« Las Vegas' ultra high-end Cascata throws out the welcome mat Michelle Wie set to extend winless streak to 0 for 30, business as usual in "first" pro event »


Comment from: June [Visitor]
I knew you would be the happiest guy in the world when this happened. You are so preditable that you are pathetic.
2005-10-17 @ 02:58
Comment from: Ann [Visitor]
Okay? Trust me, the majority here does not consider you a "sports writer," in spite of your "10 year" experience. You and Hamberger are the same in one. You need to stir up some controversy to get an audience. History proves that when you write something without mentioning WIE receive comparatively zero comments.

FYI... Hamberger never informed Wie nor any official, even knowing this during the third round. Leaving it until the last minute and creating a story that even overshadows Annika's tremendous win? Anyone with a common sense would know why he did it.

I think it's interesting how Hamberger wanted Wie to look bad in her debut backfired. Most credit goes to Team Wie for going to the conference and openly speaking about it. All of us knew it was an honest mistake. Instead of making Wie into a monster like you also did, the situation seemed as if Wie was cheated because of some scummy journalist.

2005-10-17 @ 03:08
Comment from: Philip Huang [Visitor]
A cardinal rule of journalism, even sports "journalism", is that a reporter should never make himself part of the story he's covering. By "investigating" and yet waiting until an honest mistake was uncorrectable, Michael Bamberger influenced the outcome of the event he was covering.

If Greg Johnson should look for a new job (I don't necessarily disagree), then the unethical Michael Bamberger should be, too.
2005-10-17 @ 03:18
Comment from: Wally [Visitor]
"But I've been a sports reporter for more than 10 years.."

Maybe in your own mind Baldie but from what I've read, you give yourself too much credit.
2005-10-17 @ 03:18
Comment from: Chuck [Visitor]
In his next blog, Chris will say something nice about Michelle Wie and surprise us all.

2005-10-17 @ 03:42
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
Touche Wally and Ann on the digs on my professional qualifications. I just base it on 10 years of getting a paycheck for sports reporting. Even the worst plumber is still a plumber, if he's getting paid for plumbing.

Total misinformation from you Wie Warriors again on the actual facts of the story though.

Bamberger questioned Wie about the drop after her round Saturday. No one disputes that. He only went to the rules official on Sunday afternoon when no one from the Wie camp did.

From the Associated Press:

``I did it in crude way -- 'Let's see what she has to say.' I was hopeful she could convince me,'' in the Saturday interview, Bamberger said. ``I thought about it more and was just uncomfortable that I knew something. Integrity is at the heart of the game. I don't think she cheated. I think she was just hasty.''

Asked why he didn't bring it up before the third round ended, Bamberger said, ``That didn't occur to me. I was still in my reporter's mode. I wanted to talk to her first.''

Bamberger gave Wie a chance to be the one to come forward. Again, I'll give her a break on that and say she got bad advice in deciding to stay quiet on the issue. She surely didn't do that because she's been hype machine convinced that the world revolves around her whims.

She's not the one who thinks she can do no wrong. That's you Wie Warriors. Right?

Michelle Wie had from late Saturday afternoon till Sunday afternoon, almost a whole day, to step forward and do the right thing. Again, Camp Wie $10 million should be ashamed of how they're guiding this golfer.

Now back to puttering along at my job. It's too bad for all you Wie Warriors that I don't mind when people make fun of me. In fact, I often do it myself in print. Maybe if Michelle Wie's camp wasn't so self important, people could actually root for her without these conspiracy theory excuses.

The whole world's out to get poor $10 million Michelle Wie. Yeah, that's the ticket.

2005-10-17 @ 04:00
Comment from: Simon [Visitor]
Michael Bamberger is a putz, crude I know, but entirely accurate. When questioned why he did not bring up his allegation on Saturday he claimed he was in "Reporter mode". Reporter mode my ass, it's been a while since his last book and this was the perfect opportunity for another fifteen minutes of fame. Mr. Bamberger has been writing about golf for the last 2 decades and he couldn't get out of reporter mode long enough to realize what sort of impact this would have??? The man was a caddy on the European Tour, he knew exactly what the end result would be when he brought up his "concern". His actions would lead one to believe that it was his intent, to have Miss Wie disqualified. Hmm... what were the odds on that bet in Vegas; "Michelle Wie disqualified for rules infraction in her first professional outing", 200:1, 500:1, Micheal could have made a pretty penny. Does anybody track the betting habits of reporters? As for the PGA, LPGA and USGA they need a new rule added to the book; All scoring issues must be resolved on the day of the round, allegations of misconducted must be brought forth by one of the following; Competitor, Competitor's Caddy, or Sanctioned Rules Official. Hack Reporters need not apply... FORE!!! When a reporter causes a story, something has gone seriously, seriously wrong.
2005-10-17 @ 04:08
Comment from: yyoo [Visitor]

I hope you're kidding. Bamberger did NOT inform the Wies of his suspicions on Saturday. What Bamberger did on Saturday was to ask one question during the press conference. He asked how she knew the drop was correct. She said she used the "triangle" method, which she did. From that sole question, I don't think anyone, including the Wies, could conclude that she had made an error.

What you're implying may amount to libel. You're implying, are you not, that the Wies KNEW that she may have violated the rules on Saturday? Furthermore, you claim he went to the officials because the Wies didn't? Even Bamberger doesn't make that claim.

Your baseless speculation is as irresponsible as journalism gets. Shame on you!

I am forwarding your comments and my response to your publisher.

2005-10-17 @ 04:20
Comment from: Sujay [Visitor]
I never knew who this idiot bamberger was and I never want to know.
I think he should go look at himself in a mirror and be honest. He makes me puke.
chris baldwin, another one from the gang of despot sportwriters who cant stand seeing a non white doing well in a "white" sport. you are a writer and have the media at your disposal so you can write to justify your fellow writer's actions. It just means that both of you are bigots thats all. I am sorry I am not allowed to use the expressions which will really decribe the two of you.
Wake up buddy, those days are over.
2005-10-17 @ 04:31
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]

First of all you just wrote the biggest lie in your life when you called yourself a "professional sports writer."

Second of all, everyone with at least an IQ of 50 knows it was an honest mistake.

Third of all, Bamberger knew that waiting until Sunday to inform Michelle would result in disqualification even though he says he was so "concerned" about it Saturday afternoon.
2005-10-17 @ 05:50
Comment from: George [Visitor]

I don't think anyone with half a brain could imply that Michelle cheated on purpose.

EVERY camera in that place was focused on her- what a heck of a time to pick to "purposely" cheat.

It was a mistake-plain and simple any attempts to make it otherwise is just being malicious.

Even Bamberger the reporter who reported this said " I don't think she cheated, I think she was being hasty."
Even so- its a shame he would humiliate a young girl to make a name for himself.

2005-10-17 @ 06:19
Comment from: Steve [Visitor]
Nice job everyone at LPGA and SI. You really showed us all what sports is all about. I'm just a casual sports fan browsing the news early Monday morning (what do I know!), but this is by far the most pathetic, hasty, thoughtless, idiotic reaction to a marginal "yesterday" rules issue I have ever seen.

Next time, please use some common sense and simply say that it happened yesterday and, if there was an issue, it should have been pursued at that time.

With great pleasure I am never going to buy an SI issue again and I hope millions of others speak with their pocketbooks, as well.

Anyone know how to petition CNN to take SI off their website?

In the case of the LPGA ... I'm not sure what we should do. I guess everyone makes mistakes. Time will tell how this all plays out.

Nike and Sony ... you just got an extra dose of respect and support from me.

Hang in Michelle!
2005-10-17 @ 07:05
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
Hey, Yyoo. When a reporter questions you about a drop, especially a Sports Illustrated reporter, you might want to go check it out yourself on tape. You might want to think, "Did I really do that correctly or did I just carelessly plunk it down there as my clueless caddy looked on?" You might want to raise the issue to the rules officials, just so everything's double checked and above board.

You're Michelle Wie after all.

Everyone and anyone in the Wie Camp should have been all over that Saturday evening. Instead they ignored or completely missed the issue.

Again, this is the kind of advice you'd expect someone who just signed for $10 million could get.

And if you're in the Wie Camp and worried about keeping that cushy gig, well I'd rethink that strategy of claiming that no one could have seen this coming. Just listen to the question in the press conference. You had almost a whole day to look into things.

You think a Sports Illustrated reporter is just intrigued by Michelle's grasp of geometry?

If a reporter asks Tiger Woods about a drop, you can be sure he's going back to look at that drop before someone else does. And if it was a young Tiger, you can be sure his dad would have been regoing over that drop with him, step by step.

No one's saying Michelle Wie knew she was breaking a rule. But everyone in Wie Camp $10 million should have been double and triple checking to make sure she didn't carelessly break one, thanks in large part to no good caddy advice, as soon as that question was asked Saturday.

What else are the hanger ons for? Wie Camp $10 Million needs some entourage 101.

2005-10-17 @ 07:32
Comment from: Tom [Visitor]
".....then me." You should be disqualified from being a writer.
2005-10-17 @ 08:03
Comment from: June [Visitor]
Are you up today, Chris? Do I have to share the same air with you? Could you do whole lot of favor to mankind and drop dead?
2005-10-17 @ 08:17
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
June, you're such a flirt! But enough. It's never going to work out.
2005-10-17 @ 08:33
Comment from: John O'Neil [Visitor]
A complete joke. Michael Bamberger got what he ws looking for an that is it. A cheap story, period. Sports writer, there wasn't anything sporting about his timing was there?
2005-10-17 @ 08:41
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
If a sportswriter writes and there is nobody around to read him, was there a column??

Funny thing is, Chris, these Wie-Warriors who are spewing like Mt. Vesuvius, CAN'T WAIT to read your next post. They should really be thanking you for giving them the opportunity to feel self-righteous. Bad old Chris, hurtin' dems widdle feewings ....
2005-10-17 @ 08:47
Comment from: Chels [Visitor]
Wasn't it already too late when Bamberger asked her the question on Saturday AFTER the third round--which meant she already signed the card? The AP Article said, "Had Wie been notified Saturday before signing her card, she would not have been disqualified." Why can't you just take that for what it is--no one raised the issue BEFORE she signed her card. Stop trying to imply something that is not there logically Baldwin. By saying that a question asked by a reporter, especially in the way that Bamberger asked it (how she determined where to drop the ball), should have made Wie's team realize he was actually telling them Wie made a violation is a leap in logic. That sounded like a question to a newbie about her knowledge of the game. It's just like asking how did she know she could get a relief from the bees?

"Reporter mode" doesn't explain away the time from the seventh hole to when she signed her card. If he actually cared about the integrity of the game, he would have called it way sooner. There is absolutely no excuse for a journalist to change the course of the story that he is reporting; and even worse, there is no excuse for a "sportswriter" like you who sensationalize everything. You're worse than the paparazzi. There is absolutely no objectivity to your writing and even worse your logic is faulty. No wonder all you can write is a blog...no decent establishment would hire you to do news.
2005-10-17 @ 08:55
Comment from: Bill Wendt [Visitor]
Michael Bamberger is an a**hole. He was aware of what he was doing and that his actions would generate a story with his byline. I don't buy his "integrity" story for a second. If anyone on the LPGA tours speaks to him for the rest of his career, then I'll be amazed.

I think Michelle handled the flap with aplomb. She impresses, whether or not she wins. She's fifteen, for Christ's sake. She behaves much older than her age would assume.
2005-10-17 @ 09:06
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Michelle deserves better than the way many of her fans act. She made a 'careless' mistake. She will learn from this and will be better for having made this mistake. It will keep her from making a big mistake in a more important moment.

It is a little surprising that her caddie did not perform better but at least twice in the first three days she did not take his advise and got into trouble. nevertheless this is a mistake that he could have helped her avoid.

Mostly is is rather sad to see the rather disgraceful comments from many above people. IT is sad that these are the type of fans that are being attracted to golf by Michelle Wie's celebrity. She deserves better.
2005-10-17 @ 09:29
Comment from: mark [Visitor]
Do the people who respond to these blogs actually live in the real world?
Any confrontation or argument starts with you wanting to force your own opinion upon someone else. Fine.. there comes a time when you should set someone straight. When it comes to someone like Baldwin.....Think for yourself man. He a very sad little man who's opinion no one ever cared about. Why does anyone care what he says?
2005-10-17 @ 09:52
Comment from: Bob [Visitor]
Here's the deal Chris.

Apparently, you have not learned a very important lesson in your ten years of journalism. The reporter should NEVER become the story.

The SI reporter should have reported the rules violation immediately, allowing Michelle Wie to take a penalty and continue the tournament. Instead, he chose to wait until after the tournament to announce his discovery. The only option left was for Wie to be DQ'd.

Regardless of the player involved, the reporter handled it in the most gutless way possible and is now at the center of the story.

2005-10-17 @ 10:25
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Great comment from antoher blog:
Comment from: Ed [Visitor]
As a PGA member who has often officiated, I can understand fan disappointmnet, but this is pure "blame the nessenger" to me. I can tell you that Wie, Stadler, Watson, Nicklaus, Palmer and any tour professional would rather know if they unintentionally break a rule whether it's before or after playing the round. So get over the error made by Wie (and her caddy)and move on to the next event, just like they do!
10/17/05 @ 10:39
2005-10-17 @ 10:49
Comment from: D. Tingey [Visitor]
The correct figure of speech is "...reporters couldn't care less", not "...could care less"
2005-10-17 @ 10:57
Comment from: Luke [Visitor]
From the perspective of a professional journalist, Chris, your claims of being one of the fold ring quite hollow.
2005-10-17 @ 11:08
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: June [Visitor]
Are you up today, Chris? Do I have to share the same air with you? Could you do whole lot of favor to mankind and drop dead? **

Very classy June. You're a credit to the Wie Warriors.

2005-10-17 @ 11:27
Comment from: Jim [Visitor]
I have been reading Chris Baldwin now for three or four months. Readers seem to miss the point. Chris is actually in a league with Garrison Keillor and Dave Barry. Once a reader realizes this he can sit back and enjoy the doses of down-home humor provided by Chris. We can all use a laugh from time to time...its good for you.

