumb jealous buttheads

10$ mil!!!! in your face!!!

How much was your paycheck? or better what did you make last year?

What $60,000, $70,000? no matter what you buttheads say, michelle is going to make ALOT more than you ever will

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

2005-10-17 @ 06:28
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]

** Talking about lunacy George--you just posted 5 times in a row- **

Not my fault the Wie Warriors have gone into hiding.

** now who's obsessive compulsive here. **

As for you Mike, you have nothing constructive to say, as usual.

For me, I figured I'd just be efficient about it and do all the posts at once.

And speaking of lunacy, let's look at the "well-reasoned" comments of AJF,

** You dumb jealous buttheads
10$ mil!!!! in your face!!!
How much was your paycheck? or better what did you make last year?
What $60,000, $70,000? no matter what you buttheads say, michelle is going to make ALOT more than you ever will
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! **

AJF epitomizes the rabid nature of the Wie Warriors.

I hope Michelle follows up her $500,000 contribution to the Katrina victims with a donation that would have to be equally large to provide psychotherapy for the lunatics who are her fans.

-George
2005-10-17 @ 11:52
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
***************************
Comment from: brad [Visitor]
* Michelle Wie in 3rd place. Where is Creamer? *
***************************
Then Geroge Said:
2nd place?

Always best to wait until AFTER hole #72, Brad, before you insert that foot in your mouth.
******************************

You are right George it is best to wait until after the 72 holes.
Paula beat Michelle, well done to Paula.
Now Paula has beaten Michelle 3 times, to Michelle beating Paula 5 times this year.

The means it is just 60% versus 40% in Michelle's favour.

Well done to Paula for running such a fine player so close.
2005-10-17 @ 14:21
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Who's hiding?? I have nothing to say, really. Michelle played great (Again), out played most of the top 10 (again) and finished below the top 2 players in the world golf ranking (Creamer is number 2 because Michelle falls two tourneys short of qualifying). Her record against the Top 2 women players in the world is now 8-7-1, in 2005 (Yes, she actually has a winning record against the top 2, an amazing result for anyone ...but yes moreso for a 16 year old).

She is the second (or third--depending who wins the head to head each week) best women's player on the planet at 16!

Oh and yes...she desrved to be disqualified.
2005-10-17 @ 14:29
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]
Chris Baldwin:

Sniping is not reporting, mate. The kid is barely 16 years young and has finished 2nd and 4th and many golf elders think she belongs.

Do I sense a bit of envy? Is it her game, the $10 mil, her looks, or the fame and adulation of fans? Dude, there is this operation they do to chop your carrot off, then may be you could join the lpga, too!
2005-10-17 @ 16:47
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
I had this exchange with a very helpful Britney over at Tim McDonald's blog. This should end the conspiracy theories aspect of the Wie DQ:

** Comment from: Britney [Visitor]
George,
If her mistake has been discovered right after her shot, she would have been given a 2 stroke penality. However, as soon as she signed her score card at the end of that day, there was nothing left to do but disqualify her (disqualifation is the automatic penality for submitting an incorrect score for the round). **

George:

Hi, Britney, thanks for your response.

I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure. So being as it was a round-by-round sich, there is no conspiracy.

To rescue Wie & her caddy from their blunder, Bamberger actually would have had to become part of the story, by speaking up at the moment the drops occurred.

Two scenarios:

"Hey, Michelle, the way you're doing that drop is wrong. You've advanced the ball toward the hole."

Or...

"Hey, Michelle, you had better not sign that round-3 scorecard, you might get disqualified. You took an illegal drop and didn't take a 2-stroke penalty."

In both of these hypothetical scenarios, that would be a case of the reporter actually interjecting himself into the events, and no longer being an observer.

The events happened and the reporter was honest and reported the infraction to the officials.

In reality, so long as Wie conducted the drop, didn't take the 2-stroke penalty, and then signed the scorecard, she was over with and done after round 3, as soon as she signed that card.

It matters not when it was brought to the officials' attention, she was eligible for DQ, as long as the officials found out about it.

-George
2005-10-17 @ 16:47
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Johnny...

*****
Paula beat Michelle, well done to Paula.
Now Paula has beaten Michelle 3 times, to Michelle beating Paula 5 times this year.

The means it is just 60% versus 40% in Michelle's favour.

Well done to Paula for running such a fine player so close.
*****

And Johnny, I know you and others will celebarate Paula's great year: 3 championships, including 2 on the LPGA. Paula also led her nation to victory in the Solheim Cup, by first guaranteeing a victory and then backing it up with a singles match rout and a great record overall.

Also, I know you'll celebrate how Paula is now consistently finishing ahead of Michelle, and has dramatically improved on that front: Three of the last four tournaments in which they've both played, the U.S. Open, Evian Masters, British Open and Samsung, Paula has finished ahead of Michelle. Michelle only managed to lead in Britain.

Average strokes in those last four tournaments, Paula two better per tournament than Michelle.

So congrats to Michelle in those last four tournaments, for coming within 2.0 strokes of Paula Creamer, the #1 American golfer of 2005. (including the state of Hawaii)

Johnny, I know you'll join us in celebrating Paula's 3 wins and her expanding advantage over Michelle, both in per-tournament strokes and per-year victories.

(again, will any of the Wie Warriors catch the irony?)

-George
2005-10-17 @ 17:07
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George A,
I know you are trying to be funny, but you are doing a poor job.

You are basically saying that it is possible to twist the stats either way to suit your cause.

However facts are facts, you cannot base something on the last 4 events. But you CAN base results over a year.

Johnny is absolutely correct in his assertions, Michelle has a 5 versus 3 advantage. Get over it, Michelle has done better against Paula and that is undisputable.

I do celebrate Paula's TWO lpga victories. Fair play to her.

As regards LEADING the US to Solheim Cup, I think you are really moving to cloud cuckoo land here. She played WELL. She did not LEAD ANYBODY anwhere.
She just played well in her matches, nothing more.

As regards per year victories, when you play 21 tournaments, it isn't that difficult to have more victories than someone who has played 7 tournaments.

I've had this arguement with Shanks before and he eventually seemed to realise the flaws in your argument when I put it to him this way.

Let Vijay play 7 events.
Let Tiger play 21 events.

Lets see who wins the most events, and whoever wins more, lets call him the best player.

Shanks wasn't able to counter this argument and I don't think you will be either.

Well George, look on it this way, at least you've learned something!!!!
2005-10-17 @ 17:31
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
I thought Nancy Lopez led our Solheim Cup team to victory.

Annika had more points thn Paula..did she lead her team to defeat??
2005-10-17 @ 18:31
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Lets see who wins the most events, and whoever wins more, lets call him the best player. **

Cool! Paula's better since she won three events, two on the LPGA. Michelle won zero this year.

** Well George, look on it this way, at least you've learned something!!!! **

That you look really silly twisted into a pretzel? ;)

Norman, if you want to pro-rate, you probably have to have some value other than zero to meaningfully undertake the

X/w = y/z formula, which when one strips away all of your kerfluffle is what you're basically trying to do.

Both players would have to win at least 1 tournament to have a meaningful calculation. And there's no guarantee how meaningful it would be, in any case.

Paula did her part; Michelle failed to keep up her end of the bargain. That's not Paula's fault, nor yours.

Still, until that changes, the only equation you need know is 3 > 0

Keep on trucking, though. Now and then it's entertaining.

Oh, and I may have made a mistake in calculating Paula's expanding per-tournament lead on Michelle.

If I heard rightly, once Michelle's blunder was exposed, she was first slapped with a two-stroke penalty before she got her DQ.

If so, that means Michelle finished 4 strokes behind Paula, not 2, at Samsung.

If that was correct, that raises Paula's per-stroke average in the most recent tournaments to 2.5, not 2.0. My bad.

So good going, Michelle, for getting semi-close to Paula, within 2-3 strokes.

And congrats again to America's #1 female golfer, Paula Creamer!

-George
2005-10-17 @ 18:41
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
I thought Nancy Lopez led our Solheim Cup team to victory.

Annika had more points thn Paula..did she lead her team to defeat?? **

Annika did lead her European team -- which was bested by the American team Paula led.
Annika did her part. She and her team mates were simply beaten by Paula & Co.

-George
2005-10-17 @ 18:44
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
What about Nancy?? I bet if you ask Paula or her teammated none of them would point to Paula as leading that team.

She did however play well and look mighty goog doing it.

Did anyone see Paula in red this last saturday???? HOLY COW!! Shw looked fine!
2005-10-17 @ 20:56
Comment from: hummer [Visitor]
Hey chris, do you really mean what you saying or you just playing dumb?
2005-10-18 @ 02:33
Comment from: John D [Visitor]
Q: What's better than a CHOKE? A: A "DQ".
2005-10-18 @ 06:40
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
What about Nancy?? I bet if you ask Paula or her teammated none of them would point to Paula as leading that team. **

Paula's too classy and mature to brag about herself like that.

***
She did however play well and look mighty good doing it.
***

No arguments there. She usually does play great.

-George
2005-10-18 @ 15:06
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, I countered your silly little argument. You just disagree with me. Not only did Creamer have a better year than Mi-Wie, so did Kerr & Jang, to name a few. Try to get over the fact that Wie did not win a tournament in 2005, would you please?
2005-10-18 @ 15:09
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:
*************************
Annika did lead her European team -- which was bested by the American team Paula led.
Annika did her part. She and her team mates were simply beaten by Paula & Co.
*************************

It's a shame that it isn't possible to make text bold here, because I would have liked to make your above comment bold, because it highlights your intelligence level.

Only you and other maniac's could say Paula led the team. SHE DID NOT LEAD THE TEAM. She was one player on the team. NANCY LED THE TEAM. That is a fact. Get over it.

Another fact is that Michelle beat Paula on 5 of 8 occasions this year. You need to try to get over that too. Seek conselling if it helps.

Another funny thing you said, Annika's team was "BESTED" by Paula's team.
Just a quick English lesson.
If something is the best, there is nothing better. No such word "BESTED" exists. Next time try "BETTERED".
If you don't believe me, you can ask your teacher when you go into school tomorrow.
2005-10-18 @ 15:35
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks said:
Norman, I countered your silly little argument. You just disagree with me. Not only did Creamer have a better year than Mi-Wie, so did Kerr & Jang, to name a few. Try to get over the fact that Wie did not win a tournament in 2005, would you please?
*****************************

You didn't counter my argument. You never directly replied. That is still the case. There is no counterarguement.
At least George tried (unsuccessfully) to try to counter it but he was found wanting.
He tried to work it out based on events played, but given Paula has won 1 in 11 and Michell has not played 11 events, that shows conclusively that you cannot base an argument on win total. Therefore the only thing you can base it on is head to head. 5-3 Michelle leads.

As regards Jang, if you are trying to say that she had a better year than Michelle, then I don't even need to reply to that. I wonder how many people agree with you there. 1% maybe.

As regards getting over the fact that Michelle hasn't won in 2005, I am over it. I never expected her to win an event this year. I don't expect her to win an event next year either, although she may well do, if Annika is off her game. I am happy enough with the fact that she has outplayed everyone this year, excluding the greatest ever female player.
That's Annika by the way, in case you Creamer worshipers are thinking it's her.
2005-10-18 @ 15:47
Comment from: John D [Visitor]
Actually, she is 0-0, on the LPGA. And with a record like that, she can not possibly be ranked in the top, oh say, 50?!?!
2005-10-19 @ 05:27
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John D. Who is 0-0 on the LPGA?
2005-10-19 @ 06:49
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
John D has no idea what he is talking about. Michelle misses world ranking cutoff by 3 events. If she qualified she would be ranked number 2.

Norman these guys have this HUGE misunderstanding on how much winning is worth in comparison with finishing second,third,etc.

It doesn't matter whether it is world ranking points or player of the year points. The pro's value consistency. Winning is worth roughly 50% more than a second. So two seconds get you more points than 1 win.

Sure wis are important?? But I have never seen high finishes as devalued as they are on this board.
2005-10-19 @ 09:15
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Very true Meetoo, I think some of these guys think that the scoreboard at the end of an event should just display the first place name and leave out the rest.

I wonder how Raphael Jacquelin would feel about that.
He won his first event last week, after 238 tries on the European tour.
He turned pro in 1995. I wonder if he thinks the 10 years he spent in all those tournaments were a waste. I'd bet he doesn't.
2005-10-19 @ 13:35
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
The pros would rather be consistent than win???? What kind of drugs are you smoking?

2005-10-19 @ 13:39
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Who is the world number 1?
Who is the world number 2?
Who is the world number 3?
Who is the world number 4?
Who is the world number 5?

I bet practically all golf fans could answer these questions.
However if you ask who has more wins out of various players, the fans would struggle to answer.

World ranking is the most important thing.
In the case of players, who play in about 21 events a year, or Vijay who play 31 events a year, it is very important to win. That is alot of events.

However in the case of someone who plays in 7 scattered events, winning is a great bonus, but has to be considered unlikely.

If you gave ANY woman player, just 7 events to play in and told them they needed to win, Annika is probably the only one who could do it.
Creamer would be less likely than MW.
2005-10-19 @ 16:53
Comment from: Denver Player [Visitor]
Norman,

I have to agree with Shanks on this one. Funny, because I don't agree with any of his other comments on any other blog. But for now, Creamer should be considered the better player because of her wins AND her consistency.

However, I would like to re-evaluate this argument in two years, and see which player is better. I think Wie has more potential, given her game and her swing. It certainly has fewer moving parts and seems to be more repeatable. I think her distance and arsenal of shots will serve her well in the future.

All in all, I think Wie, if she doesn't burn out, will prove to be a great player, better than Creamer. Certainly, she has more potential. She just needs some time to grow up. Unfortunately, some don't want to give her that time. The would rather harsh on her for the fact that she hasn't won. Funny, because most of the people launching criticism have probably never accomplished anything in golf.

2005-10-19 @ 17:48
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Oh no, DP, you're likely to get some amazing comments for taking that position. For instance, this latest brainchild of Normans about world rankings.