2005-10-17 @ 11:35
Comment from: Hale [Visitor]
I think Mr. Bamberger did intend to get Michelle Wie DQd. In a recent PGA tournament a player made a drop, the ball rolled and while still in motion the player asked his caddie to stop the ball. Several holes after the incident, the player was informed that penalty strokes were added to his score. I don't know who called it to the attention of the rules officials, but the player had a chance to sign a correct scorecard. Michelle should have been allowed a chance to sign a correct scorecard.
2005-10-17 @ 11:49
Comment from: Jim [Visitor]
So when is a golf tournament over? I would think that once the last put dropped two hours ago and the next program comes on TV, it's over. Could Bamberger have waited until Monday morning to voice his "concerns?" What if I discover a rules violation while reviewing an old tape of last weeks American Express Tournament?
2005-10-17 @ 11:58
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]
While I agree that Wie's DQ was fundamentally correct, I think there should be a more clear and more stringent statute of limitations on when a complaint can be filed. What if Wie had left by the time the LPGA started looking into this. Nothing would have happened then. Also, a less than neutral spectator, or in this case a journalist, can wait till the scorecard is signed and then reveal his doubts thereby DQ'ing the concerned individual. Another problem is that if every player requests a tour official for every drop and divot fix, each round is going to take 6+ hours, a nightmare for spectators and for TV. It is unfortunate that Michael Bamberger waited over 25 hours after the drop to bring this to the attention of the tour. I don't think he was intentionally malicious, but at the same time, I don't think he's entirely blameless. What should have been a simple two stroke penalty turned into a DQ and a media hoopla. And who benefits? Not Wie or the tour, but the media.
2005-10-17 @ 12:11
Comment from: Fred [Visitor]
You are not a sports reporter. You are a complete joke. You're just a nobody with a blog, like all the other bloggers out there. But part of the fun of blogs is the rabid arguing.
2005-10-17 @ 12:13
Comment from: Fred [Visitor]
Actually, I've got a better conspiracy theory--an anti-Semetic one involving Bamberger and Morgan Pressel.
2005-10-17 @ 12:30
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
Miserable the way you "writers" fall in line to cover for your friends.
Bamberger made himself the story and in doing so hoped to raise his name to help sell his ridiculous book. He will be doing the rounds on TV soon and acting the victim. Well done Michael, you made yourself the story and took away the limelight from a kid's very first tournament.
What a dope!
btw-- I cancelled my S.I. subscription, never again will I read that trash.
2005-10-17 @ 12:42
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Did Michelle's playing partner witness the drop?
If she did and was happy with it, should that not be the end of the matter?
How long can you wait before raising an objection?
It's like waiting til the end of a football game before calling a foul and disqualifying the offending team.
Bizarre is the only word to describe this incident.
Chris. Just to make you happy (not) this incident will probably enhance the Wie following.
Alan M
2005-10-17 @ 12:48
Comment from: John D [Visitor]
Next thing, you know, she'll have help from the gallery to move a "so-called movable object pebble". Hey- Tigger got away with it. Maybe Wie isn't ready to play on the big circuit,yet? Afterall, an improper drop does appear to be a move you would expect from an amateur.
2005-10-17 @ 13:12
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]
A more measured article..


Bamberger's point of view..

2005-10-17 @ 13:15
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Why on earth would anyone possibly care WHAT your opinion is? You & the self-promoting hack, Bamberger certainly lend credence to the old adage, "Empty tubs thump the loudest!".
2005-10-17 @ 13:24
Comment from: Jeff Gibson [Visitor]
I am very surprised at the vehemence of the defense of Michele Wie I have just read. She was wrong. She opened the door to speculation that she might do something else. That is her fault. Her caddy should be banned from any tour for accosting the person who rightfully brought the infraction to everyone's attention. No one has the right to challenge the rule or the procedures used in this matter. Michele is responsible. Period. Everyone who plays golf knows this. Whoever pointed out her infraction did her and golf a favor and should not be questioned. The fans that defend her do golf a serious injustice. I can tell you that just the hint of suspicion is something any true golfer avoids like the plague. It never goes away. We do not fudge or stretch the rules or seek to get away from something. And if something is wrong, we shut up, take our medicine and try like hell to make sure we are worthy of the game. Anyone who does not know this does not deserve an audience. That is one major reason not to let children play an adult game.
2005-10-17 @ 13:34
Comment from: Stephen [Visitor]
Jeff Gibson-

You're going by the mind set that Michelle Wie did this on purpose, which most people do not believe including Bamberger.
With the entire media contingent, and gallerie's eyes on her-I don't think she would cheat on purpose.

I have a problem with this fella Bamberger waiting until the only recourse was disqualification. He had so many opportunities to inform everyone involved of what he knew yet did nothing. Because of this the only conclusion you can make is that he did it for some self-serving purpose.

From the article Victor posted--it sounds like Michelle made a joke when answering one of Bambergers questions and maybe he didn't take too kindly to it and wanted to teach the kid a lesson.

Either way- he should have acted sooner-and this whole mess would have been avoided. I feel bad her pro debut was ruined.

This is all everyone is talking about and its wrong after how great Annika did. No one is even talking about her or Paula Creamer who finished 2nd.

2005-10-17 @ 13:43
Comment from: ebalr [Visitor]
I'll never buy another SI until Hamberger is fired.
2005-10-17 @ 13:59
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Just some examples of disqualifiactions for people to know about:

Recently Paula Creamer realised she had changed a club in her bag the morning after a rain delay caused the round to be finished the following day. After the Tournament was over she called Officials and disqualified herself.

1996 Bay Hill Invitational

After the second round Jeff Sluman was only two back of the leaders, but he became concerned the night after the round when he thought he may have taken an incorrect drop after hitting into a water hazard. The next morning Sluman returned to the scene and confirmed that the drop area which he used was closer to the hole and that his drop was incorrect. He then disqualified himself from the tournament.

1996 Nike Shreveport Open

While P.H. Horgan III was waiting for the final group to finish before the start of the playoff between himself and Tim Loustalot, he was talking with a Nike Tour tournament director and related an incident that happened during the third round. It seemed that Horgan accidentally moved his ball marker by dropping his ball on it. In talking with his playing partner they agreed there was no infraction and proceeded to play. However, it was a violation of Rule 20-1/5.5 and Horgan should have assessed himself a one-stroke penalty. Since he signed an incorrect scorecard he was disqualified from the tournament, and Loustalot won without having to have a playoff.

1996 Canon Greater Hartford Open

Defending champion Greg Norman, who shared the first-round lead, was disqualified before the third round when it was found that the ball he was using was improperly stamped and not certified by the USGA.

1996 Jamie Farr Kroger Classic

Meg Mallon took the first-round lead with a 6-under-par 65, but then the next day was disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. She had stroked a putt that ended next to the hole and slowly moved for another 18 to 20 seconds until it fell in. At the time, she thought she made a birdie and signed her card for the birdie. But later on LPGA officials caught wind that it could have been a Rules infraction. After investigating the situation, the officials found out that Mallon did violate a Rule by waiting to long for the putt to drop and had no choice but to disqualify her because she signed an incorrect scorecard.

1997 Players Championship

In the final round on the 17th hole, Davis Love III accidentally hit his ball on the putting green with a practice stroke. He did not replace the ball, two-putted from there, and scored himself as having made a bogey 4. However, he should have replaced his ball to the original spot before continuing to putt. Not doing so is a one-stroke penalty, and thus his score for the hole was actually a double-bogey 5. Officials found out about the mistake, but unfortunately for Love it was after he signed his scorecard. So instead of finishing T7th, he was disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. The mistake cost Love $105,000 as well as valuable Ryder Cup qualifying points. However, he did go on to make the 1997 U.S. Ryder Cup team.

1998 NEC World Series of Golf

In the first round, Lee Janzen was another in violation of Rule 16-2, waiting too long for his putt to drop in the hole. On the 17th hole his birdie putt hung on the lip. Janzen walked up to the hole, then past it, bent down to survey the ball, and stared at it. He looked at his fellow competitor Vijay Singh, who also walked up and bent down to see the ball creeping toward the hole. About 20 seconds after Janzen arrived at the ball, he went to tap the ball in but it dropped into the hole. After the round he signed for a birdie 3 instead of a par 4. When the incident was later shown on television, viewers contacted PGA Tour officials, who in screening the tape realized that Janzen violated the Rules and disqualified him. At the time, it wasn¹t a big deal, but at the end of the year the disqualifaction did cost him a spot on the Presidents Cup team. He luckily got to play on the squad only because Hal Sutton's father-in-law died, forcing Sutton to withdraw and give his spot to Janzen.

These are very experienced, prominent players. There is no embarassment to a disqualification things happen to the best of players. It is a good lesson learned at a young age.

The enforcement of the Rules of Golf by Neutral Rules Officials is the hallmark to the integrity of golf even when these rules seem unfair.
2005-10-17 @ 14:05
Comment from: Gwen [Visitor]
What is unfortunate is that Mr. Bamberger did not chose to bring the problem up at the time it occurred. He noticed it, but didn't speak of it until she had finished the tournament. To say that it had a greater impact by being announced at the end of the tournament rather than at the time it occurred is very apparent. I am proud of Michelle and the manner in which she handled her first pro tournament and her first disqualification.
2005-10-17 @ 14:09
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Michelle Wie, it is more of a condemnation of Michael Bamberger. People do not particularly care for tattletales ... especially those with agendas. It is obvious that Bamberger got his panties all in a bunch over Wie's wisecrack response to his follow-up question at the press conference ... and acted accordingly! Reporters altruistically acting for the integrity of the game? You have got to be kidding ... Right?
2005-10-17 @ 14:11
Comment from: Michael Wycoff [Visitor]
"professional sports writer." lol. You actually make money writing this stuff? Come on, you have a second job right?

True indeed that Bumbuger works at SI....but you are not any closer to getting there yourself, so you can remove your lips from their behinds now Baldwin.

2005-10-17 @ 14:11
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
She didn't cheat on purpose and the reporter did what is right to protect the field.

Yes it seems like its unfair...but it isn't. Michelle will go on..a little bruised but wiser.

The timing certainly allows for a bigger story..but the timng is irrelevant, if he saw it she (or her caddie) should have as well.

Even if you accept that he was out to get her (a big stretch)..out for a story (less of a stretch).. it CHANGES NOTHING. This is the game she chose and the rules are the rules.

I am a Michelle backer but this is an easy call (she did play swell though)
2005-10-17 @ 14:15
Comment from: Mr. Small Rain [Visitor]
regarding Wie's DQ:

After 3rd round, Michelle was asked about drop by same CNN reporter Bamberger in interview session and they had exchange of words and Michelle made the mistake by saying "seems link I am giving Geometry lesson" and eveybody laughed off except "him".

Do your homework, my friends!
2005-10-17 @ 14:17
Comment from: Michael Wycoff [Visitor]
Upon further review MR. Baldwin it seems like you mention Michelle Wie in almost 70% of your articles.....wow! My advice is to quit sitting in your underwear in the trailer (professional sports writers in the minor league don't make much) with one hand on your mouse, and the other...........and quit think of Michelle Wie.

Its embarassing
2005-10-17 @ 14:19
Comment from: Jen [Visitor]

After reading the Saturday press conference transcript-it seems like Bamberger didn't appreciate Michelle's joke. That probably played into his decision to wait until she signed her card---ahhh the male ego so fragile.
2005-10-17 @ 14:24
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Baldwin, McDonald (and Mario), know what they are doing. Michelle is what we want to read and comment about right now.. it brings people to the blogs and blows out comments.

The guys will tend to be a little negative, it brings folks back).. but who would be here if they weren'y writing about Michelle???

They're right to do it
2005-10-17 @ 14:33
Comment from: Marc [Visitor]
If Michelle had asked a rules official to look at the drop and it had been declared OK , then measuring later with a string would not have made any difference, even if the ball were closer. To me, unless someone had an objection, or video evidence conclusively can determine a mistake was made, Michelle should be able to rely on her judgment and the judgment of her playing partner. Where the LPGA made a mistake was trying to measure based on a "remembered" spot of the original ball and location of the drop. They should have simply reviewed the video, declared it inconclusive, and moved on. If you could not declare it closer by video or reviewing it from the hole, that should have been it. The string measurement should be banned.
2005-10-17 @ 14:37
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]

The reason they had to measure is that in the video you do not see the Pin. Yu see the spot where the ball came to rest and then where she set the tees for the drop area. I think it is clear the angle used for the drop was slanted more toward the pin but only by viewing it in person can they make the correct determination.

Asking for a Rules Official would have avoided this entirely and now she knows that.
2005-10-17 @ 14:45
Comment from: Ho-J [Visitor]
I was quite puzzled as to why this reporter slept on it and decided to bring it up next day when he knew exactly what's going to happen. I now realise why he did what he did - it's apparent that the remark from Michelle about Geometry lesson badly damaged his ego. So he decided to get back at 16 years old girl. He needs to get a life... It's so sad that a man had to go that low...

Nevertheless, it was a good lesson for Michelle as many of you pointed out. It's a part of the learning and maturing process we go through. But she did not have to learn this way had this reporter been less greedy for a brief moment of fame.

2005-10-17 @ 14:46
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
the LPGA needs to change or further define the rule regarding who and when a non-official can raise a rule violation during a tournament play.

The "when" should be within a few minutes of the suspected violation. There are probably countless unintended violations done by veteran and rookie players all the time, and it is impossible to catch every occurrence. But if someone were to physically witness one (even if that person was unsure that a violation occured), they should notify a tour official right away.

This is a response from Robert O Smith, LPGA Tournament Official and Manager of Rules, from the LPGA website:

---Q. Was the spectator here yesterday or did he see it on TV and did either of you know the spectator?
ROBERT O. SMITH: I don't know who it was. They were here yesterday and they told us about it today. Unfortunately, what we like to do, if a spectator sees something like, they need to tell us because if they can tell us right away, if she could have played that, and we could have caught her in the tent at 18, it would have been a two-stroke penalty. Play golf today. But once that scorecard is signed, it's history. That's the unfortunate part of it. That's the sad part of this whole thing.----

Notice that he says "once the scorecard is signed it's history". That is very interesting to me, because if it is indeed history then its done with, you can't change it anymore. If I were a professional I would be afraid to sign my scorecard...

Just my $0.02
2005-10-17 @ 14:54
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]

I've read the list of DQs in two different articles today (so far). Being a golfer, what appals me is not the DQ or Wie's sentiments, but the fact that this guy had several opportunities to bring this up officially to the tour, but didn't until the *very last moment*. I'm trying hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it seems like he was just fishing for a story as some people have said. Being a golfer and golf writer (as opposed to a novice golf spectator who does not appreciate golf rules), had he immediately found an official (surely one must have been in that hole or the next) and mentioned this, we would not be talking about this now. 'I waited to ask her for an explanation after the round' (when she had already signed for the 3rd round) and 'as I was not convinced, I reported this the next day after she finished her final round because my conscience bothered me' comes across as a lame excuse. He may be a senior writer, but he acted like a bonehead, thus opening himself to criticism.

2005-10-17 @ 15:13
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]

I gave some examples of more experienced players who had similar problems. The LPGA uses USGA rules as do every other Tour or Tournament in the US. They cannot adopt their own rules. Everybody plays with the same Rules and should know what they are otherwise there wold be more confusion. Here is just one example.

1996 Bay Hill Invitational

After the second round Jeff Sluman was only two back of the leaders, but he became concerned the night after the round when he thought he may have taken an incorrect drop after hitting into a water hazard. The next morning Sluman returned to the scene and confirmed that the drop area which he used was closer to the hole and that his drop was incorrect. He then disqualified himself from the tournament.

The Official who said "But once that scorecard is signed, it's history" means the score on the card cannot be changed. If it is later learned for whatever reason that the player signed a incorrect scorecard then they are disqualified.
2005-10-17 @ 15:24
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]

I have no idea of the motives of the writer who reported this. I guess I am more trusting and feel he wanted to do the 'right' thing. Perhaps like Sluman he felt compelled after a nights sleep to raise the issue. I realise he was not a player like Sluman.

I am not going to shoot the messenger because I think Michelle has learned a good lesson with little cost. She will benefit from this far more in the future than the loss of 4th place money. Maybe a lot of her fans new to golf have also learned something about the Rules of Golf in spite of some of the nasty things being said above.

A few weeks ago Paula Creamer DQ herself after realising she made a very dumb or silly mistake. I doubt anyone would have know she had made a club change overnight in the midst of a rain delay. It was a careless mistake but she did the right thing by speaking up. It is unfortunate, same as Michelle, but she has learned a lesson and moved on.

BOth of these players will be better for the lessons learned early on in their careers.
2005-10-17 @ 15:34
Comment from: Barry Jaynes [Visitor]
This has little to do with Wie and less to do with you or me. It's about Bamberger's role and how the ruling bodies used that information in their decision.

The decision does nothing but advance the perception that Golf is a game of quirky rules governed by stodgy old fuddy-duddy’s.