I totally agree with your comments. Wie has more potential than any golfer I can think of, ever. But as you know, potential is just that, until you prove otherwise. If she matures like the great ones do, she could possibly be more dominant than Annika - and that's saying something. But these Wie fanatics will STILL read something negative into my comments. Amazing.

2005-10-20 @ 10:20
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I'm glad Shanks, that you have now informed us that world ranking don't matter. Anyone who frequents these blogs will really learn a great deal from you.

Shanks, you have repeatedly praised Michelles golf ability and her potential. However you have repeatedly and ferociously insulted her nerve.

Time and time again you have claimed that she has lacked, bottle or emotional maturity or guts (intestinal fortitute in your language).

This is despite the fact that repeatedly she has shown magnificant courage and great nerve. It absolutely amazes me how well she plays under great pressure.

As regards Denver Player thinking Creamer had the better year, that is okay. Basically he is putting more importance on wins than I am.
He also mentions Creamers consistancy, but Michelle's consistancy is second to nobody.

I'd like to put the last few sentance of Denver Players comments to you Shanks, you should heed them:
"Unfortunately, some don't want to give her (Michelle) that time. They would rather harsh on her for the fact that she hasn't won. Funny, because most of the people launching criticism have probably never accomplished anything in golf."

I think these words are apt for you Shanks. She has not had time to win. She is very young. For her to win this young would have been a shock given her limited schedule.

I am certainly not in any hurry for her to win. I think she has done incredibly well. If she goes through next season, without a win, but playing the great golf she played this season I will be more than happy. I'll also be happy if Creamer ups her game to Michelle's standard because it will be good for golf.
2005-10-20 @ 14:28
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Shanks listen to Tiger (he of 45 PGA wins and the best ever 25% win percentage). He says what is important is "consistently giving himself chances". When asked what he liked about his 9 win 2000 season he said, "13 top 3's".

Sure Tiger likes winning (he says "wins take care of number 1"), but it is consistence of performance he is looking for.

All great players have to win!!! Wins simply are not the best way to rank MIchelles progress at this point. She only plays 8 events, those events are played by absolutely the best players, and she does not play a consistent enough tournament schedule.

At this point I rank her play simply. How does she fare against the worlds best players? She has a winning record against the top 10 (one of three players who have that), she has a winning record against world number 2 Paula Creamer, she earned the second most player of the year points in the events she played, she had the second highest earning per event, she had the second lowest stroke average....All as a 16 year old.

Look if she doesn't win a lot of tournaments in the future...not just one but lots...we will not be able to call her a greatplayer...

But right now...dominating the best players in the world...you can EASILY argue she is the second best womem's player.... wins or not!

We will not be
2005-10-20 @ 21:08
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Firstly, the goal is to WIN. Someone who does not accomplish the goal cannot possibly be considered to have a better year than someone who has, especially if that someone has done it more than once!

Secondly, Norman, I cannot help it if during the 2 times Wie has been close to her goal, that she crumbled when the heat was on (US Womens Open & John Deere). Don't shoot the mailman for bringing bad news.

Fortunately, she was only 15 and will most likely mature (perhaps rapidly) and learn how to handle the pressure. But that is not guaranteed. There have been a LOT of No. 1 draft picks that never panned out. I say, wait and see.
2005-10-21 @ 08:36
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks, CREAMER PLAYED 3 TIMES AS MANY TOURNAMENTS.
Therefore, you cannot go on a win ratio.
Lets say you go on top 10 finishes.
Paula has 9 top 10 finishes.

So if Michelle finished top 10 in all her tournaments she would still be behind Paula in total.
HOPEFULLY, that will illustrate to you that it is not right to compare a 22 tournament season with an 8 tournament season and go by total wins or total top 10s.

If you go by your "TOTALS" logic. We could say "Who missed more cuts?
Paula did. So does that make her worse. No it doesn't. She simply played more tournaments, which increased her chances of missing more cuts, and of more top 10's and more wins.

As regards the 2 tournament that you mention (and have mentioned about 10 times before:

- Michelle missed the cut at John Deere by 2 strokes. Going into the last 4 holes, she had a 1 shot advantage over the cut line. It was always touch and go, whether she would make the cut. She just missed it. There was no great shocking failure there. She did extremely well and alot better than any other woman (bar Annika) could have done, and certainly a lot better than Creamer could have done.

- As regards the US Open, Michelle was in contention with about 15 other players. That gives her about a 15-1 chance of winning. She had a bad round like many other players, INCLUDING THE GIRL YOU WORSHIP, PAULA CREAMER.

Take another example Shanks. Take the LPGA championship. Michelle entered this, with lots of muttering from other players saying: she shouldn't be here etc.
What happened next?
Michelle beat everyone in that field bar Annika on top form.
What else could Michelle have done to prove her nerve. She played brilliantly despite all the jealousy and insults about her.
She beat everyone who she could be expected to beat.
The only one she didn't beat was the greatest woman player of all time. Annika playing at that standard, is unbeatable by Wie/Creamer/Kerr or any other woman player.
So Michelle did the absolute maximum she could.
Other examples:
- 2nd at SBS Open.
- 2nd at Evian Masters (behind the lovely Miss Creamer).
- 3rd at the Weetabix Women's British Open. Gold Medal winner for leading amatuer.
- LPGA championship. Gold Medal wiiner for leading amatuer as well as 2nd place.
- 1st woman to qualify for Mens Amatuer Publinx, got to quarter final.
- Missed cut by 2 strokes at John Deere. Shanks regards this as failure. I think it was great play to beat so many PGA pros, AGAIN.
2005-10-21 @ 14:17
Comment from: Mark [Visitor]


Paula Creamer is better NOW due to experience on the tour and being a few years older.

But in the future --no contest
Michelle Wie will own Creamer and the rest of the LPGA.
2005-10-22 @ 20:17
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Mark, I really hope, you just mean that Creamer is better, and NOT had the better year.

Surely it's been proven time and time again that Wie had the better year.

As regards the future, I'm afraid I have to agree with Shanks and others when they say that we can't predict the future. Maybe Wie will go downhill, who knows!

Maybe Creamer will be better than Wie in years to come. Maybe even next year, Creamer might be better than Wie, but this year it was easily Wie's year versus Creamer.

Next year is Paula Creamer's real opportunity, if she can improve, but if Wie gets:
4 top 3 finishes in 8 events again, I think only Annika will better that.
2005-10-23 @ 07:50
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Here's another great stat:

Half of Wie's finishes were in the top 3.
Half of Creamer's finishes were outside the top 15.

By the way, I only show these stats to prove the Creamer-fanatics wrong. I do like Creamer and hope she does really well next year and won't begrude her if she beats Michelle.
2005-10-23 @ 07:52
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
**Shanks**
Secondly, Norman, I cannot help it if during the 2 times Wie has been close to her goal, that she crumbled when the heat was on (US Womens Open & John Deere). Don't shoot the mailman for bringing bad news.
**end

Hey Shanks, you are stop on about the John Deere Classic. Michelle Wie is rubbished. She missed the cuts by two shots. That is FAILURE.
Only RUBBISH players do that.

Look at this weeks results, Vijay Singh has missed the cut by 2 shots and Tiger Woods missed it by 3 shots. Michelle belongs with this type of crap golfer.
2005-10-23 @ 12:05
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Oh, and by the way, it doesn't matter if Michelle played less events than Paula.

Paula is the ice creamer and she is the pink panther. Michelle should stop trying to be like Paula and should pick a colour for herself.

Paula will win at least 5 (AT LEAST) next season.
Michelle won't win any.
2005-10-23 @ 12:07
Comment from: Mark [Visitor]
""Paula is the ice creamer and she is the pink panther. Michelle should stop trying to be like Paula and should pick a colour for herself.""

Jeff --You CANNOT be a man and just type something like that.

You and Baldwin sound like a jealous
13 year old girls
2005-10-23 @ 21:15
Comment from: AJF [Visitor]
30 and 0?

I would like to know how many PGA tournaments this baldwin butthead guy won when he was 16? Or even is he had the balls to even try one? or was he just busy playing with his.
2005-10-24 @ 06:44
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
(A discussion recently overheard in Great Britain.)

Tell me again how many Wie had. Zero, you say? Aw c'mon. How about pro AND amateur? Hmm, still zero. Well how many did Creamer have? Three ... really? Well what is the argument then? You say somebody actually thinks a non-winner has had a better year than a 3-time winner? Poppycock!!
2005-10-24 @ 07:15
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Correction sir, that is 4 pro wins this year ... seems Ms. Creamer won in Japan again this past weekend. (Do they call her the Pink Geisha?) Yeah, she struggled all day but had the intestinal fortitude to pull out the win in sudden death. Imagine that.
2005-10-24 @ 12:09
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Horray Shanks.
Looks like you have finally given up.

I have given the stats and explained clearly that Creamer has MORE of every stat. More wins, losses (as you call non first places), more cuts made, more cuts missed, more top 15's, more finishes outside the top 15.

You haven't tried to counter this argument. Why not? Basically because there isn't any possible way of arguing against it. You can't deny Creamer has MORE of every stat you could possibly imagine, because Paula has MORE tournaments played.

By the way, great stuff Creamer won this Japanese tournament. I hope she got good appearance money and good prize money, it's nice Wie isn't the only one making a bit of dosh.
2005-10-24 @ 16:03
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Norman

Actually there is one stat in which Michelle and Paula are tied. DQs.

I just want to see Michelle Wie do her best. I'd rather that she not put undue pressure on herself, so for now I will not push any Michelle is better than arguments. Let it be said that Paula has had the better year. I am still a big fan of Michelle Wie, and I, for one, think Michelle Wie is the most exciting golfer in the world. But she is only 16, and she certainly doesn't need anyone putting pressure on her to win.
2005-10-24 @ 20:34
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, you and the other Warriors are the only ones in the entire golfing world who care how many events Wie played in. This opinion is based upon results. Creamer wins 2 LPGA events & 2 JLPGA events in 2005 and Wie wins nowhere. Hence, Creamer has the better year. You're looking at it all wrong. It's not a knock. It's a compliment for Wie to be compared to a player who has been so successful, especially since Wie has not won. She's played at an amazingly consistent & high level in just a few events.

2005-10-25 @ 09:00
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks, by your reasoning, just imagine Michelle had joined the LPGA and played a full season next season.

Now suppose Paula played the first 8 tournaments and then picked up an injury and was not able to play the rest of the year.
In that case I would say, it is unfair to compare their number of wins, since Wie has played a full season and Creamer got injured, having just played 8.

I would say the exact same for any other player.
For example say Creamer had got injured this season and then only had one win to show. That wouldn't mean Kerr necessarily had a better year than her. All it would mean is Kerr had more opportunities.
2005-10-25 @ 16:09
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
. I am still a big fan of Michelle Wie, and I, for one, think Michelle Wie is the most exciting golfer in the world. But she is only 16, and she certainly doesn't need anyone putting pressure on her to win. **

This post, perhaps better than any of the other Wie Warrior posts -- even some of the most rabid ones like "Die, Baldwin, Die" platoon or the "Pretzel Logic" brigade that tries to pro-rate Wie's victories (oh yeah, I forgot, that one won't work either) -- illustrates how for the Wie Warriors, the Michelle Wie career is all about THEM and not HER.

Look at the conclusion. It's about Coulthard, Coulthard & Coulthard.

Does anyone REALLY think Michelle Wie cares about what Jim Coulthard thinks about her? Or any of the Wie Warriors? Or anyone posting here? Or Baldwin, Mario, or McDonald?

She has $10 million in the bank!

Does anyone REALLY think that as Michelle is hunched over that slippery but makeable 12-footer downhill for a crucial birdie (even if it's not to win a tournament) that she's thinking to herself:

"I wonder what Coulthard is thinking. Gee, I need to keep him happy. I'd better make it. Gosh, I wish he hadn't that much pressure on me. Coulthard's fanaticism puts a lot more pressure on me than I put on myself."

Wie is the one with the talent. The Wie Warriors are just sad sacks bumping along in her wake. One only hopes that the vast majority of Wie's fans are far more classy than the Wie Warriors who post in Travel Golf.

Their rancid behavior, conspiracy theories, rants, threats, their desperation, veered from mildly entaining to downright disturbing months ago. This month's insanity following Michelle's DQ took the cake.

But more than anything, the Wie Warriors have proved just how self-absorbed they are WRT the Wie Career.

-George
2005-10-25 @ 16:48
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, you can imagine all you want. I'm just going on actual results. Creamer had the better year, hands down.

PS - Don't suppose you imagined that Wie might not play well in every tournament, didja? If Tiger can miss 2 cuts, I suppose it could happen to anybody .... but that's just me.
2005-10-25 @ 17:09
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Norm.
You're not just a fish in the barrel, you're like a drunken cod in a beer mug, you're so easy to shoot down.

First of all, while it is generally bad form to try to make hay over a grammar or spelling mistake, real, or -- in your case -- imagined, you recently posted this drivel:

**
Another funny thing you said, Annika's team was "BESTED" by Paula's team.
Just a quick English lesson.
If something is the best, there is nothing better. No such word "BESTED" exists. Next time try "BETTERED".
If you don't believe me, you can ask your teacher when you go into school tomorrow.
**
Not sure what grade in elementary school you're in, Norman, but from Merriam Webster Online:

-----
Main Entry: "best"
Function: transitive verb
definition: to get the better of : OUTDO

Example: Norman bested Baldwin in the Internet pissing contest. (that's from me, not Merriam)
-----
-----
From dictionary.com

tr.v. best·ed, best·ing, bests

To get the better of; beat: “I'm a rough customer, I expect, but I know when I'm bested” (Nathanael West).

(Obviously, Mr. West knew better than you when he was bested)
-----
finally, you've tried to peddle this recently:

*****
Norman
As regards LEADING the US to Solheim Cup, I think you are really moving to cloud cuckoo land here. She played WELL. She did not LEAD ANYBODY anwhere.
She just played well in her matches, nothing more.
*****

You Wie Warriors have quoted the wisdom of Doug Ferguson when it comes to bashing Bamberger. I'm sure you'll embrace this as well.

Even you, Norman, should be able to follow along, although I won't bet the ranch.