Rules official Robert O. Smith, the man who made the final call to disqualify Wie, defended his decision, ``The Rules of Golf are based on facts,'' Smith said. ``They had to tell us where it was. The fact was, the ball was closer to the hole by 12 to 15 inches.''

FACT?! There were no facts uncovered in the “investigation”, which culminated in a ridiculous re-enactment.

The FACT is that a review of the video tape was inconclusive.
The FACT is that pacing the distances proved inconclusive.
The FACT is that even after measuring with a length of silly string, they still could not pinpoint a distance – “12 to 15 inches”. Well, which was it?

The FACT is that the exact location of the ball and the exact location of the point of relief could not be determined expos facto.

The FACT is that there are NO FACTS supporting the disqualification.

Smith also said that he was "hand-cuffed by the rules" and that he was required to "administer the rules as written".

Well, as written, you’ve got to go all over The Book to find all the relevant rules.
•6-1: Player’s responsibility
•6-6: Scoring in Stroke Play
•20-2: Dropping and Re-Dropping
•20-7: Playing from Wrong Place
•28: Ball Unplayable

Wie clearly exhibited knowledge of the rules (6-1) as evidenced by her adherence to rules 20-2, 20-7 and 28.

Interestingly, Mr. Smith made no mention of the following rules as written:

•Spirit of the Game
•1-4: Points not Covered by the Rules
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

Note: The Rules of Golf offer no definition for “Equity”, however Merriam-Webster does:
1a: justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism
1b: something that is equitable
1: having or exhibiting equity: dealing fairly and equally with all concerned

It seems to me that the Spirit of the Game should not and does not only apply to players, but also to the other Agencies of the game:

A “referee’’ is one who is appointed by the Committee to accompany players to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him.

An “outside agency’’ is any agency not part of the match or, in stroke play, not part of the competitor’s side, and includes a referee, a marker, an observer and a forecaddie.

An “observer’’ is one who is appointed by the Committee to assist a referee to decide questions of fact and to report to him any breach of a Rule.

Which definition defines Mr. Bamberger’s role in this? Was he appointed by the committee to report a breach of a Rule? As written, it is difficult to determine how Mr. Smith administered the rules in their entirety.

Furthermore, given the inexcusable delay on Mr. Bamberger’s behalf in reporting the possible rules violation; the lack of a ‘statue of limitations’ for reporting such violations; the omission of guidelines for determing if rule 20-7 had been violated (video, silly string, etc.); and the lack of clear evidence that the rule had actually been violated -- Rule 1-4 could have and SHOULD have been invoked:

Rule 1-4 is vital to the Wie scenario and cannot be ignored. Had a Referee, Outside Agency or Observer raised the concern prior to the signing of the card, the Rules, as written, clearly provide Wie an opportunity to avoid disqualification.

However, perhaps the most important exclusion of Mr. Smith’s administering of the rules is the Spirit of the Game clause, conspicuously located at the top of the Rules of Golf. Mr. Bamberger’s golfing experience and knowledge of the game and its rules are beyond question – this could not be clearer than it is today.
His knowledge of the rules makes the FACT that he waited until after Wie had signed her scorecard suspicious at best. It is clearly not in the Spirit of the Game, nor was the dog-and-pony show that took place at the 7th hole on Sunday evening.

There is but one rule left to be administered. For the spirit of the game. For the good of the game. For the fairness and equity of all concerned.

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.
Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.
If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.
2005-10-17 @ 15:40
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]
Unfortunately, this seems to be taking an ethnic/racial tone..


Chill people. She did concede she made a mistake.

Bamberger has written several golf books (one with DL3, I think) and was a caddie. He was correct to report the violation. Just because it wasn't timely doesn't mean you crucify him. Forget, forgive and move on, as Mr. Wie has chose to do.
2005-10-17 @ 16:00
Comment from: jason [Visitor]
Chris do you watch American idol? If you do at some stage you might have laughed at someone who thinks they can sing but actually suck really bad. In the end they are just entertaining us by how unbelievably deluded they are. That’s what everyone thinks about your 'sports writing'.
2005-10-17 @ 16:00
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Barry J

You are making this more confusing than necessary. It is Rule 20-7 that came into play as she played the ball from the wrong place. IF she had realised this and taken a 2 stoke penalty prior to signing her scorecard it would have been over.

She played from the wrong place because the line she used to measure two club lengths was the wrong angle and put the drop area closer to the pin than the angle she should have used. This is where the caddie is at fault because he should have seen this himself.

Therefore Rule 6 came into play because she signed an incorrect scorecard. It is really quite clear and simple. There is no need for a Websters Dictionary although I am sure you have impressed many people with your long comment most of which is not applicable. Particularly impressive is the use of expost facto. I guess you are a lawyer or pretending to be one.

With the comment that "golf is a game of quirky rules governed by stodgy old fuddy-duddy’s" I guess you are not a member of the USGA.
2005-10-17 @ 16:10
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]

I agree that all tours should follow the USGA rules. So what I meant is that the LPGA, PGA, etc need to change or further define this rule. I am not saying one tour should have different rules from the other.

Did you watch the President's Cup this year? Davis Love picked up his ball on the green because he thought that he heard Mike Weir say it was good. It was in good intentions and to the best of Love's knowledge that he heard Mike Weir say it was good. It was decided to replace the ball with no penalty, since it wasn't a careless or intentional mistake by Davis Love. This is just like Michelle's case. She thought she made a legal drop. And if someone else thought otherwise they should have said something.

Above you said:
"If it is later learned for whatever reason that the player signed a incorrect scorecard then they are disqualified."
How much is later? A day, two days, a year? When is it? What if the reporter spoke out today? Would that be ok?
2005-10-17 @ 16:12
Comment from: Brendan [Visitor]
Attn: Chris Balding

Your colums are predictable and pathetic. I truly believe that you continue to write about Michelle Wie because that's the only way you will ever get any attention from the high school lever trash you call writing. Everything else you write simply goes by unnoticed. You are the biggest "Wie Warrior" of them all you hypocrite. Ride Wie's coattails while you can...you "wanna be journalist."
2005-10-17 @ 16:23
Comment from: Mr. Small Rain [Visitor]
Let me try again: :)

Like Michelle said whether it is 3" or 100 yard, it is a violation. In this case she said 3" and official said 12", 15" and 18". let us settele 15". OK.

And how Mr. Bamberger thought Drop was closer to the hole. Man, how many in a million can see it is 15" closer.
Even if it was 2 or 3 feet closer, it is hard to know that.

I truely believe that he has an agenda.
2005-10-17 @ 16:34
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]
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). **


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."


"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.

2005-10-17 @ 16:36
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: Jen [Visitor]
After reading the Saturday press conference transcript-it seems like Bamberger didn't appreciate Michelle's joke. That probably played into his decision to wait until she signed her card---ahhh the male ego so fragile **

Umm, Jen. Michelle would have signed her card right after her R3 was finished. That would have been before the press conference, probably.

Michelle was already a DQ'd golfer before Bamberger or anyone asked a question.

2005-10-17 @ 16:43
Comment from: Barry Jaynes [Visitor]
Joe -

First, a couple of minor things:

1 - I am a member of the USGA.
2 - I didn't say that golf is ruled by a bunch of fuddy duddy's, I said that the decision advanced the PERCEPTION that it is.

The big things that you missed:

I understand the ruling (20-7 and 6-6), but the point is that it IS more complicated than that because of the "process" used to determine that the rules were violated.

The processes are undefined. Bamberger's role is undefined.
In this particular case, it wreaks of treachery.
Therefore, the additional rules that are in place that offer some "leeway" when "facts" are not readily available(1-4 and 33-7) should have been taken into account.

The entire scenario was beyond ridiculous.

The integrity of the game indeed was undermined. But it wasn't done by the player. Unfortunately, The Game (and the Officials entrusted with it)did it to itself.
2005-10-17 @ 16:58
Comment from: Mr. Small Rain [Visitor]

Why took Mr Bamberger so long to report the violation. It was on 7th and 11 hole to play, he has plenty of time to do it. He gave multiple excuses.

Even Doug Ferguson raised the timing of report in his article.
2005-10-17 @ 16:59
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
Not just AP writer Doug Ferguson--there have been numerous articles by various sportswriters bringing up the timing issue as well. The most recent ones are on ESPN actually.

I guess those real journalists are conspiracy theorists and Wie apologists as well right Chris ....
2005-10-17 @ 17:16
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Chris Baldwin said:
Michelle Wie had from late Saturday afternoon till Sunday afternoon, almost a whole day, to step forward and do the right thing.

Let's see after Saturday's play, she did press interviews, maybe some practice and had some sleep.
Sunday morning, she would have got up had some practice, and went out to play her round of golf. The way you are saying "she had a full day", you would think she had been locked in a room for a day and told to think about her unfortunate drop and nothing else.
She had her next round to think of.
2005-10-17 @ 17:17
Comment from: Fred Bond [Visitor]
When all of the major sports that are televised begin to allow fans or outside influences to report infractions, fouls, out of bounds, drops, etc. that effect the outcome of an event (then it will make sense to allow a TV viewer or reporter to play the part of a rules monitor.
The inequity of having a player subject to greater scrutiny because a camera is on them is an injustice that the USGA should address. If everyone in the field had the same monitoring then it might make sense. I am sure there are numerous unintentional rules infractions that go unnoticed.
2005-10-17 @ 17:21
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
No -Chris

It was MICHAEL BAMBERGER who had until late Saturday afternoon till Sunday afternoon, almost a whole day, to step forward and do the right thing.

Michelle was not aware of her mistake so why would she step forward if she was unaware of it. Bamberger should have stepped forward as soon as he saw it.

From listening to numerous sports journalists this morning-the majority of them have taken issue with Bamberger's bad timing.
2005-10-17 @ 17:36
Comment from: Heywood Jablowme [Visitor]
who cares what this guy says. Chris I'd care if you make a bet. yeah why dont you be responsible for what you say if you consider yourself a professinal writer? Why dont you predict how bad Michelle will do next year and if you are wrong, then you'll run naked at Times Square or something? If you are man enough, that is.
2005-10-17 @ 17:49
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: Mr. Small Rain [Visitor]

Why took Mr Bamberger so long to report the violation. It was on 7th and 11 hole to play, he has plenty of time to do it. **

But at that point, Bamberger would have injected himself into the story. It's not his job to fix the screw ups of Michelle and/or her caddy.

She was a DQ'd dead duck as soon as she signed that scorecard and failed to record a two-stroke penalty.

2005-10-17 @ 18:15
Comment from: RJC [Visitor]
What a mean-spirited post. Maybe Bamberger wasn't doing something unseemly to make a name for himself, but I can't say the same for you.
2005-10-17 @ 18:25
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Barry J

I am glad to know you are a USGA Member. Sorry if I misinterpreted your fuddy duddy comment.

I think I can only agree to disagree on your opinion. This has happened to many other prominent players so I do not see why this guy would be devious about it. I do agree there should be some guideline for on who can point out a violation and also some time limit would be approriate. At lkeast the guy was there. In other situations some one called from home watching on TV and the officials have reacted to this. This I think is ridiculous and should not be permitted.

I still beleive Michelle will be much better for this because I think the way she went about marking the ball was rather hasty and careless. I doubt this will ever happen to her again.

Anyway enjoy the good golf we will see from the LPGA "kids" in the future
2005-10-17 @ 18:25
Comment from: oust Michael [Visitor]
Here is an old adage, reporters don't make the news. There is no excuse for
Michael Bamberger (I want to be famous forever) to do this except his own fame and glory.

I will never buy another SI anything. I think we should all protest and not buy SI this month.

See how long Michael has a job. What he did as a reporter was to use his access to make the story. Not to report it.

2005-10-17 @ 18:32
Comment from: Wil Riter [Visitor]
SI did a miss justice by reporting the breach of the rule at such a late date. It is an attempt at glorification and I will never buy another SI issue again.
Even in football, once the ball is snapped again you can't go back to replay.
Golf rules suck and need a very urgent overhall

2005-10-17 @ 19:10
Comment from: Trip [Visitor]
This string is so funny. Here's the conclusions I've drawn:

1 - Bamberger is an idiot. For waiting. For those of you who claim he would have had to "interject himself into the story", uh...duh. Seems like he did that now, didn't he.

2 - Michelle's an idiot. For not calling in a rules official. Who cares if the rounds take 6 hours - more ad time to sell.

3 - Michelle's caddy is an idiot. Dude, your job is to prevent this from happening.

4 - The Rules Of Golf are idiotic. For not adequately adapting to things like video. Some tweaking to prevent this type of after-the-fact baloney is in order.

5 - Rules of Golf lovers are idiots. Strict adherence to the Rules, then go try and sleep with your business partner's wife. Nice.

6 - Chris Baldwin is an idiot. For calling himself a writer. I can pass gas all day but not call myself a chemist. But this has been a mighty entertaining string!
2005-10-17 @ 20:45
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
George-- He inserted himself anyway. Bamberger should have told officals timely (on Saturday) Michelle would have been penalized...as she should have been. She was dead when she signed the scorecard.. but had he done on saturday what he did on sunday..(tell officals what he saw).. the proper penalty for her infraction would have been meted out.

She "earned" the two shot penalty with the illegal drop.. but Bamberger should have protected the field and given Michelle the opportunity for redress.

His conscience, integrity compelled him to become part of the story ( I have no problem with that) that conscience should simply have kicked in faster. He had the right to tell officals on sunday.. but it would have been correct if he did it on sunday.

And quit saying he didn't want to insert himself into the story... he did and he had to know he did. What he didn't do is give Michele a chace to make up for her penalty with her clubs.

If you made a mistake that would cause you to have your pay docked if it was reported today or lose your job if it was reported tomorrow.. Wouldn't you expect that it was reported today????
2005-10-17 @ 20:49
Comment from: Jim the Anarchist [Visitor]
Having watched Bamberger in action, I was not surprised that he pulled a stunt like this. As a golfer and journalist for more than three decades, I am appalled that he would interject himself into a story, and do it in such a trashy manner. Pure sleaze. I will take the only action available to me to express my displeasure by never contributing another dime to the coffers of SI.
2005-10-17 @ 21:08
Comment from: Richard Davis [Visitor]
Bamburger is a RAT. Bamburger has double standards, whines, and cheats. He knows it. He's scum.

Boycott Sports Illustrated.
2005-10-17 @ 21:35
Comment from: Stan Herkowitz [Visitor]
I googled Michael Bamberger in Phila, here's his phone number, everyone should call this SOB.
2005-10-17 @ 21:38
Comment from: Chad [Visitor]


Trust me I'm as pissed off about this whole thing as you but its probably not a good idea to call Bamberger at his house.

He's an idiot, and deserves a public tongue lashing from the rest of the media (as he already has for the most part)-but its not his family's fault he's a total ass.
2005-10-17 @ 22:14
Comment from: DK [Visitor]
"He went to Michelle Wie first with it, giving her a chance to report it herself, before finally getting into it himself." Huh? I haven't read this anywhere else. Bamberger went to Wie? When?
2005-10-17 @ 22:24
Comment from: DK [Visitor]
You are completely wrong.

Bamberger, even if he did question her in the PRESS conference, would have been bringing up the incident AFTER she had long since signed her card.

This is entirely different from what you wrote AND defended:

"He went to Michelle Wie first with it, giving her a chance to report it herself, before finally getting into it himself."

Just admit you didn't have your facts straight, and maybe people will start to consider respecting you.

I don't think Bamberger is an awful person. He's under no obligation NOT to screw her over by waiting. He's certainly made no friends by waiting so long to bring it all up.