*****
Associated Press

September 12, 2005 Monday

SECTION: SPORTS

LENGTH: 845 words

HEADLINE: Creamer Leads U.S. to Solheim Cup Victory

BYLINE: DOUG FERGUSON; AP Golf Writer

DATELINE: CARMEL, Ind.

BODY:
The United States won back the Solheim Cup, and picked up a new star along the way.

Paula Creamer, the 19-year-old rookie who all but guaranteed a
victory two weeks ago, backed it up Sunday with a crushing victory over Laura Davies that set the tone for an American rout in singles.

The Americans won six of the first seven matches - none of those even reached the 18th hole - and were leading 14-10 when Meg Mallon clinched the cup with a par putt on the 16th hole for a 2-up lead, assuring them at least the 14 1/2 points required to win the cup and keep their record perfect at home.

[...]

The scoreboard was so awash with American red numbers that when the final twosome teed off on a sunny afternoon at Crooked Stick, Europe was not leading in any of the 12 matches.

And it was the youngest player in Solheim Cup history leading the way.

Creamer, four months removed from her high school commencement in Florida, birdied the first hole against Davies and was on her way. She was 6 up at the turn and won the match with a tee shot that stopped 3 feet above the hole on the 13th, a birdie that was conceded for a 7-and-5 victory.

For the first time all week, the United States had the lead.

*****
There's a beer mug, Norm, waiting for you to flop around in.

-George
2005-10-25 @ 17:13
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George you really are hilarious.

On the one hand you try to accuse people of being Wie-fanatics, yet you are SO OBVIOUSLY a Creamer-maniac.
It is one thing for you to be a fan or admire her (as I do), but you are way over the top. You outdo ANY Wie-fan I have read on here when it comes to fanaticism.

What is even more laughable is that you try to say that a headline on a newspaper means something is correct. The headline LEADS is just one press guy's opinion. That does not make it fact. The fact is that the US team was led by Nancy Lopez, and nobody else.

Your obsession with Creamer leads you to think she won the Solheim Cup on her own. Lets look at the facts:
On Sunday morning it was 8 points each.
Creamer came out and beat Laura Davies very well. She gave her a good hammering. Now how many points did she get for this. Was it 3, or maybe 5? NOOOOOOOO.
She got 1 point, actually 7 US players won there match and got ONE POINT on Sunday. I am happy for Creamer that she won so well, but whether you win by 10 shots with 8 sholes to play, or win 1 up, you still just get ONE POINT. This is a TEAM EVENT. Creamer played her part in the US victory, but you are showing complete disrespect to the rest of the US team with your fanatical belief that Creamer is the only one who counts.

By the way, I'd bet Creamer doesn't worry about you either when she is standing over a 12 foot putt.
2005-10-26 @ 18:18
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks said:
Norman, you can imagine all you want. I'm just going on actual results. Creamer had the better year, hands down.

PS - Don't suppose you imagined that Wie might not play well in every tournament, didja? If Tiger can miss 2 cuts, I suppose it could happen to anybody .... but that's just me.
****************************

From the 2nd paragraph, Shanks you are beginning to make a little progress. Yes if Wie played a full season, I don't think she would do well in every tournament.
If we go on the basis, of purely the results of their total finishes, then Creamer had the best year, she has more wins, and more high finishes.
But Creamer has also had the worse year, she has had the more bad finishes, and missed the most cuts.

To have a full proper head to head, they both need to play a full season to get a proper basis. Due to the fact that Wie played 8 tournaments, we can only base findings on that.

For example you were cheering a few days ago, because Creamer made it 4 tournaments. That's 4 NIL. However, given that Wie wasn't playing, it seems just EVER SO SLIGHTLY unfair to say that Creamer is doing better than Wie there when Wie isn't playing.
That is like putting Roddick against Federer, but not letting Federer play. I reckon that Roddick could just about win that one (just).
2005-10-26 @ 18:27
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
Norman is right.
2005-10-27 @ 05:00
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
RESULTS are all that matter. Creamer is a multiple winner and Wie did not win a thing. Easy call for everybody in the world except the Wie-Warriors. You can justify and suppose and say "what if" all you want but it doesn't change the cold hard fact that Creamer easily had a better year than Wie.
2005-10-27 @ 07:45
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
RESULTS?
So then you think:
Roddick v's Federer,
but Federer doesn't play, therefore Roddick wins by default.

You think that makes Roddick better?

Here's some results:
Wie beat Creamer 5 of 8 times.

I think Creamer was improving towards the end of the season. Given that Creamer will play alot more golf than Michelle over the next while, MAYBE Creamer might be able to pass Wie next year, and then IF that happens I'll just say well done to Creamer, but for now Well Done Wie. Better luck next year Creamer, keep practicing and you have a good chance of catching Wie.
2005-10-27 @ 13:10
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Here's some results for you: Creamer beat the ENTIRE field 4 times. Remind me again, how many times did Wie beat the entire field??? Oh, that's right, it was ZERO.

Looks like you brought a knife to a gunfight.
2005-10-27 @ 15:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Creamer beat a full field 4 times.
How many times was Wie in the field that Creamer beat 4 times?
Once and Wie finished 2nd there. It was a good, even a great performance by Creamer. Well done to her for that, but in the majority of their head to heads Wie came out on top. 5 versus 3.

Well done to Creamer for her 4 wins. I don't begrude her her victories, but you can only beat the players you are up against and when up against Wie it was a 5-3 win for Wie.

Look on the bright side Shanks, Creamer won 3 of their last 4 head to heads. Towards the end of the season Creamer has really upped her game so the omens are good for Creamer's future.

If Creamer starts next season like she finished this one, she has a real chance of doing even better, than her fantastic year this year. She could very well pass out Wie, but I find it hard to see her overtaking Annika anytime soon, unless Annika has a major dip in form.

I actually predict that Paula could very well be the number 2 player next season. I think she could move further ahead of Kerr in the money list in 2nd place, and get a little closer to Annika.
Obviously Wie will only be playing 8 lpga events so it is difficult to know how she will get on. I hope she can continue her great form of this year, even if Creamer overtook her, it could still be a good year for Michelle next year, if she keeps doing so well, particularly in the majors.

Hopefully Paula can win a major next year. I personally believe she will, unless Annika plays at her best. Michelle will find it harder, due to lack of competition on the lpga.
2005-10-27 @ 15:25
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
*** Norman:
Your obsession with Creamer leads you to think she won the Solheim Cup on her own. ***

Sheesh, you've gone from obsessed about Wie to just flat out making things up. The only thing left to figure out is if you know you're making them up or if you're just delusional.

You know for a fact that I never said Paula won Solheim by herself. I said she LED her team to victory. Look below for more on that.


But first ...

Norm, I can't really take your drivel seriously until you respond to these two issues just below.

And don't forget, regarding the first matter, YOU are the one who brought it up.

**
Norm said:

Another funny thing you said, Annika's team was "BESTED" by Paula's team.
Just a quick English lesson.
If something is the best, there is nothing better. No such word "BESTED" exists. Next time try "BETTERED".
If you don't believe me, George, you can ask your teacher when you go into school tomorrow.
**
George:
not sure what grade in elementary school you're in, Norman, but from Merriam Webster Online:

-----
Main Entry: "best"
Function: transitive verb
definition: to get the better of : OUTDO

Example: Norman bested Baldwin in the Internet pissing contest. (that's from me, not Merriam)
-----
-----
From dictionary.com

tr.v. best·ed, best·ing, bests

To get the better of; beat: “I'm a rough customer, I expect, but I know when I'm bested” (Nathanael West).