Actually thinking about it more, in bringing it up in that sneaky, underhanded way at the press conference, it sounds like he was trying to set Michelle up, since he was planning on springing the information later. If he already paced it off, why the heck is he asking her AFTER she signs the card, in a public forum, without telling her that "hey, I paced it off already" ??

2005-10-17 @ 22:31
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

Bamberger NEVER went to Wie or her caddy before he told the officials on Sunday.

The only contact he had with her before the incident was during the Saturday press conference.

All he did was ask her how she knew where to drop the ball- she said something about a triangle method.
He asks her to be more specific-- she then makes a joke about feeling that she's teaching him Geometry. The whole place laughs except for poor old Bamberger who may have had his fragile ego hurt. It was a joke- Michelle wasn't trying to embarass him.

Turns out by waiting until Sunday to do anything - he sure as heck wanted to embarass her.
2005-10-17 @ 22:34
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
If Michael Bamberger is to be believed about his being conflicted about reporting Michelle Wie's mistake--maybe the whole Saturday press conference just pushed him to go ahead and do it. Maybe the guy just didn't have a sense of humor.

2005-10-17 @ 22:39
Comment from: Barry Jaynes [Visitor]
Joe -

I'm not so sure that we're in disagreement.

The bottom line is that golf is the loser here.

Maybe - just maybe - this will serve as some sort of a wake-up call and they'll tighten up the rules.

Which really seems to be the best course of action, as the other alternative is to compromise the exactness of the rules.

(You see the problem - you can't have strict interpretation of flimsy laws).
2005-10-18 @ 02:16
Comment from: Sam [Visitor]
I'm not a Wie fan by any stretch of the term. I golf occasionally and I'm not about to wow anyone with my skills at the game.

Therefore, I'm pretty much what you'd call an unbiased observer in this situation. I could care less how Wie (or any other lady in the LPGA) performs tomorrow or 10 years down the road.

But I do have this to say:

Bamberger = Class A Douchebag
2005-10-18 @ 02:36
Comment from: Gary [Visitor]
I've never heard of you or Bamberger before today. I guess you both accomplished what you set out to do!

I say get the public, and especially reporters, out of the golf umpiring roles and let the most honest professionals in any sport do their job. When a reporter affects the game he is no longer a reporter, he is a participant.

I can see this delaying golf even more than it is now as every player calls for an official on every abnormal shot, just to be sure.

I have never been an SI subscriber nor will I ever become one after this.
2005-10-18 @ 03:00
Comment from: jason [Visitor]
Trip youre a legend!!
2005-10-18 @ 04:14
Comment from: yyoo [Visitor]
1. He said he was wary of making sense a part of the story, yet Bamberger made himself and SI itself a much bigger part of the story by waiting until Sunday to report the violation. If he had reported it on Saturday before Wie signed here there, there would have been no sensational disqualification.
2. Now that he's made himself and his editors at SI a part of the story, shouldn't he and SI recuse themselves from reporting on this? They should offer the other members of the sports media an opportunity to interview Bamberger and the editors he spoke with, but they shouldn't write the story themselves and thereby gain from a breach of journalist ethics.

2005-10-18 @ 04:27
Comment from: L Yim [Visitor]
In an interview about 2 years ago (when Michelle was 14 years old) for 60 minutes, Michelle Wie was asked how she felt about some men not wanting her to play in their field. She said "men's egos are so fragile. They can easily be taken down". By her comment to Jerk Bamberger, she took his ego down and therefore, he took her down. Tit for tat.
2005-10-18 @ 04:44
Comment from: Kasu Sista [Visitor]
Please spare me the journalistic integrity crap. I am surprised that he can actually spell the word. The guy had to wait 2 days to report the infraction? He could not sleep because Michelle may have been 3 inches closer to the hole? Please, grow up. We all know what journalists care about. We see it everyday. That is to recast the news or make it as in this case. Reporting news has died long time ago. This is just another case news being manufactured.
2005-10-18 @ 05:23
Comment from: yyoo [Visitor]
Sorry for the sloppy typing in my previous post. Here is that post corrected:

1. He said he was wary of making himself a part of the story, yet Bamberger made himself and SI itself a much bigger part of the story by waiting until Sunday to report the violation. If he had reported it on Saturday before Wie signed here there, there would have been no sensational disqualification.
2. Now that he's made himself and his editor at SI a part of the story, shouldn't he and SI recuse themselves from reporting on this? They should offer the other members of the sports media an opportunity to interview Bamberger and the editor(s) he spoke with, but they shouldn't write the story themselves and thereby profit from a breach of journalistic ethics.
2005-10-18 @ 05:25
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]

Bamberger is not finding a lot of defenders among the sports media this morning. Funny the only article that supports him is one from SI by Alan Shupnick.

Anyways--he's being assailed by a lot of sports writers for his lack of journalistic ethics but my favorite quote is--

" Michelle Wie was the latest victim of the SI Jinx--and she wasn't even on the cover!"
2005-10-18 @ 06:29
Comment from: Denver Player [Visitor]

Change the player to Birdie Kim, and it doesn't change the problem. Insert Michelle Wie, with all of the hype surrounding her first pro tournament, it adds salt to the wound. But it also makes it a much bigger story. If Bamberger felt that a violation had occurred, he should have approached an official immediately. It certainly would not have pulled him from his duties as a "reporter". By his lack of fortitude in directly confronting the issue, it calls into question his motives and integrity. And don't give me the excuse that he confronted Wie. He asked an indirect question to Wie about the drop after the round in a press conference. Have some gumption and be direct when you are suggesting that an infraction took place. Instead, he delayed and made himself part of the story. I find that regrettable.

No Wie apologist here. She broke a rule, so she should pay the price, as anyone should. She must live by her mistakes. So should Bamberger as well. Tough for me to take stock in anything Bamberger writes now.
2005-10-18 @ 07:47
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Chris you are embarrassing yourself.

Speaking of sportswriters (Bamberger) you wrote:

"They don't worry about whether Michelle Wie blows a fourth-place finish with a careless move that no one in their 30th pro tournament should really be making"

Did you notice your beloved Paula Creamer was disqualified a few weeks ago for something equally inane??

Here's a question... if you could have such a dislike (or at the minimum glee in watching her stuggle) for Michelle..why couln't Bamberger feel the same??? Afterall, as you said, you don't know him. Is it beyond possibility? You jumping to defend him because you share a profession, is as ridiculous as some of the "wie warrior" drivel you abhor.

We have no idea why he did what he did. It may have been for the best intentions...it may not have been. We know two things..Michelle deserved a penalty of two strokes, and Bamberger should have come forward earlier (which would have ensured the proper penalty was administered..and she would have avoided the second penalty of signing the wrong scorecard).. by acting when he did..Bamberger made sure two rules were broken.

I have no idea why..and neither do you.

If we are to give him the benefit of the doubt (as you have) perhaps we should give Michelle the benefit of the doubt a little more often also. You can't only empathize with those who write sports satories. (I guess you can, but you shouldn't).

I do agree with you on Michelle's caddie however. He is in the game and has to guide her to the write decisions.

Speaking of Paula.. did you see red outfit on saturday...GOOD LORD!
2005-10-18 @ 08:18
Comment from: Ho-J [Visitor]
I have never been a big fan of SI (especially Swimsuit Issue)and this "stupid & unethical" journalism tactic surely will keep me away from SI forever. I hope that enough of you feel the same way and boycott SI until they publicly apologise for mishanlding this incident.
2005-10-18 @ 09:41
Comment from: DK [Visitor]
Problem is this...

Calls get MISSED in every sport. If you follow around with a video camera around every player in the game, and "VIDEO REVIEW/REPLAY" every single play in the game, you will find SOME technical infractions every round, mistakes that get missed, whether it's replacement of a ball after a mark and the ball moves, or a drop being a few inches closer to the hole before a 50 yard approach shot, or a ball shifting 1 mm in the sand if you do a 100x superzoom on the ball.

Now, does Bamberger, as a FAN, have carte blanche to come back two days later and say he believes that a call was missed, and that VIDEO evidence STILL doesn't confirm, then Michelle has to point the next day to a spot she believes the ball was, then they pace it off, and FINALLY conclude that her judgment was off the day before and that in fact,




(Once this idea got out there, Vijay Singh and Colin Montgomery would get disqualified every tournament, because at least 100 fans could scrutinize their ball with high power zoom lenses to look for subtle movement after placement... look at a ball close enough and it ALWAYS moves a little)...
2005-10-18 @ 09:50
Comment from: Nelson Garcia [Visitor]
Michael Bamberger knew exactly what he was doing. He has no business using the word integrity, because he has none.

If he took the time to pace the distance on Saturday, he was no longer in "reporter mode" as he claims.

Another thing he measured was how big a news story this will make, especially if Michelle were to mount a comeback and win the tournament - all of which will be even more plausible if he just keeps his mouth shut until the tournament is over.

My guess is that he already had his story filed by the time the tournament ended and was probably busy patting himself on the back and sipping victory martinis with LPGA tour officials while every other legitimate journalist was left scrambling trying to figure out what happened. Good one, Mike. I bet you even those Augusta folks are happy to follow an LPGA story this week, as long as it comes from you. Good boy.

2005-10-18 @ 10:35
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]

You should chill out. You and others are really getting carried away with this and have gone over the edge. There is nothing new here except that it happened to someone you want to protect.

She is not the first and will not be the last. Next time I am sure she will ask for a ruling on how/where to drop.

Lesson learned move on.
2005-10-18 @ 11:36
Comment from: EZ [Visitor]
Chris, you are the stereotypical apologist for an out-of-control media. Let me make one thing clear, I am NOT a Wie fan. I agree that she should not be allowed to turn pro until she has graduated from high school.

Meanwhile, I do believe that Bamberger, like yourself, has a bias against Wie. Such a bias that he would interject himself into this story in an attempt to shun her out of the LPGA. What an arrogant asshole to think he is the keeper of the game's integrity. How was the game's integrity compromised by what occured? The only thing compromising the integrity of golf is the fact that tournament officials would DQ a player based predominately on a day-late, tattle-tale account of a biased reporter.
2005-10-18 @ 11:43
Comment from: Mr.Mike [Visitor]
The really unfortunate aspect of all of this is that this Bamberger fellow actually gets his 14 minutes ... 13 minutes....
2005-10-18 @ 12:25
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
And how about Paula Creamer's red outfit???

2005-10-18 @ 12:45
Comment from: Don Artz [Visitor]
The question is WHY did Bamberger wait? WHY? If he had real concerns about the drop do something now,not the next day. He(Bamberger)was a PGA caddie. He most likely knew it was a bad drop. Why wait till the next day to say something. Bamberger you had the chance to be a teacher for this kid. Should have pulled her aside ask her, is what you did, is it correct?Before you sign your card, are you right? You had your chance Bamberger.
2005-10-18 @ 13:39
Comment from: AhhSoo [Visitor]
After reading & watching most of the news reports about this, I'm still puzzled by:

1. NEWS REPORTS: Bamberger says that he wanted to wait to question Michelle about the drop BUT he knows that the interviews after any round are conducted AFTER the player signs their card for the just concluded round. PUZZLED: She would have been disqualified after the 3rd round if he had brought this up with the officials after her "unsatisfactory" answer to his question, so then why did he wait till the next day AFTER the final round to notify the officials?

2. NEWS REPORTS: The officials review the video and say that was inconclusive. They pace off the distance (2 officials) and claim that was inconclusive. Finally, they measure with 2 strings (2 officials) and claim that her ball was 12 to 15 inches closer to the hole. PUZZLED: On the 4th day when this all takes place, where was the hole on the 3rd day? Don't they move the holes every day? If you move one endpoint on a triangle in relation to the other 2 fixed endpoints, wouldn't the distance change vs. where the moving endpoint is located? Maybe even more than 12 to 15 inches depending on the cup location from day 3 to day 4?

3. NEWS REPORTS: All attempts to determine the distance are inconclusive except for the string method. PUZZLED: When the officials use the string method, all they can report finding is that she was 12 to 15 inches closer to the hole. Why a range of inches? Why not say that it was exactly 12.5"? or 14.25"? String from original position (in bush) to the hole PLACED ALONGSIDE string from dropped position to hole and just take out a 12" ruler (or tape rule) and one can determine EXACTLY the number of inches difference?

4. NEWS REPORTS: She and her caddy were asked to point out where the ball was in the bush AND where the dropped ball was when she hit it. PUZZLED: The officials will disqualify a player based on their memory of where the ball was located in 2 different locations the day before & 29 holes later? Try to remember 2 exact locations and if one is off by an inch then that would determine whether a person is disqualified or not?

I am undecided about what happened and hope that someone could provide answers that make any sense.
2005-10-18 @ 14:16
Comment from: AhhSoo [Visitor]
A follow up question to the above. Would the LPGA officials conduct a Review of the Review? Did both officials on site make absolutely sure that they were considering the correct string when measuring the distance between the 2 locations. In other words, no foul ups regarding getting the strings mixed up or if only one string was used, was it properly marked and interpreted?

It would help tremendously, if the LPGA officials on site that day would release to the public the exact steps (blow by blow) of how they went about their business of measuring everythng.

Michelle has said she accepts the ruling and will move on and I want to do the same too, but...
2005-10-18 @ 14:30
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]


George-- He inserted himself anyway. Bamberger should have told officals timely (on Saturday) Michelle would have been penalized...as she should have been. She was dead when she signed the scorecard.. but had he done on saturday what he did on sunday..(tell officals what he saw).. the proper penalty for her infraction would have been meted out.

She "earned" the two shot penalty with the illegal drop.. but Bamberger should have protected the field and given Michelle the opportunity for redress.

His conscience, integrity compelled him to become part of the story ( I have no problem with that) that conscience should simply have kicked in faster. He had the right to tell officals on sunday.. but it would have been correct if he did it on sunday.

And quit saying he didn't want to insert himself into the story... he did and he had to know he did. What he didn't do is give Michele a chace to make up for her penalty with her clubs.

If you made a mistake that would cause you to have your pay docked if it was reported today or lose your job if it was reported tomorrow.. Wouldn't you expect that it was reported today????

MT, what would have happened had Bamberger reported this on Saturday after she signed her card? Because once she signs the card after R3 without adding the two-stroke penalty, she's DQ'd.

And if he brought it up at the news conference, that was after she signed her card?

Are you saying Bamberger is obliged to rescue Michelle before she signed her card?

2005-10-18 @ 14:43
Comment from: AhhSoo [Visitor]
Bamberger is, certainly, NOT obliged to rescue anyone BUT why not question the drop with the officials before she signed her 3rd round card and they, maybe, could have stopped Michelle from signing her card and taken her out there for the measurements. Or let her caddy and/or the Wie family know that he will inform the officials about his concerns before she went in to sign her card?

Still puzzling to me.

Wonder what kind of story he would have had if she played "unreal" on Sunday and beat Annika for the championship and then was disqualified? Was he hoping for just sort of a scenario?
2005-10-18 @ 15:10
Comment from: Tyler [Visitor]
Bye-Bye SI!

Bottom line is this reporter wants his 15 minutes of fame. I won't support him or his mag.

He should have - as the smart man he thinks he is - brought it to the officals attention right after he walked it off. What's he doing on the course anyway?

Talk about opening a can of worms - are we going to have spectators jumping every offical when they THINK there's a rules infraction?
2005-10-18 @ 15:56
Comment from: stab [Visitor]
Chris Baldwin you are by far the best satire writer working today. Keep it up.
2005-10-18 @ 16:13
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
Bamberger agonized over what to do overnight before coming to an official.
I think these were some of his thoughts.

-Why didn't I talk to an official right after I saw the drop? People will ask why I waited until after the tournament was over which might lead to her DQ?

-Will people say I wanted my 15 minutes of fame?

-People will accuse me of manipulating the situation so that I can sell more of my book that will be released in 2 weeks?

-People will say I'm trying to get her because she mocked and belittled me in front of a big group of reporters, some my peers.

-How will Wie react? Will she crumble in public and start saying bad things to me?

-Despite all these, I should do the right thing because I love the game of Golf too much.

I wonder what I'd have done in his situation.
2005-10-18 @ 16:18
Comment from: rtd2 [Visitor]
you make some good points dba
2005-10-18 @ 16:55
Comment from: guy [Visitor]
The hoopla about Bamberger holding out on reporting the infraction and later feeling disturbed about it is a complete farce. He himself said he wanted to wait until he interviewed her. Is that an attempt to extort Michelle for an interview? Bamberger is a parasite that earns his living by making others miserable.

Journalist are supposed to report the story, not make it. Sports Illustrated should fire him for his actions and he should apologize to Michelle and the LPGA. Further more he should be banned from golf venues.

If Michelle refuses to give SI an interview for the next few years, they deserve it.

Hey Michelle, we know you will rise above this1 You go girl.

2005-10-18 @ 17:35
Comment from: June [Visitor]
I have thought about what might transpire this whole illegal drop thing for whole day and this is what I came up with.

By putting club between the hole and the point of entrance to draw AB, and then put 2 club lengths perpendicular to that fist shaft (method A), you are not getting equilateral triangle. Point C obtained by this way is actually further back from the hole than actual point C of equilateral triangle ABC. Of course by doing the way you describe, there is no chance the ball is end up any closer to the hole.

Now comes the tricky part. From the TV viewing, it sure looks like if you putting 2 clubs like the way you described (method A), it does look like there is a chance the drop point is somewhere on the dirt area. But this doesn’t give you equilateral triangle point C. Actual point C of equilateral triangle ABC would be a little upfront from the dirt area (method B). While there is smaller margin of error in this method, if it is done correctly the ball won’t be closer to the hole, but you can get the drop spot closer to the hole than the spot you got from method A. By using method B, it seems to me like Michelle tried to avoid the dirt area, which is risky but still perfectly within the rule.

Michelle did mention during 3R press conference she had used triangle method and also did mentioned about equilateral triangle although she didn’t elaborate any further when Bamberger asked her exactly how.

Now if Bamberger or casual TV viewer think of only method A and don’t have any idea Michelle was using method B (equilateral triangle), a red flag might raised in their mind when she put the second club at the point C although what she was trying to do was perfectly legal within the rule. I guess this was sticking point when Bamberger went “Oh. Oh” more than the way she carelessly put the second club closer to the point C obtained by method A. But Michelle might be putting second club at the point C obtained by method B. So she has no reason to believe what she is doing is wrong up to this point or after everything is said and done the drop spot is ended up closer to the hole because there is such small margin of error in method B.

Even more complicating aspect is that, if Bamberger and official paced it off the distance following method A, of course it sure looks like what Michelle has done seems wrong. After informed about the possible infraction, I am not sure how accurately and in reasonable manner Michelle could have explained this two separate scenarios to the official or if she ever did so.

This might explain this whole unfortunate episode. Sorry about the long post and rambling but I can’t seem to stop thinking about it cause I feel sorry for Michelle for what happened. But give your thought on that matter. Am I pushing? Is it possible that real issue is truly difference between method A and B?

Take up a pencil and a paper and draw yourself method A and B and think about it.
2005-10-18 @ 17:49
Comment from: jim [Visitor]
Pardon me for interrupting this food fight with some facts, but here they are: 1) Michael Bamberger is one of the most respected golf writiers in the business. He has published two very popular books, one of which, "To the Linksland," has been refrred to by Tom Watson as his favorite golf book ever. Bamberger also ghost-wrote Davis Love's autobiography. He is tremendously respected by golfers on both the PGA and LPGA tours and has won numerous writing awards based on his integrity as a reporter. Job secutiry and ego have nothing to do with this. In fact, seems to me the LAST THING he would want is to discredit one of his subjects and thus lose any credibility with the players, whose confidence he needs in order to get interviews and perform his job. 2) For those of you who were too lazy to do so, a careful reading of this story reveals that Michelle Wie's father THANKED Bamberger twice after she was disqualified. "You have done us a favor," he said. And he did...I can assure you she will never make a mistake like that again...a mistake that would probably cost her a lot more emabarrassment (and money) in a situation where she might be winning a tournament. Repeat: bamberger did her a favor, and did a favor for other pro golfers who might be lax about the rules that govern their ability to cash those big checks. 3) Have you checked what the other pro golfers are saying about this? I have yet to find any golfer saying anything other than -- "he did the right thing" and Wie, herself, knows he did, too. It is a game of honor and integrity, the last refuge of intergrity in professional sports (think of catchers framing pitches, hockey players checking while the ref looks the other way, football lineman holding, etc.). Maybe you goombas who like to cheat are frustrated that the rules are there, but for anyone with a shred of honor, you know it is the right outcome. 4) Bamberger obviously has nothing against Wie. He praised her and simply stated the fact. She was "hasty." And if you look at the tape --particularly golf channel's coverage last night, you see she was hasty. She should have consulted an official -- very easy -- butshe didn't. It was a simple, honest mistake that a more experienced player would not have made. 5) If you stilldon't get it, stop being so lazy and do your homework. Bamberger is an outstanding writer and what he did was completely consistent with his principals and the code of the game.
2005-10-18 @ 18:05
Comment from: L. Yim [Visitor]
To Jim: Have you heard what some of the pro golfers said in addition to someone from ESPN Pardon the Interruption. He said Bamberger had no right being a snitch because it was not his place. He also called him "and the other word that rhymes with snitch", which we all know starts with a b. As for pro golfers, Mark Rolfing said he saw nothing wrong, and had he saw something wrong, he would have commented on air as he was one of the analysts of the tournament. David Ledbetter said the timing of Bamberger providing the information was suspect. Mark Lye from Golf Channel said he was miffed that Bamberger waited so long to provide the information. Jerkberger knew what he was doing. He did it on purpose because look at all of us, his name is being repeated over and over and over.
2005-10-18 @ 18:20
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Come on Chris. I know you have a thing about Michelle Wie, but why are you dumping on Greg Johnston. Isn't it obvious that he is an experienced LPGA caddy and if he said nothing then presumeably that is what experienced LPGA caddies do in that situation. If an LPGA golfer makes a drop that looks like it is illegal, she probably knopws what she is doing and doesn't want her caddy to screw things up by telling her that it is probably illegal--therby depriving her of plausible deniability. You can be fairly certain that Greg would have spoken up if what Michelle Wie did wasn't a common practice and if caddies weren't expected to shut up in that situation.
2005-10-18 @ 18:33
Comment from: Stu [Visitor]
I hate to break to YOU Mr. Baldwin, but you cancelled your own rebuttal when you state, "...reporters are just trying to earn a living, keep their bosses off their back..."

That's the point, Michael Bamberger was trying to earn a living and keep his boss off his butt. What better way to do so than make himself the center of attention in this story.

You claim he went to Michelle first. Funny, this is the first time I've heard that. Robert O. Smith, chief rules official at the tourney, stated that Mr. Bamberger sat on this overnight, and Mr. Bamberger was quoted as saying he was to wrapped up in his story to report it until the next day. BS! He was looking for headlines and helped make them bigger by not coming forward immediately. He, like you, know that was the proper thing to do.

Michelle made a mistake. She knows the rules. She has a caddy to help her stay within them and he quite obviously didn't do his job and should be fired. I noticed throughout the TV coverage of this event that he wasn't as helpful and supportive as he should have been on two other occasions when Michelle was in trouble. He simple barked out some instructions and walked away from her ... way away. That seemed very odd to me.

However, I find it very strange that Mr. Bamberger was the only person noticing this infraction ... and when you are located on the opposite side of a fairway, 12 to 15 inches would be hard to notice. Not even her playing partner and caddy noticed and they would/should have had a vested interested.

So, don't tell me Mr. Bamberger wasn't out to make a name for himself over this. The bigger the headlines, the bigger the paycheck. He knew exactly what he was doing and why he delayed doing it.

2005-10-18 @ 18:35
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
My comments to some of your comments.:

1) You may be right that Bamberger is a respected man with integrity in the golfing world. But that makes me think more about what happened in the press conference where MW possibly made the mistake of offending Bamberger.

I'm sure you heard about the incident where he didn't get the joke MW gave about teaching geometry during the press conference? I read that he was the only one not laughing in the press conference, packed with many other reporters, some who cover golf like he does. If I were him, I'd have some pride and joy in knowing that I have the respect of people in the industry I work in. And I would be offended if someone made a mockery of me while talking about an issue related to the industry. Add to the mix the fact that she is 16 years old and it happened in a very public forum, I'd be offended too.
Then maybe, maybe it happened this way. He had no intention to bring this upto an official until after MW mocked him. Maybe that's why he never sought out an official during the 3rd round. After the press conference however, he thought about MW's comment over and over and than thought, sxxxx her, I'm going to talk to an official about this. Don't people have that experience? You are offended by someone and than it stays in your heard over time?

2) If I were Michelle's father, I would've done the same. I know there is nothing to gain by lashing out at him. In fact there is more to gain by looking gracious in dealing with this. MW's father's response to this cannot be used to defend Bamberger...


2005-10-18 @ 18:37
Comment from: Ho-J [Visitor]
With all this publicity, how many of you think that his new book will sell like he wanted, having made himself so famous by "in his words" protecting so called "integrity" of the game of golf?

I certainly will not even entertain the idea of buying a book written by him. There would be nothing to learn from this man of integrity.
2005-10-18 @ 18:38
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
A) Wie was wrong to not consult caddie and rules official.

B) Bamberger violated the spirit of the game by not discussing things with a tour official before the round ended.

C) The LPGA and all of golf need to eliminate once and for all the interference of outside agencies (television viewers, fans, reporters like Baldwin) from the decision-making process of tournaments. No other sport allows input from outside agencies, nor does it overturn results that are in the books.

D) Baldwin is a pro, you wieners. You may not like his opinions, but he does the profession of sports writing much credit.

2005-10-18 @ 19:17
Comment from: June [Visitor]
I meant to say isosceles trianlge, not equilateral triangle. Sorry about that.
2005-10-18 @ 19:32
Comment from: Noel [Visitor]
I am cancelling my SI subscription.

2005-10-18 @ 19:39
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]

Thank you for the clarity and common sense.
2005-10-18 @ 19:56
Comment from: Curious [Visitor]

Regarding your comment from 2005-10-18 @ 14:16. I agree. The official's determination should have been inconclusive. There were just too many variables and assumptions made to make a positive determination. Think about this, with all the variables and assumptions made, from 45 feet away from the hole (540 inches) the official are 100% positive that the ball was dropped 12-15 inches closer to the hole. I don't buy that. An attorney would have a field day with this.
2005-10-18 @ 20:05
Comment from: Pete (visitor) [Visitor]
Michael Bamberger should be fired for ambushing Wie the way he did. The LPGA officials have some explaining to do too. I'm not a big Golf fan and I just heard about Wie a couple of weeks ago when she turned pro. SI should focus their reporters on getting the story and not on creating it! I've lost all respect for SI. Bamberger is a bum, plain and simple. Hope he got his story because SI lost more readers over this then they gained.
2005-10-18 @ 20:17
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Anyone care what the pros think of this??

From the Golf Channel website.

Woods, Others Weigh in on Wie Incident
By Mercer Baggs - October 18, 2005

“The interesting thing that most people don’t realize is that this kind of thing comes up every year in players’ meetings behind closed doors,” Stewart Cink said. “And year after year, the players – the majority of the players – support call-ins and people from the galleries … calling rules (violations).”

“I think it was really fair of the guy who did it. It (just) should have been handled differently; he should have called it before she signed her scorecard,” said world No. 2 Vijay Singh.

The reporter’s timing seemed to bother players more so than his calling a violation.

“I think the way it was handled was wrong in my opinion,” tour rookie Sean O’Hair said. “I think it could have been brought to her attention during the round. If that would have been the case, then she wouldn’t have been disqualified.”

O’Hair said that at the WGC-American Express Championship two weeks ago, his playing companions, Singh and David Toms, brought to his attention a bad drop he made on the 15th hole in the final round. They did so during the round, allowing him to call a penalty on himself, and thus avoiding disqualification for signing an incorrect scorecard.

Because that threesome was so far behind the leaders at the time, the incident wasn’t seen on television. Had Singh and Toms not been paying attention, O’Hair might have unintentionally broken a rule and not been penalized.

That leads to the debate of whether or not public policing is fair to everyone. Certain players – like Woods and Wie – receive far more exposure than their peers. That means more cameras, more sets of eyes and much more scrutiny.

“It’s not equitable for the entire tour, but you have to understand that – you accept it,” Woods said. “We’re going to have more camera time, so hence things like that can happen.”

Singh receives his fair share of exposure. And he said he has no problem with someone outside of the ropes calling a rules infraction on him or anyone else.

“The rules are the rules,” said Singh, “regardless of who calls it.”

“The difference between our sport and other sports that are televised is that the referees govern them and the rules govern us,” Cink said. “Whether there’s somebody there to call a rules violation or not, the rules are still in effect.”

It is no big deal, move on!!!
2005-10-18 @ 20:53
Comment from: kelly [Visitor]
Comment for Noel: Good. Sports Illustrated will pleased to tell its advertisers that troglodytes like you are not included in its subscription base. Take the money you save and go buy some things at Toys R Us, where, given the maturity you (and others who share your opinion) are showiung on this issue, I'm sure you do most of your shopping. Folks, wake up!! She made a mistake and she was called on it. It's as simple as that. It makes no difference who called her on it, an SI reporter, an ordinary fan, a rules official or a competitor. She is a wonderful competitor, she is great for the game of golf, she is making it fund to watch the LPGA, she is going to be a star. She made rookie mistake. She should thank that reporter for helping her ensure she'll never do it again. Put your little boy-crushes on her on the shelf and grow up. This is the big world, little boys, and she has to play by big-world rules.
2005-10-18 @ 20:54
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Yes George he is obliged (if he truly cares about the rules). You see, as well as Bamberger knows the rules he knew that she would be disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. He is the one that turned her in! To put this in competitive terms...what id Paula Creamer saw the same thing?? She has the same obligation to Michelle as Bamberger (one could even say less as she is a competitor). Do you think she would have waited until Sunday?? Do you think she would be considered a good sport if she did?? What if Annika's playing competitor noticed something and waited until after the tournament and it cost her a win?? Do you think that's sportsmanship?? Do you think the other players would support her as you are supporting Bamberger??? Do you think if Paula's playing competitor had noticed that she had the wrong clubs a few weeks ago..she would have said something to her??? Of course she would have..its called sportsmanship and DECENCY. BECAUSE SOMEONE COMMITS A PENALTY YOU DON'T GIVE UP ON THEM OR THROW THEM TO THE WOLVES. YOU DON'T LET THEM FEND FOR THEMSELVES. YOU CALL THE PENALTY AND MOVE ON.

If Michelle lost her ball and Bamberger found it, would it have been ok to not tell her that it was found?? He has no obligation to tell her, but should he??? Would you??? This is a sport based on HONOR,INTEGRITY, and SPORTSMANSHIP. Waiting until Sunday is in keeping with none of these.