-----
George:
finally, you've tried to peddle this recently:

*****
Norman:
As regards LEADING the US to Solheim Cup, I think you are really moving to cloud cuckoo land here. She played WELL. She did not LEAD ANYBODY anwhere.
She just played well in her matches, nothing more.
*****

You Wie Warriors have quoted the wisdom of Doug Ferguson when it comes to bashing Bamberger. I'm sure you'll embrace this as well.

Even you, Norman, should be able to follow along, although I won't bet the ranch.

*****
Associated Press

September 12, 2005 Monday

SECTION: SPORTS

LENGTH: 845 words

HEADLINE: Creamer Leads U.S. to Solheim Cup Victory

BYLINE: DOUG FERGUSON; AP Golf Writer

DATELINE: CARMEL, Ind.

BODY:
The United States won back the Solheim Cup, and picked up a new star along the way.

Paula Creamer, the 19-year-old rookie who all but guaranteed a
victory two weeks ago, backed it up Sunday with a crushing victory over Laura Davies that set the tone for an American rout in singles.

The Americans won six of the first seven matches - none of those even reached the 18th hole - and were leading 14-10 when Meg Mallon clinched the cup with a par putt on the 16th hole for a 2-up lead, assuring them at least the 14 1/2 points required to win the cup and keep their record perfect at home.

[...]

The scoreboard was so awash with American red numbers that when the final twosome teed off on a sunny afternoon at Crooked Stick, Europe was not leading in any of the 12 matches.

And it was the youngest player in Solheim Cup history leading the way.

Creamer, four months removed from her high school commencement in Florida, birdied the first hole against Davies and was on her way. She was 6 up at the turn and won the match with a tee shot that stopped 3 feet above the hole on the 13th, a birdie that was conceded for a 7-and-5 victory.

For the first time all week, the United States had the lead.
*****

*****
Norman:

This is a TEAM EVENT. Creamer played her part in the US victory, but you are showing complete disrespect to the rest of the US team with your fanatical belief that Creamer is the only one who counts.
*****

I did say, Norman, that Paula led her team. That's kind of like saying Joe Montana led the SF 49ers football team.

Both statements suggest an athlete who was a crucial player, who provided great impetus.

Neither suggests a player who effectively was the entire team.

You have proven you struggle with English, as shown above with your ill-imformed pomposity about whether a word exists or not.

I hope you can now understand the difference between being a team leader and being the entire team. Probably not, though.

*****
Norman:
What is even more laughable is that you try to say that a headline on a newspaper means something is correct. The headline LEADS is just one press guy's opinion. That does not make it fact.
*****

Maybe you couldn't read beyond the headlines. Mayhap too tired?

Here's an excerpt from the news story itself:

*****
AP Story:
The scoreboard was so awash with American red numbers that when the final twosome teed off on a sunny afternoon at Crooked Stick, Europe was not leading in any of the 12 matches.

And it was the youngest player in Solheim Cup history leading the way.

Creamer, four months removed from her high school commencement in Florida, birdied the first hole against Davies and was on her way. She was 6 up at the turn and won the match with a tee shot that stopped 3 feet above the hole on the 13th, a birdie that was conceded for a 7-and-5 victory.

For the first time all week, the United States had the lead.
*****

George:
You see, Norm, the headline is supposed to be backed up by facts in the story. And that was the case here.

The story stated that Creamer led the way. When her match was finished, the U.S. had its first lead of the week -- a lead they never surrendered as the day progressed.

Thus, the headline was appropriate -- not to be discredited as merely one person's opinion.

Again, you really need to learn that to lead a team does not equal being the entirety of the team. Dye and Konerko led the Chicago White Sox, but when somebody says that, that does not equate to saying they are the entire team.

I don't believe leader = everything, and I have to hope you're not silly enough to believe it, either.

*****
Norman:
By the way, I'd bet Creamer doesn't worry about you either when she is standing over a 12 foot putt.
*****

I agree completely--

-- although Paula might get the yips for a hole or two if she ever found out how rabid and demented you Wie Warriors are.

-George
2005-10-27 @ 19:30
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
What is with George?
Is he just a spammer.

I've looked through various blogs and he just seems to post absolute reams of jumbled up garbage.

George, you should try to organise your thoughts a bit more.

I know he is just quoting people and stuff, but it's really funny, it looks as if he is having conversations with himself.

As regards the substance of the issue, if George is trying to say Creamer played a role, yes she did. However there is an important point, please ready carefully George:
In football, a player can often lead a team because his play affects the whole match, he gets the ball and does something with it. In football they are all playing with one ball.

Golf is very different. Each match is seperate. Paula Creamer can only affect her own matches, so on Sunday when they went head to head at level points, Paula was only able to affect ONE POINT. The US needed a minimum of 6 and a half points. As it turns out they got 7 a half.
Paula was only responsible for one point that day, and her point was no more important than any other player.

To say, Paula did her bit is absolutely true. However she did not lead the team. As I have explained you can have leaders in football where players can affect the whole game. However in golf, the only person you could in any way say led the team is Nancy Lopez.
2005-10-28 @ 14:28
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Johnny, you are spot on.
Doing a word count on George's last post there is 1083 words. I just can't be bothered to read it all.

From Johnny's post, and a quick glimpse through George's post, it seems like Creamer as a leader is the main issue in George's ramblings. I'll just say I agree with Johnny. He summed it up perfectly, as regards Creamer winning just one point in the final day.
To add to that, Creamer was involved in the winning of 3.5 of her teams 15.5 points, and of Creamer's points 2.5 of them were helped by a team-mate. George's obsession with Creamer makes him read more into it, than there is. The USA got 15.5 points.
Creamer got 1 point individually.
She got 2.5 points jointly with a team-mate and also was involved in losing 1.5 points.

That was a pretty good record and fair play to her for it, but the fanaticism of her leading the team to victory is just a joke.
2005-10-28 @ 18:36
Comment from: FF [Visitor]
I have a few observations that i would like a little feedback, especially from Mr. Baldwin.

I am not a golfer,(I have been to a driving range only once my entire life) but I was searching for a golf package I was giving to my brother for his birthday and I came across your web site.

Why is it that someone like me who has never played a round of golf become more aware of golf in general because of Michelle Wie's story and not one of the other golfers?

Personally I really don't care if they all got a $10 million deal, But despite your all your complaining, why is it that only Ms. Wie got the offer and not the others?

They all seem very attractive, photogenic and all of that. I can assume excellent fundamentals and talent or they would not be mentioned, but with all of the putdowns you seem to place on Ms. Wie you don't go on to say why
none of the others are being given the same attention and money as Ms. Wie. you just go on complaining and putting down a 16 year old girl who is basicly living her on life (this is America last time I checked). why is that Mr. Baldwin?

Speaking as a father of two young girls I can only hope and pray that my girls develop that level of talent, maturity and commitment that all these young women golfers show.