You make it sound like he was passive. In fact these are the choices Bambeger had

1. Say nothing and Do nothing-- (I do not think he should have said nothing)...but it was a choice.

2. Turn her in after she signed a scorecard..knowing full well she would be disqualified.

3. Notify officials on Saturday and have the correct 2 shot penalty meted out.

There is simply no way around this..DQ's generally come in play when someone finds out they made a mistake (or it is reported to officials) AFTER the fact. The problem with Bamberger is he KNEW BEFORE THE ROUND WAS OVER. IN effect, HE CHOSE TO HAVE HER DISQUALIFIED rather than have the two shot penalty meted out.

There was no obligation to do anything here...HE CHOSE to become involved and chose WHEN to become involved. I have never once stated that I felt she shouldn't be penalized (the field must be protected) I am however astounded by your persistence in arguing that what Bamberger did was right. It wasn't. The norm on tour is to let officals (or the player know) something happen in REAL TIME, what he did was out of the norm, hurt Michelle Wie to a greater extent than the rules called for (for the incorrect drop) and call into question WHY he could find the time on Sunday but not Saturday.

You never come up with a good answer to this. All you have to say is that somehow he owed nothing to Michelle but owed something to the other players. Where did he come by this indebtedness to the field?? Why does the same courtesy not extend to Michelle (who is the 20 th player in the field).

You keep making the point that people should not bend over backward for Michelle...but the OPPOSITE HAPPENED HERE. SHe was given ZERO consideration, Zero aid, when if he cared about the rules the correct penalty could and should have been meted out on Saturday.

George your the type that likes to shave a few strokes off that handicap when in a money game aren't you?? You ever drop and "find" that lost ball?? Afterall you have "no obligation" to those you are playing with.
2005-10-18 @ 21:17
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Hey George (and Chris/Tim)--

excerpted fom Joe:

“I think it was really fair of the guy who did it. It (just) should have been handled differently; he should have called it before she signed her scorecard,” said world No. 2 Vijay Singh.

The reporter’s timing seemed to bother players more so than his calling a violation.

“I think the way it was handled was wrong in my opinion,” tour rookie Sean O’Hair said. “I think it could have been brought to her attention during the round. If that would have been the case, then she wouldn’t have been disqualified.”

O’Hair said that at the WGC-American Express Championship two weeks ago, his playing companions, Singh and David Toms, brought to his attention a bad drop he made on the 15th hole in the final round. They did so during the round, allowing him to call a penalty on himself, and thus avoiding disqualification for signing an incorrect scorecard.

This is the point I have been making to you all day. Are Vijay Singh and Sean O'Hair "snivelling "Wie Warriors" too????

If Bamberger chooses to become involved because of sportsmanship/integrity, sportsmanship DEMANDS that he act on Saturday.

Are the best players in the world wrong too??? Should Vijay and Toms have left Sean O'hair to be disqualified as Bamberger did?? They had no obligation to him. Do you think they would do that??

As I have told you ad nauseum-- THIS HAPPENS EVERY TOURNAMENT! It does not usually come to a DQ, because those involved have the integrity,decency, and sportsmanship to uphold the RULES and be fair to all competitors..including the one that makes the infraction.

Does your dislike for Wie run so strong that you will now disagree with those that are involved with the game at its highest levels. As I mentioned to you in an earlier note...I bet the players will be nearly unanimous on this...if you feel the obligation to uphold the rules (which you should) feel the obligation to do it right away!!
2005-10-18 @ 21:30
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Hey metoo.....

Did you read the article fully. Not one player disagrees with the ruling. You will not see an official disagree either.

“The interesting thing that most people don’t realize is that this kind of thing comes up every year in players’ meetings behind closed doors,” Stewart Cink said. “And year after year, the players – the majority of the players – support call-ins and people from the galleries … calling rules (violations).”

The majority of players support people from Galleries pointing out violations. It would have been better if the timing was different but the violation still happened.
2005-10-18 @ 21:49
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Joe-- I don't disagree with the ruling (WHICH I HAVE SAID IN EVERY POST ON THE SUBJECT, including the one you refer to above). I disagree with the timing of Bamberger's discussion with officals that led to the disqualification. That is EXACTLY what Vijay and Sean O'hair say. AND it is EXACTLY what Vijay and David Toms helped O'HAir avoid.
2005-10-18 @ 21:58
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Joe- the penalty for an illegal drop is TWO SHOTS... that is what I believe Michelle should have recieved and its what both Vijay and Toms say above.

As for the galleries calling in...I don't agree that this should be allowed. It creates an unfair playing field for the leaders and players of note ( everything else in the game strives to keep a relatively even playing field) and it admittedly bothers me that we can't do this in other sports. It is interactive, but I gues I don't like officiating to be interactive.

But if the players don't mind, I am going to keep seeing it..aren't I?
2005-10-18 @ 22:03
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]

I do not disagree that people calling in is a bit much. The majority of players seem to understand and appreciate the reality of this so I doubt there will be a change. Yes, I think you will keep seeing it.
2005-10-18 @ 22:16
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Joe-- We are on the same page on this...now if only we can see eye to eye on this DQ
2005-10-18 @ 22:21
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Joe-- By the way thanks for that article it has brought more clarity than a thousand posts by either side!
2005-10-18 @ 22:23
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Hey chris Baldwin--

Is Len Shapiro sinking to a new low?


From Jason


Rulings Are for Officials, Not Reporters

By Leonard Shapiro
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 18, 2005; 5:21 PM

What was Michael Bamberger thinking?

Then again, why was Michael Bamberger not thinking?

Bamberger, who has made a solid name for himself as a talented and nationally recognized senior writer and reporter for Sports Illustrated and other publications, also did himself no favors over the weekend when he essentially ratted out Michelle Wie for taking an apparent incorrect penalty drop during the third round of the Samsung World Championship in Palm Desert.

His troubling decision to report her to LPGA rules officials for what he perceived to be a violation of the rules of golf never should have happened.

So what if he witnessed the incident, when Wie took an unplayable lie and apparently dropped her ball no more than a foot closer to a hole she would eventually par. The rules say you can't drop your ball closer to the hole and calls for a two-shot penalty.

The infraction occurred on the par-5 No. 7 on Saturday, but Bamberger did not report the alleged infraction to rules officials until Sunday. By then, of course, Wie had already signed her Saturday scorecard, and when rules officials ultimately determined that Wie had, indeed, broken the rule, she was disqualified from her first tournament as a professional for signing an incorrect scorecard, wiping out her fourth place finish and a check for $53,126.

Back in Journalism 101, among the first principles ever driven into our young and fertile minds was the concept that reporters should never become part of the story. We're there to report and write about what we witnessed, but not inject ourselves into the action or contribute to altering the basic facts of what we've just seen or heard.

If Wie, to take this to an extreme, had fallen into a water hazard and was in danger of drowning, good for Michael Bamberger or any other reporter who would drop his notebook, jump in the pond and rescue her. In that hypothetical, of course a reporter can become part of the story.

But affecting the outcome of a golf tournament because you believe a rules violation has taken place goes way above and beyond the role of the sports press. And by the way, governing bodies of golf that allow television viewers to call in and report possible rules violations also ought to cease and desist in permitting such nonsense.

Bamberger, who's work I have always respected and often admired, has been quoted as saying he believes he did the right and honorable thing.

I believe he was dead wrong and did the absolutely dishonorable thing for his profession. He was there as a representative of his publication, given credentials by the LPGA to "cover" the event, not officiate it. If he wanted to mark off the yardage to prove the error of Wie's ways to himself and then to his readers, no problem there. If he wanted to write about his findings in the magazine, again, that certainly was his prerogative. But to seek out an official and report an alleged transgression in my mind does not and never has fit the job description for a journalist covering a golf tournament.

This is not to say Bamberger does not know the game. He plays. He has caddied on the PGA and European Tours. This year, he even served as a caddy for British Amateur champion Stuart Wilson and wrote about it for his magazine. Good for him, good for his readers, good for SI.

n his role as a caddy, he would have had every right to call a possible rules infraction to the attention of the man whose bag he was carrying, even to bring in an official if he spotted a rules violation by another player or caddy.

As a journalist, he had no right, no matter what sort of moral high ground he has been taking in all the interviews I've seen him give since the DQ, to insinuate himself into the story. He was out of line. Period and end of story.

If Bamberger and the magazine he works for are so concerned about the honor of the sport, I also suggest he and SI start writing about some truly dishonorable aspects of the game.

Perhaps a piece on the discriminatory membership policies of Augusta National and many other courses around the country-including several where SI editors past and present have played-that do not allow women members, or have odious policies that prevent women from teeing off before 1 p.m. on weekends.

Perhaps he can write about all those U.S. Golf Association officers, the men who are the so-called public guardians and protectors of the game, who also belong to clubs like Augusta National, Pine Valley, Peach Tree and Seminole, none of which allow women and several of which have no black members, either.

There are plenty of wonderful, meaty and controversial topics to cover in the wide world of golf. You want to be a journalist, go get 'em tiger.

You want to be a referee, quit the profession, go get a striped shirt and buy a whistle.

Len Shapiro, a past president of the Golf Writers Association of America, can be reached at Badgerlen@hotmail.com.
2005-10-18 @ 23:00
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Looking down through this topic I am glad that "Meetoo" seems to have finished the argument in a definitive way that thwarts all the Anti-Wie brigade.

- yes it was against the rules.
- Bamberger should have said it earlier, so that Michelle could have taken her two shot penalty before signing her card.

These two facts are indisputable.
2005-10-19 @ 13:44
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Posted 10/18 on www.si.com by Alan Shipnuck -

Last week Bamberger picked up an unlikely supporter in B.J. Wie, Michelle's fiercely loyal, protective father. He knows that his daughter, for all her prodigious physical talents, is still a teenager with much to learn. No doubt, now she will be more careful in applying the rules. On Sunday evening B.J. saw Bamberger in the press room and said, "Good job, Michael." Then he shook his hand.

2005-10-19 @ 14:07
Comment from: lee [Visitor]
Further to Shanks' comment, here's the link to the Shipnuck story, which seems to be reasonably objective despite being in Bamberger's magazine. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/rob_stanger/10/18/wie.lesson/index.html Further, here's the link to another SI piece that makes it plain that Wie has some learning to do about the rules of golf if she is going to play in the big leagues for a living. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/golf/10/18/wie.bamberger/index.html
2005-10-19 @ 14:55
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
*** Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
all the Anti-Wie brigade. ***

Sorry, Norman, but I'm not going to let you twist this around.

This isn't an "anti-wie brigade." If you sense scorn, it is aimed at the sniveling FANS of Michelle Wie, who certainly deserves better than you and your cohorts. For all of your whining, go back and read the original McDonald and Baldwin posts. The original posts are about YOU.

B.J. Wie is less angry about this than you. It appears from her public comments, Michelle, while disappointed, is less angry about this than you.

Michelle seems very grounded. She is without doubt very talented. She is dignified and gracious. Michelle, in fact, as a teenager, is far more grounded than the rabid pack of pit yorkies that lurches in her wake.

For you and the other Wie Warriors, your complaining and whining isn't about Michelle Wie and her detour to a DQ.

This whole kerfluffle is about you.

This is about your desparate need for validation and self-worth, about your lack of self confidence, about your ravenous hunger for Michelle to WIN THIS VERY INSTANT AND NOT ONE SECOND LATER.

Your only value is to (marginally) entertain other posters and provide reliable fodder for Travel Golf hosts. Pavlov couldn't have had more consistent subjects than you.

You Wie Warriors are like satellites, bound to Michelle by her gravity. You only care about having the opportunity to bask in Michelle's reflected stardom.

Unless Michelle shines brightly, you reflect nothing. No one would know you were there.

2005-10-19 @ 15:05
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Let's be clear. The correct penalty would have been two strokes before she signed the card, but a DQ afterwards. This is not a matter of Michelle Wie receiving the correct penalty. It is a matter of when the reporting should be done. The expectation is that reporting should be done immediately. Brian Hewitt described Mr. B as being on the horns of a dilemma. He was a reporter on the one hand, but had been something else in the past, and saw something he thought was wrong. If I understand Hewitt's argument, he believes that a defense attorney who was once a prosecutor is justified in breaking lawyer client privilege BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT IS INVOLVED IN BEING A PROSECUTOR. Mr. B was there as a reporter and nothing else: there were no horns and no dilemma BECAUSE HE WAS NOT THERE IN ANY OTHER CATEGORY.

But if a violation is to be reported, it seems to me that it should be done immediately. That appears to be the tradition. If it had been done immediately, then subsequent matters could have been left to the hands of those who should handle such matters, and they would still have time to notify Wie before she signed her card if that is what they wished to do. This option was denied them becasue Mr. B waited. It may be that Mr. B wanted more time to think about the situation, think about Wie's answer to his question, etc.--but it seems to me Wie's answer has no bearing on what should have been done. Either a reporter stays silent or a protector of golf speaks--but how well she can put into words what she did when she triangulated shoulc have no relevance in any case.

I find it interesting that Brian Hewit should try to insist that Mr. B was ENTIRELY CORRECT IN WHAT HE DID.
2005-10-19 @ 15:14
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:
B.J. Wie is less angry about this than you. It appears from her public comments, Michelle, while disappointed, is less angry about this than you.

Why do you think I am angry about this? I have made ONE post about this topic. All I said was that "Meetoo" stated the facts perfectly.

The journalist should have reported the incident immediately. He did not need a full day to mull over it. He did not need to get it clear in his head what he saw. If he saw something he saw something and he should have reported it in good time, NOT after a good nights sleep.

Personally I am not that bothered about her being disqualified. It really isn't a big deal for her to lose her 4th place finish. She already has some great finishes in the bank that she can be proud of and there will be more to come.
2005-10-19 @ 17:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:
This is about your desparate need for validation and self-worth, about your lack of self confidence, about your ravenous hunger for Michelle to WIN THIS VERY INSTANT AND NOT ONE SECOND LATER.

You Wie Warriors are like satellites, bound to Michelle by her gravity. You only care about having the opportunity to bask in Michelle's reflected stardom.

Unless Michelle shines brightly, you reflect nothing. No one would know you were there.


I've never heard a Michelle fan saying that she must win THIS INSTANT. It is in fact the anti-Wie brigade who are saying that.

I and other Wie supporters, such as Meetoo and Jim, have applauded many times Michelle's achievements. Meanwhile you and the anti-Wie brigade have been insulting her because she has failed to win. It is you who is LOOKING FOR A WIN THIS INSTANT. The Wie supporters think she is doing a great job and hope she continues to do SO WELL.
2005-10-19 @ 17:11
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:
Your only value is to (marginally) entertain other posters and provide reliable fodder for Travel Golf hosts. Pavlov couldn't have had more consistent subjects than you.

I think you entertain other posters (MASSIVELY). Your comment about Paula leading the US to Solheim cup victory must have had many sides splitting with laughter.

As regards replying to Baldwins blogs, I think it is good for Michelle. I think Baldwin is a Michelle supporter deep down, and he knows the way to gain support for her, is to insult her the way he does. If you watch any talent show and the judges insult a contestnt, the contestant usually tops the phone in poll. Baldwin is doing a service for Michelle. If enough people read he will end up increasing her endorsements.
2005-10-19 @ 17:17
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
George is just being good old George.

The following is his evolution

1. George first stated that the reporter didn't want to be a part of the story (Tim McDonald liked this one). Of course this was the most easily refuted..As Bamberger became THE story.