Also, because of your comments, I feel you are not an example I really care for or could support I did go elsewhere for my golf package for my brother.



2005-10-31 @ 01:18
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Since people seem to be posting some Paula Creamer results here.
After she won in Japan, she came back to the reality of the LPGA tour.

She finished 23rd on 6 over par.
On the final day, she hit a 7 over par round of 79, with 7 bogies and no birdies.
Sounds like a final day collapse, doesn't it. I know she has won a couple of times, but she really seems to be having ALOT of final round collapses.

She reminds me of Sergio Garcia. He wins some, but throws away, so many more.
2005-11-01 @ 09:08
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Here's a stat for you:

In the 23 lpga tournaments Paula Creamer has played she has played her worst day (highest score) on Sunday in 12 of those tournaments.

That is over half of her tournaments she has hit her WORSE score on the crusial last day.
.... and Creamer fans were saying that Wie is weak down the stretch.

In contrast, Michelle Wie, only hit her worse score in the final day ONCE in 8 attempts.

Sounds like Michelle Wie is much stronger down the stretch.
2005-11-01 @ 11:06
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Many people here were claiming that Wie was weak down the stretch and that Creamer is really strong.
I don't like making claims without backing them up, so here goes:

Here is some stats:

In the events Wie and Creamer played together, for the final day:

Wie's stroke average is 71.42
Creamer's stroke average is 73.00

This shows, that Wie has been far better over the final day than Creamer.
2005-11-01 @ 13:18
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Hey Rodney, tell me again, 'cause I forgot: how many times has Michelle Wie won in 2005?
2005-11-01 @ 13:44
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Shanks, Wie has not won in 2005.
Sorry you forgot.

Here are Michelle's full results:
2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 12th, 14th, 23rd and dq.
Here is Creamer in the same events:
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 15th, 19th, 19th, 26th, 40th.

The results speak for themselves.
Paula's first place is better than Michelle's. Aften that, if you choose Paula's 2nd best versus Michelle's 2nd best, or Paula's 3rd best versus Michelle's 3rd best etc. Paula never beats Michelle again apart from Michelle's dq.

That's yet another proof of Michelle's better year.
2005-11-01 @ 15:57
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
**Doing a word count on George's last post there is 1083 words. I just can't be bothered to read it all.**

Gee, Norm, if you still haven't finished coloring both your books yet, I can make it shorter for you (though you may not find it sweet)

Paula Creamer: 4 pro victories, all in her 2005 rookie year.

Michelle Wie: zero pro victories.

Norman: Attempts a gotcha about English usage but gets caught with his ignorance hanging out in public:

*****
Norman babbled:
Another funny thing you said, Annika's team was "BESTED" by Paula's team.
Just a quick English lesson.
If something is the best, there is nothing better. No such word "BESTED" exists. Next time try "BETTERED".
If you don't believe me, George, you can ask your teacher when you go into school tomorrow.
*****

reality:
Merriam Webster online:
Main Entry: "best"
Function: transitive verb
definition: to get the better of : OUTDO
-----
From dictionary.com

tr.v. best·ed, best·ing, bests
To get the better of; to beat:
“I'm a rough customer, I expect, but I know when I'm bested” (Nathanael West).
*****
Two items. Fairly short. And posted before your bedtime, Norm!

-George
2005-11-01 @ 18:03
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Oh, I get it Rodney ... you also subscribe to the theory of positional dominance. Marvelous.
2005-11-02 @ 07:52
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Ah, Shanks, are you saying position isn't important?

Is it not better to finish 2nd than 3rd.
or better to finish 3rd than 15th.
or better to finish 12th than 19th.
or better to finish 14th than 19th.
or better to finish 23rd than 26th.

I agree with you that to finish 1st is better than to finish 2nd, but surely you must agree that it is better to finish 3rd than 15th etc.
2005-11-02 @ 10:50
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
To finish 1st is many times better than finishing 2nd. The difference is monumental. On their plaques at Augusta, do you think they mention how many 2nd place finishes any of the past champions had? Do you think there is a memorial for Tom Weiskopf at Augusta, where he finished 2nd four times?

Come on Rodney, you can't be serious! You seem to have a little more on the ball than some of the true Warriors. Think about it.
2005-11-02 @ 11:13
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Rodney, you are wasting your time.
Shanks, knows what number 1 is, but after that it is a bit hazy for him.

Trying to explain that 3rd is better than 15th simply won't get through.
2005-11-02 @ 13:13
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Shanks is right. 1st place is indeed much better than 2nd place.

The first place is so much better that it really helps tip the balance in Paula's favour. However given that Michelle has such better results as a whole, Michelle has to be considered to have had the better year.

If Paula was just a little bit closer to Michelle in terms of other results, then I would say it was Paula's year, but I think Michelle's other results put her ahead.
Wins are very important, but they are not so important that they negate all other results.

I will say that of all the players who played a full season, Paula is 2nd only to Annika.
2005-11-02 @ 15:55
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
You guys should pay attention when the greatest golfers in the world decide who had the better year. No player who DID NOT WIN has EVER gotten even a single vote.

Sorry, but that's how it is viewed in the big-time.
2005-11-03 @ 08:34
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
If say Tiger went a season without winning a tournament, but got a whole heap of 2nd places, then I agree, he would not win player of the season.

However it is different when someone plays only 8 events.

If Creamer won say 5 events, then there wouldn't be any argument. However when Paula only won 2 events from 22, which is good enough, only Annika won more!!!!
but when you think about it, that is only 1 from every 11 events, and Michelle didn't even play 11 events.

So technically even if you go on wins as the only statistic that counts.
Then you would have to say
Creamer = 1 from 11,
Michelle = 0 from 8,
therefore you could not possibly make a judgement that Creamer had a better year, based on wins, unless Michelle played 3 more events in the year.

I also believe this win only statistic is flawed Shanks, cause when you think about it.
if Michelle won 2 tournament next season from her 8 events.
That would mean Creamer would have to win about 6 from 24 to beat her, and I simply don't this is fair to Creamer.
I think if Wie won 2 and Creamer won 4, but Creamer had better overall finishes I think that would make it still Creamers year.
2005-11-03 @ 15:23
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
SHANKS If the LPGA Player of the Year were determined based upon a vote, and if Michelle Wie had played a full season without a win but getting in the Top 3 in half her tournaments, THEN I do not believe either Paula or Michelle would get any votes--they would all go to Annika.

So at most this seems like an argument over who is second best. If you are going to have little respect for second place, why do you care who is second best?

Of course, Michelle Wie adds an extra dimension. Not only is she just 16, still a full time high school student, but she is also the foremost female golfer currently playing against the men. She has had limited success against the men, but her potential is exciting. I doubt very much that Paula Creamer could come close to Michelle Wie on a PGA course. Oh, and when the greatest golfers in the world decide who is the best, I don't believe that pl;ayers who are afraid to compete against men get any votes.

2005-11-03 @ 21:38
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Sorry guys. The goal of every top golfer is to win the tournament they enter. Creamer acheived her goal multiple times in 2005 and Wie did not. Creamer had a better year. Savvy?
2005-11-04 @ 07:45
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Thank you Jim Coulthard, you really hit the nail on the head when you said:
Shanks constantly rabits on about player of the year. Annika is obviously miles ahead in number 1. So the argument between Michelle and Paula is for place number 2.
And Shanks thinks only winning is any good. So Shanks has proved himself a hyprocrite there.
Winning is good is Paula does it. Oh but if she finishes 2nd in POY, then that is fantastic all of a sudden.

As regards Michelle being better than the men, I don't think EVEN SHANKS would argue against that.
2005-11-04 @ 09:11
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
The only reason I jumped into this conversation (seems like eons ago) was because the Warriors were saying that Wie was second only to Annika in 2005. Of course I said "bull". Not only did Creamer have a better year but so did Kerr and Jang, at least. Wie played at a very high & consistent level and is to be commended. But let's not get ridiculous and say a non-winner had a better year than multiple & Major winners. (And if somebody asked Wie, she'd say that she would rather have won the US Open and had a bunch of so-so finishes, as opposed to a handful of top 5's.)

As far as playing in mens events, Norman is right. Wie is one of the very few with the requisite length to compete on PGA Tour course set-ups.
2005-11-04 @ 12:51
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Sophie Gustaffson has the length too. Didn't she lead the Japan Casio tournament last year after 9 holes (before missing the cut). Wonder how MW will get on.

I don't want to be too critical or offensive of anyone's comments on here, but to say Jang had a better year than Michelle????

Major finishes were:
Jang 1st, 13th, 27th, 50th
Wie 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 23rd


Tournaments Michelle played in:
Jang's finishes:
1, 13, 27, 32, 32, 50, missed cut.
Michelle's finishes:
2, 2, 2, 3, 12, 14, 23.

Michelle's 5th best result was better than Jang's 2nd best.
Michelle's worse result was better than Jang's 3rd best result.

With Creamer there is some argument, depending on how much emphasis you place on wins. But with Jang, I think it's pretty obvious Michelle did better.

Also, Michelle beat Jang in every tournament they played together bar the British Open.
2005-11-04 @ 13:56
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I suspect that BJ Wie would agree with Shanks on this one. Jeong Jang had a better year, but only because Jeong Jang unlike Michelle Wie is willing to LISTEN to her caddy and generally do what her caddy tells her to do. The Wies now have plenty of money to get a top notch caddy--but that will do no good at all unless Michelle will listen. Even though BJ is not a great caddy, Michelle will listen to him and she generally does fairly well when he carries the bags. Someone needs to remind Michelle Wie that in the world of THE SCARLET LETTER there were a lot of girls named PATIENCE.
2005-11-05 @ 01:51
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
What?

She had a top knotch caddy at the Samsung & got dq'd. He didn't advice her well there.
2005-11-05 @ 08:38
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
What was the likelyhood that someone would do what Bamburger did? In any case, that issue is not relevant any more, since Michelle will be calling in rules officials to approve such drops in the future.

More to the point, her caddy at the Samsung seems to have advised her a number of times to follow a more conservative course--but she played more agressively and got into trouble.

In some ways I approve of more agressive play. Even if it backfires at the time, it can be a learning experience. BUT THE PRESSURE ON MICHELLE TO WIN SEEMS TO BE SO GREAT THAT IT WOULD BE BEST TO REDUCE THAT PRESSURE. Letting the caddy call the shots so that Michelle can merely exectute them seems like a good idea.
2005-11-05 @ 15:31
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I didn't know about her caddy advising her more conservative routes. You must be in the know!!

I don't really agree with you that there is a great pressure on her to win.
For example I think the pressure on Michelson to win a major was much greater and for much longer.

I think that, if she herself was feeling the pressure to win, she would enter lower quality field tournaments in order to notch up a win. The way she always enters tournaments with top fields reduces her chance of winning.

If Michelle played a tournament, similar to the 2 Paula won in Japan, she would have a great chance. Instead she is going to Japan, but to play with men where there is realistically a very very very very small chance of her winning. (I hope she makes the cut, that would be a good achievement).

If she felt the pressure to win, I think she would be playing a womens tournament in Japan.
2005-11-05 @ 18:47
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
Norman, I agree.
2005-11-05 @ 22:44
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]

I think I heard on the Samsung telecast about her caddy's advice. I also read on the web that Michelle was trying to tie Mark Hensby at the John Deere when she double bogeyed and missed the cut. Hensby was the defending champ who had said she didn't belong there.

This blog is about Michelle's winless streak. Morgan Pressel in SI sais the media did not pay enough attention to Michelle's final round 82 at the US Open. Since the US Open there has been quite a media focus on Michelle's failure to win. Obviously it figures to be just a matter of time before she wins, but the pressure is there and she is just barely 16. With Mickelson this was an issue 4 tournaments a year--with Michelle it is there every tournament. If she won a Japan LPGA tournament, George might count it as something, but I'm sure Chris Baldwin wouldn't.

I think the problem may be that Michelle and her fans would love to see her win to show up her critics. She needs to just play her best and let the wins come when they will.











2005-11-06 @ 13:48
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I read the same thing about the John Deere, which seemed very strange but very understandable for someone of only 15 years of age.

As regards Morgan Pressel that is a very simple story. She is a good young golfer and has lots of self confidence and really believes in herself. Those can be good qualities when it comes to success at the peak of her sport, but there is a downside. She is very obviously completely overcome by jealousy. You can understand in a way. She is young and this other young star, is getting all the attention, all the money and a glory that she craves for herself.

As regards the US Open, one bad final round in the year isn't a big deal. Funny how Pressel wasn't angry that the media didn't make a big deal out of Creamers bad final round 79.

People would like for her to win soon, but what have we got. The Casio in Japan, which she won't win, so it is next year before any chance arrises and I said before if she doesn't win, but has as great a year as this year then I would be well pleased. Making the cut at a pga tournament would cap it off nicely.
2005-11-06 @ 15:14
Comment from: matt [Visitor]
michelle wie is a joke. I played junior tennis and did well winning a number of national tounaments. When I turned pro and lost in the the first round nobody used my age as an excuse. Wie has accomplished nothing and should be judged like everyone else, not by her potential, but by her results.
2005-11-26 @ 01:04
Comment from: matt [Visitor]
She missed the cut at the Casio against 5th rate men's competition. Wie is an absolute clown.
2005-11-26 @ 01:09
Comment from: fred [Visitor]

So potentially eight on the LPGA money list (if she accepted the money) makes her a clown?

How much money money did you win Matt?

"If she had been a professional, her actual finishes would have given her earnings of $663,178, which at that time of the season would have placed her eighth on the 2005 money list"
2006-01-04 @ 20:52
Comment from: kimb [Visitor]
OMG!!! SHE SUCKS!!!!Big time--
I gotta say she is GREAT at Losing.
2006-07-15 @ 15:09
Comment from: shashy [Visitor] Email
Her record against the Top 2 women players in the world is now
2009-01-14 @ 12:58

Comments are closed for this post.

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

Dates: January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
1 Night Stay, 1 Round of Golf, must be 55 years of age or older. Offer is based on double occupancy. Offer is based on our availability. Reservations can't be made more then 7 days in advance. Price does not include tax and gratuity.
Price range: $59