2. George then stated that there wasn't an offical around for Bamberger to speak with. Easily refuted by the fact that there are officals every few holes (exactly for this type of thing)

3. George than started his Long diatribe about Bamberger not being obligated to help Michelle Wie... George then polluted this argument with some convoluted notion that somehow Bamberger WAS obligated to help the other 19 contestants. (I must say this one baffled me...why the other contestants earned Bamberger's aid and obligation and not MIchelle Wie simply makes no sense...unless you live in George's "I hate Michelle Wie and her fans world").

4. George then moved on to a missive about personal responsibility (MIchelle hit the shot..MIchelle too the illegal drop...MIchelle signed the scorecard, etc.) I believe he was trying to make a point that Wie's fans were attempting to alleviate Michelle of her responsibilities. What George misses is the fact that no one is giving Michelle a break here...we simply are astounded that a reporter who noticed a bad drop on the 7th hole on saturday, who had the presence of mind to pace it off, who as a result KNEW Michelle had incurred a penalty, didn't tell anyone about it Saturday and waited until Sunday when Michelle had incurred a second penalty.

5. George then takes a shot at noted golf writer Len Shapiro of the washington post stating that "he had no credibility"....(you wonder what color the sun is in George's world??)

6. Finally George points the fingers at Michelle Wie's fans--- saying we live in reflected light and a bunch of other nonsense that points greatly to George's dislike of Michelle and her fans but does little to shed the light on why Bamberger's action turned a TWO SHOT penalty into a DQ.

7. George has even delusionally mentioned that MIchelle Wie's fans are expecting a win "this instant and not one second later"...forgetting that Wie's fans have been extolling the virtue of her year, while preaching patience on the wins front. In fact, it is the WIe haters continually ridiculing Michelle for her lack of a win... even more to the point there is nothing in the issue with Bamberger that could have Brought Michelle a win..ANNIKA WAXED HER BY ALMOST 10 STROKES!! So how are we "expecting a win this instant)...Again I must admit I was baffled by this one

THrough all of this George has ignored..
-- Vijay Singh and other top players stating that Michelle deserved a penalty but Bamberger should have acted earlier to avoid a DQ

--Some of Bamberger's colleagues at SI stating that they felt his actions were worthy of blame and that in the past when faced with similar circumstances they had acted much differently and more in keeping with the concepts of sportsmanship and decency

So George what will it be next?? Michelle Wie is really the one armed man from the fugitive?? She eats children??? Bamberger was on a mission from God???

Whatever it is, I can't wait to hear it!!!
2005-10-19 @ 19:33
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Norman
I've never heard a Michelle fan saying that she must win THIS INSTANT. **

Weak, Norman. That won't work either.

You Wie Warriors may may not have typed those exact words.

But it's your rabid fanaticism that proves it, over and over again. Your actions on the Internet, the way you respond to adversity is proof enough.

Just like all of you Wie Warriors missing the point that Baldwin and McDonald were not criticizing Wie -- they were criticizing YOU. Your desperation is self-evident in how you attack anyone who is not as rabid as you.

2005-10-19 @ 19:54
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Your comment about Paula leading the US to Solheim cup victory must have had many sides splitting with laughter. **

Maybe only in those nice places with the padded walls.

Since you and the other Wie Warriors have quoted the wisdom of Doug Ferguson when he is a skeptic about Bamberger(e.g., Mr. Small Rain and Kyle from 10-17-05) you'll doubtless accept this one as well...

Without too much help, you should be able to find the key headline, lead and conclusion...

Associated Press

September 12, 2005 Monday


LENGTH: 845 words

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



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.


Fish in a barrel.

2005-10-19 @ 20:38
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Actually George ts most fun making fun of YOU!!!!!

You Wie Warriors may may not have typed those exact words.

But it's your rabid fanaticism that proves it, over and over again. Your actions on the Internet, the way you respond to adversity is proof enough.

hahahaha--- I didn't think you could top yourself...

Now you know what we are thinking?? Who is the real fanatic George the guy who believes in Santa or the one who doesn't but argues about it anyway??

Our actions on the interner???? What are we pornograpers??? The way WE respond to adversity??? What adversity are we responding too??? We aren't facing any adversity. Michlle is, Bamberger is....you do realize that the "Wie Warriors" aren't actually Michelle Wie, don't you???

We realize who Baldwin is critcizing and he take issue with it...Bamberger's actions in delaying his report to officials is indefensible...even Baldwin and McDonald know that by now.

But you George with your chameleon-like rationales and your everpresent hate of all things Wie.....you are nearly alone now...only the haters can persist in defnding Bamberger.

"Joe" who was with you earlier stated that while he didn't see it as a big deal....he had problems with Bambergers timing...Tim McDonald, while stating that he was not in Bamberger's shoes, said he wasn't sure he would have done the same...

The walls are gettingclose aren't they George...its just you...your dislike of Michelle and an army of Wie Warriors.

You hear that little voice saying "their right".. but hate just won't let it get through...

But for all of this...I still love you...you are hilarious!
2005-10-19 @ 20:51
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
honestly george between my fast typing and poor spelling and your changing answers we could have a fool of a show.
2005-10-19 @ 20:56
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
George A

I missed your earlier post but would certainly agree that Paula led the US Team to the Solheim Cup Victory. Other of her teamates said the same.

I like Michelle and wish her well but it always amazes me how the Wie fanatics only want her to succeed and are always trying to downgrade the accomplishments of others. They show no respect to Annika and seem to resent anything good that is said about Paula Creamer. Somehow they feel people are taking a shot at MW. I have yet to see Paula say anything less than positive about Michelle so I find it puzzling

By any standard Paula has had a fantastic year and that is why she is Rookie of the Year. Maybe MW will have a greater year sometime and people should be happy for her when it happens. It should be a fun rivalry to watch them in the future. It will be even better once Morgan Pressel joins the fray.

Does it mean Tiger is anything less if Phil, Retief, Ernie or Vijay win a major? No it just means in that given tournament someone else played better. I don't recall seeing any of the hateful disrespectful language used with the men.

I wish the fans of Michelle were as respectful of other golfers as Michelle is of them.

The many side splitting with laughter are at some of the childish comments from SOME of MW fans.
2005-10-19 @ 21:01
Comment from: tim [Visitor]
Folks, here's a newsbreak. Bamberger has issued a statement on this brouhaha on the SI website. It's clear he believes he did the right thing, but he is showing the humility to acknowledge that there are fair reasons to wonder about the timing. He says he wishes he had reported it before she signed her scorecard. He is doing the right thing to say he believes he was right to bring it to the attention of the officials but that in retrospect he probably should have handled it that day. That's the simple story. The guy is not one of these high-handed "I am always right" reporters. He seems like a decent, reasonable guy who made the right BIG decision (to call her on a rules violation -- incidentally, this was the only one out of four rules violations she made on Saturday to be called on -- but he is basically saying, "hey, I'm not perfect, I goofed in making the small decision, i.e. when to say something." And for those who say "that's not a small decision" you should realize that he did Michelle a great service...in the long run, he probably saved her hundreds of thousands of bucks because the next time she breaks a rule (again, she seems to have a careless -- not intentional, simply careless -- habit of doing so) it might DQ her following a 1st place finish! Bamberger is a stand-up guy who is a lion in his field. The last thing he needs is more publicity...the guy has close friendships with most of the golfers he covers. I find it hard to believe he needs to gin up his stories to gain newstand sales, that argument is ridiculous. Go read any of his stories. If you have spent any time as a fan of golf writing you know what I mean. Anyway, check out this link for his "Wednesday morning reflection" on the whole mess.... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/golf/10/19/bamberger.qandq/index.html
2005-10-19 @ 21:15
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Joe-- decided to get back in the game did we...(and refusing to do more than speed read posts again too)

It was not the Wie fans who put Paula in the cross hairs (I have said many times she is a fantastic golfer, who looks wonderful in red).

It was Baldwin, George, Shanks and others who made this a zero sum game, specifically if A (Paula) has a win and B (Michelle)does not...then Player A is better than B. They then disregard other items..record head to head, stroke average, money per event, in order to make their point.

What I won't allow you or George to do is to project your thinking on us. This concept that the Wie "fanatics" "only want her to succeed" (JOE) and demand that she win "this instant and not one second more" (George) are sentiments and statements that you have pulled out of the air.

No one has been discussing Annika and you have no right to suggest that anyone pulls against her....you see we aren't the ones making it Michelle against the world....we are the ones looking forward to her taking her place. We are the ones urging patience in relationship to wins. We are the ones extending a level of hope, compassion, and parental pride and protection that would only seem appropriate to a 16 year old girl!

We are not the ones mocking her lack of wins, taking satisfaction in her woes. We aren't the ones turning our backs on the history of sportsmanship in this, ignoring the toughts of the best players in relationship to timing of this incident.

And most importantly, we aren't the ones pulling extraneous discussions out of the air...The Solheim cup???

Do you honestly state that you have never heard the exchanges between Tiger's fans and Phils?? or Ernie's, or Vijays. Were you sleeping through the vitriolic discussions last year of who was really number 1?? Did you miss the exchanges of how the world ranking system should be changed because wins were not counted highly enough (a similar discussion to an ongoing one here). Did you miss all the "closing the gap" on Tiger the last few years? Did you miss the whole "big 5" discussion, which said there was no longer a big 1 (Tiger) but now ha had equals???

Are you making this stuff up as you go along...

We Like Michelle Wie...but we didn'y make it a zero sum game, when you say "I like Michelle" you always follow it with a "but", when I say I like Paula or Annika, I leave it at that.

That's the difference I don't need to go zero sum, I don't need the "but"..I love golf, I am intrigued by MIchelle and her potential (As I was 10 years ago with Tiger---and I faced similar opposition then)

Annika, Paula, Tiger, Vijay, Jason Gore and Michelle...I love them all...
2005-10-19 @ 21:30
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]

Well said!!
2005-10-19 @ 21:30
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Haven't read it yet, but if he says he should have done it earlier... I agree, in fact everyone but George probably does....

I'm glad to hear he has stood up (as his protectors would not)...

My anger was that he wouldn't admit what he did was not handled correctly...now he has, that's all we ever wanted--- well except maybe a Paula Creamer Calander

Incidentally, I have heard that Michelle has had multiple infractions in rounds before....she better clear that up....George is still out there
2005-10-19 @ 21:35
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
I've read it now. Tim Why must there be qualifiers...He made a right decison and a wrong decision... I am not in any position to judge which is BIG and which is SMall (not even sure I understand HOW to judge that)

He has now owned up to a mistake in part of his decison making... and we should leave it at that

There is equally no more reason to hammer him now that he has owned up and there is no reason to prop him up.

My issue was always the imbalance in accountability and ownership of responsibility and he has shown he understands that. Big??? Small??

One right decision, one wrong.. the courage by Michelle to take it in stride, the courage by Bamberger to put himself in the cross hairs and then admit he was wrong.

Seems balanced now.
2005-10-19 @ 21:45
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
berger was bad?
now he is good?
Now he will sell more books.
berger is a well planned rotten repoter.
I feel sorry for wie becoming his bait for his plan.

2005-10-19 @ 22:47
Comment from: Jason [Visitor]

I read his interview -he seems remorseful about Michelle being disqualified-however I don't get the feeling that he sees anything wrong with how he approached the officials a day late.

He feels bad that Michelle got disqualifed- he said he was "emotionally dead" when he found out.

The problem I have with the interview is he feels bad that Michelle was hurt by his actions yet he doesn't feel bad about his actions.
So I don't know how sincere he really is.
2005-10-19 @ 22:57
Comment from: Dennis O. Darby [Visitor]
Michael Bamberger, that senior writer for a WORLD CLASS magazine - Sports Illustrated whom I once -showed no class in his DAY LATE reporting.

Maybe, it was good it HAPPEN! Bamberger's action turned a 2 SHOT penalty into a DQ. Most will say it's unfair...Agendas rule our times.

This young woman, Michelle Wie certainly showed the world more class than Michael Bamberger could ever see in this life.

I will still read SI and pass it on, but not before his pages are ripped out and used for my ?????
2005-10-20 @ 04:20
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Joe said:
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.

Joe, I don't think I've heard any Wie fan insulting Annika. On a number of occasions I have said that Annika is the best woman player in the world BY FAR.
She is much better than either Michelle or Paula.

The main Wee fan posters have never insulted Creamer either. All that happened was Chris Baldwin says Michelle is crap and Creamer is great.
Wie's fans just counter this argument by saying, that is not true. They are both great.
However when faced with the decision of who had a better year, intelligent people take the view that Michelle had a better year than Paula.
This is not any downgrading or insulting of Paula. I like Paula and hope she wins lots of tournaments. If Michelle is not playing in a tournament, I tend to be up for Paula.
However, I am still able to understand, that Michelle had a better year.

If Paula has a better year than Michelle next year, then good luck to her. I will have no problem with it. The only problem I have is with the Anti-Wie brigade insulting her constantly just because she hasn't won a golf tournament in the 7 tournaments she has played this season.
Paula has won a tournament for ever 11 she has played. 1 in every 11, Michelle hasn't even played 11.

The centre of the issue is, somebody can say Michelle has had a better year than Creamer. That does not mean that, that person dislikes Creamer. It is simply stating a fact.
2005-10-20 @ 14:54
Comment from: shrodr [Visitor]
It's interesting that Chris stopped posting replys to the posts when the real facts surrounding this injustice came to light. Even if Mr. Bamberger asked her about the drop, as Chris holds on to so dearly in his defense, he did so AFTER she signed her card. There is no going back from there. She couldn't run back to the tent and say, "Can I please have my card back, some guy I don't know is questioning whether I dropped the ball in the right spot on one of the holes I played today?" Chris should know this, and so did Mr. Bamberger. Then to ask her to find the spot she dropped the ball the next daywas stupid to be kind. Let me ask anyone here who plays golf if they think they could find the exact spot they dropped a ball the previous day, within the 3 inches to 1 foot she was found to be closer. It was absurd and unprofessional of those involved to ask her to do so. So who is the unfit professional here, the sixteen year old who just turned pro days before the tournament, or the illustrious sports reporter with years of experience both on the tour and writing for such a prestgious magazine. Just as Chris's comments on this topic fall short, so do Mr. Bamberger's rationalizations for doing what he did. If he took the time to pace off the distance himself then he knew there was something suspect. What was she going to tell him that would have changed the distances he paced off himself. This was a clear case of a reporter protecting his story and making a name for himself.
2005-10-20 @ 16:59
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Norman-- I at least, think its fair to say that Paula had a better year. But this is entirely dependent on the fact that she played almost 3 times as many tournaments. In her 22 tournaments she established herself as a multiple winner, rookie of the year, number 2 on the money list, number 2 ranked in the world, and a dominant performer in the Solheim cup.

However in the eight events Michelle and Paula teed it up together...Michelle had a better head to head record, earned more money per event, had higher average finishes, earned more player of the year points, had a lower scoring average, and would have earned world number 2 with 3 more events.

A great year for both...I am comfortable that it is nearly impossible for 8 events to outrank 22, but in the events they had in common Michelle was demonstrably better.

So, I think both got what they expected... they are chasing Annika and eyeing each other.... Perfect for all of us!
2005-10-20 @ 17:45
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
Shrodr, I haven't changed my opinion. I just don't feel the need to restate a million times in response to the Wie Warrior's increasing desperate rationalizations.

But here it is for you again:

When a reporter questions you about a drop, especially a Sports Illustrated reporter, you might want to go check it out yourself on tape. You might want to think, "Did I really do that correctly or did I just carelessly plunk it down there as my clueless caddy looked on?" You might want to raise the issue to the rules officials, just so everything's double checked and above board.

You're Michelle Wie after all.

Everyone and anyone in the Wie Camp should have been all over that Saturday evening. Instead they ignored or completely missed the issue.

Again, this is the kind of advice you'd expect someone who just signed for $10 million could get.

And if you're in the Wie Camp and worried about keeping that cushy gig, well I'd rethink that strategy of claiming that no one could have seen this coming. Just listen to the question in the press conference. You had almost a whole day to look into things.

You think a Sports Illustrated reporter is just intrigued by Michelle's grasp of geometry?

If a reporter asks Tiger Woods about a drop, you can be sure he's going back to look at that drop before someone else does. And if it was a young Tiger, you can be sure his dad would have been regoing over that drop with him, step by step.

No one's saying Michelle Wie knew she was breaking a rule. But everyone in Wie Camp $10 million should have been double and triple checking to make sure she didn't carelessly break one, thanks in large part to no good caddy advice, as soon as that question was asked Saturday.

What else are the hanger ons for? Wie Camp $10 Million needs some entourage 101.

Turtle would never leave his boy Vince in that kind of pickle.

2005-10-20 @ 17:54
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
Hello Chris,
Why do you blame MW and her camp for not going back to check on it? Are they to listen to every question by reporters and act on it just to cover their back?
And you keep talking about how MW camp would've known what to do because of the $ 10 million she has. Well, Enron guys made millions but they didn't know any better.

Do you know for a fact that Tiger Woods ever went back out to the field to check on a drop because a reporter said it might have been illegal? Or any similar incident?

And I really want to hear your opinion about the incident in the press conference. You know when MW possibly humiliated Bamberger with the 'teaching geometry' comment. The whole place laughed except for Bamberger, in front of his peers/competitors. He either wanted to prove that he was right (or that he wasn't a fool like she made him out to be, in his own thoughts) or maybe even get back at her, fully knowing it might mean DQ.
2005-10-20 @ 18:29
Comment from: Mitch [Visitor]


All Bamberger did at the press conference was ask her how she determined where to drop the ball-and she told him.

That's hardly warning her of a possible rules violation.

And even it was cards were already signed during the press conference so he still was too late.
2005-10-20 @ 18:35
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
Mitch, the point is if there was an illegal drop, Michelle Wie should have been turning herself in. It should have never come to Bamberger. The Wie camp should have been going over that drop as soon as the question was asked.

It's not about avoiding the disqualification. It's about playing the game with honor and making absolutely sure everything you did is above board. Especially if you've gotten as much hype and as many advantages as Michelle Wie.

That's why Paula Creamer turns herself in for a equipment violation long after a tournament's over even if no one would have ever known about it. That's golf.

That's what Wie Camp $10 Million should have been focused on.

2005-10-20 @ 18:54
Comment from: shrodr [Visitor]
Chris, Still posting your opinion while avoiding the facts. Camp Wie, camp Tiger, camp Creamer, none of them could have done anything if the supposed question comes after the card is signed. You wanted to her to turn herself in for an infraction she still doesn't think she incurred, and no one can convince me she did, when you are spotting points a day later.
Bamberger held the cards. He paced it off right after the players left the green. If the distances were off, they were off. No answer to a question was going to change what he paced off himself. Seems to me this is more about your jealousy over a talented 16 year old girl signing endorsement deals for more than you will make in 10 lifetimes. She's worth 10 million, get over it.
2005-10-20 @ 19:24
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
1) I don't think you've ever commented on the incident in the press conference. I would like to know what you think about the incident.

Was MW being rude?

2) Your comment:
It's not about avoiding the disqualification. It's about playing the game with honor and making absolutely sure everything you did is above board. Especially if you've gotten as much hype and as many advantages as Michelle Wie.

Are you suggesting MW played without honor?

And yes some would suggest MW didn't do everything above board. I feel the same way with Bamberger.
2005-10-20 @ 19:26
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]

The golf commentators during the telecast did not say anything, Grace Park did not say anything , the officials said the video was inconclusive , other sportswriters who were there along with Bamberger did not think anything was wrong -and Michelle did not know she made a mistake.

How can you fault her for not turning herself in if she was unaware of her mistake.

Again--you are describing her of knowingly cheating and that could be considered libelous.
2005-10-20 @ 19:27
Comment from: Curious [Visitor]

I consider myself a neutral observer in all of this. Gosh you are taking a beating. Good luck.
2005-10-20 @ 20:03
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
Before this thread is closed, really Chris, what do you think about the incident in the press conference?
2005-10-20 @ 20:28
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
Sorry for posting multiple time but I would like to hear your opinion on the incident in the press conference. If I don't hear a response from you than I'm forced to put more weight in my opinion that the incident in the press conference was a big factor in what Bamberger did.
If you need more time to reply than at least let me that you are working on it.

2005-10-20 @ 20:42
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Chris-- That has to be the most ridiculous, misconceived, misleading post I have read so far (and that's with REAL competition).

Michelle should have turned herself in??? That's what her fans should be concerned with????

I have had my share of fun posting in these blogs...but are you honestly accusing Michelle of something no one else has??? Are you accusing a 16 year old girl of knowingly cheating????

The only way Michelle could have turned herself in, is to have knowingly cheated. She would have had to take the drop knowing it is illegal. She would have Cheated!!

She thought her drop was legal. She is supposed to disqualify herself because she is asked a question at a press conference?? They needed a STRING and multiple attempts to prove it was illegal, but she should have just "known" it was illegal. Hindsights pretty easy here..we KNOW it was illegal, but she just SHOULD have known??? What if the string had shown it was legal??? Should she have disqualified herself because she COULD have made a bad drop???

You see, you can't say..."Well she should have known that it wasn't a good drop"...THAT DOESN"T FLY... Either she tool a good drop, a bad drop (illegally but unkowingly), or she took a bad drop knowingly and hoped to get away with it.

You're pretty quick with the criticism of Michelle and the praise of Paula Creamer (who I LOVE, by the way). How does Paula escape your wrath on putting the wrong vlub in her bag?? Why aren't the Paula fans focused on that?? Let's face it..you twist the facts to fit your ANti-Michelle professional persona.

Is this all as simple as you're mad about the money!!! Are you honestly still clinging to the concept that Bamberger did the right thing at the press conference??? After even Bamberger says he'd do it over???

Either Michelle knew the drop was ok or she did not. IF she knew it was bad she would have done it differently..I donlt get your point here...

If she looks back, I bet there are a bunch of other do' overs

I bet she wouldn't have hit the ball into the bush (no one worth $10 million has such little control over a golf ball--right?)

I bet she would have looked at the crowd and said.."before I sign my card is there anything anyone wants to tell me??

I bet she would have skipped her press conference

I bet she would have used "string theory" to describe the drop rather than geometry (she might have put him off her scent)

I bet she would have found 10 million better ways of spending her Sunday than getting DQ'd.

There is no lesson for Michelle's fans--We know we are following a 16 YEAR OLD and that it will be a bumpy ride,

Being a fan means you get to celebrate the "might have beens" and the "we got screweds".

We get to curse the Bill Buckners and the goats. We get scream at the umpire who made that horrible strike call... we get to scream at the ref who called holding our 80 yard touch down. We get to say "what if Tiger didn't miss that two footer" and we get to call him a lucky SOB for holing that impossible chip at 16 to win the Masters.

And you know what... we get to second guess sports reporters who decide to become officals...and turn a TWO SHOT penalty into a disqualification. We get to do this especially, when the best players in the world (Tiger, Vijay,,etc) agree with us. We get to do it especially when the reporter agrees that HE feels he should have done it differently. We get to do it when a TWO SHOT penalty gets parlayed into a DQ.

No Chris.. there is nothing else we should be focused on...

I'm sorry you had a dealine and had to get out early on this one. I'm sure you thought the world would see Bamberger's actions more the way you do. I'm sure it was a kick in the gut when Bamberger left you hanging...

Them's the breaks and there is no level of obfuscation that will get us back to how you'd like it!

2005-10-20 @ 20:47
Comment from: Greg Pinelli [Visitor]
Chris is wonderful! He redefines golf trailer trash. Even Chris can count to three so this should be easy...
1. Rules violations are either reported by a fellow player..the players himself or herself...or a designated official. Otherwise...violations are not investigated or penalties assessed. Bamberger
never got over having his head stuck down the toilet in the 8th grade and feels a need to justify his manhood by picking on someone who can't fight back.
2. Caddies are supposed to know better.....Wie has every right to expect a "professional" to protect her interests and advise. This should do his word of mouth resume wonders.
3. None of it matters....Sports Illustrated is still second rate....and Wie will still change women's golf beyond recognizability.
2005-10-20 @ 21:19
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
pls check www.telegraph.co.uk
r&a loath to drop wie in it over disqualification by lewine mair
2005-10-20 @ 21:39
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
What's your thought on the incident in the press conference?
Still waiting...
2005-10-20 @ 21:50
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
Dba, I'm sorry but the "incident" at the press conference sounds like more Wie Warrior conspiracy theories to me. I cannot see a Sports Illustrated reporter getting offended that Michelle Wie made a joke and then turning her in because he was enraged.

Frankly, the theory is completely ludicrous. White Sox slugger Carl Everett's claim that dinosaurs never existed even holds more weight.

Admitedly, I don't know Michael Bamberger personally. But having worked as a journalist, it just doesn't add up.

I once again hate to break it you, but sports reporters are not as caught up in Michelle Wie's life as many of the Wie Warriors. It doesn't affect their sense of self.

For example, I'm experiencing remarkably little guilt for stepping away from my computer to have dinner, leaving you to wonder three times in less than two hours why I wasn't responding to your question.

I love the Wie Warrior passion. Things like the so-called "incident" at the press conference sometimes makes you wonder if the passion equals all loss of perspective though.

2005-10-20 @ 23:27
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
Hello Chris,
Thanks much for your response. I thought you had given up!

First, please stop using the phrase 'conspiracy theory'. Not many people are accusing Bamberger and SI of that. Accusing them of participating in a conspiracy is giving them too much credit.

I myself cannot see such experienced reporters or any professionals for that matter to be so easily caught up by 16 yr old or anyone else. I cannot. But what can explain the 'incident' at the press conference? If Bamberger is a man of integrity and wants to protect the game so much, why didn't he pursue MW in the press conference? He could've stood up and said, 'Michelle, I love this game too much to let you get away with breaking a rule like that.' Maybe He didn't want to cause a scene? Maybe he was too scared of being humiliated even more? Maybe, he didn't want to hurt her feelings, even though she is a 'pro'. Instead he went behind her back, or back of MW camp, to an official and made himself the center of the story. Chris, your attempt at answering the question not makes you look bad, it makes Bamberger look even worse, one who couldn't face a 16 year old girl in order to protect the game he loves so much. Maybe he was afraid of the $10 million?

Yes, sports reporters are not caught up with MW's life. But you sure seem like it, with 70% of your writings about/against her.

Back to my question about the incident, I'd like you to try to answer my question again. This time before you try to answer with words like conspiracy theory, ludicrous, etc, do the following first.
Type the following in your response. Don't copy and past. Type one letter at a time.:

In the press conference, Bamberger asked MW about a drop and how she came up with it. MW utters 'feel like teaching geometry' while she is answering. And everyone, many of his buddies and competitors, in the press conference laughs at her joke. Bamberger doesn't ask any more questions. And yet he's not satisfied with the answer.

Meditate on what you just typed. Don't listen to any music or watch TV while doing this because I'd like you to be able to visualize it. Than add your thoughts on the incident.

If he wasn't satisfied with MW hinting that she thought she didn't break a rule, he should've asked again to make sure. Remember that you said MW should've made sure she didn't break a rule by going out to the field again when Bamberger gave her a 'hint' in the press conference. Oh wait, Bamberger doesn't have $10 million like MW.

You don't have to feel any guilt about leaving me waiting for your answer while you were out to your dinner. I was just worried you'd retreat without answering my question.

And let me suggest a correction for your last sentence. I would have said 'if all that passion for MW is worth the loss of perspective' instead of 'if the passion equals all loss of perspective' Or maybe even 'if the passion causes one to lose sense of perspective.' Less confusing.

Good night and I'll wait for your response. And don't feel any guilt for sleeping and not answering my question. I will be sleeping quite well. :)
2005-10-21 @ 05:29
Comment from: shrodr [Visitor]
dba has it exactly right. If you believe Mr. Bamberger's explaination of the sequence of events, then why didn't he follow up the first question at the press confrence when he didn't like the answer he got. It's the logical thing for a so called experienced reporter to do. "Michelle, I paced off the distance after you left the green and it seemed to me you dropped closer, why did you feel it was legal where you dropped?" But wait, that would mean his story would be exposed to every other reporter there.
And if camp Wie was supposed to be so earnest in looking into her drop because he brought it up in the press confrence, why did he feel he had to go to an official. If your arguement is that his mentioning it at the press confrence should tip Camp Wie off to look into it, then why wouldn't tournament officials, with years of experience under their belts, who were obviously at the press confrence, know to look at it also. A 16 year old girl should know from the question to recheck her drop, but the experienced LPGA officials shouldn't.
It seems your arguements in Bamberger's defense fall way short when looked at closely Chris.
2005-10-21 @ 14:09
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
While waiting for your answer I also want to hear your answer to my question here:
2) Your comment:
It's not about avoiding the disqualification. It's about playing the game with honor and making absolutely sure everything you did is above board. Especially if you've gotten as much hype and as many advantages as Michelle Wie.

Are you suggesting MW played without honor?

If you were suggesting that MW was playing without honor, you should really apologize.
2005-10-21 @ 15:35
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
Still waiting...
2005-10-21 @ 16:52
Comment from: Kathy [Visitor]
There are only two reasons that man had to do what he did to Michelle is that 1. He didn't want her to win and to ruin her debut.
2. He had money on someone else. He ruined a young girls dream. She's just 16 for Heaven's Sake. She didn't anything. She didn't cheat. Has Micheal Bamberger never made a mistake? I've never known anyone who hasn't. I will not buy your magazine so long as that man works for you!!
2005-10-21 @ 18:42
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
2005-10-21 @ 19:06
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Did anyone notice that Michael Bamberger wasn't content just to rat on Michelle Wie? He also ratted on his editor at SI. If something goes wrong is a reporter supposed to point the finger at the Assistant Managing Editor and tell the world that he told me to do it? Another question. After a reporter does rat on his editor, how likely is it that the editor will fight to see that he keeps his job? And how likey is it that another editor will want to hire him? Of course it might help Bamberger keep his job if he makes it clear that he intends to take others down with him if he does go down.
2005-10-22 @ 00:22
Comment from: Matt [Visitor]
Baldwin is going back to Michelle Wei at age 11 to come up with his 30 professional tournaments. Gee, Chris, any logic problems here?

Baldwin's guide to analyzing sports performance:

1) Take any appearance of any professional over any time period. Keep going until have enough appearances to add up to a season. Go back to the womb if necessary
2) If you get enough appearances, pretend that the sum of appearances over any number of years is equivalent to a single season
3) Be sure to include competitions where the athlete was 5 or 6 years old competing against 5 to 25 year career veterans, but don't mention this in your analysis
4) Disregard the fact that some competitions were against veterans of the opposite (and physically stronger sex) and said player is among 1-3 athletes in history to enter professional competitions against the opposite sex
5) Once you have 20-30 appearances over a 5-6 year period call it a "season" and claim said athlete's failure to win in fields of 75-125 adult professionals of both sexes proves he/she is over rated

All those kids in Little League should give up baseball now. Hell they're 9-10 years old and have yet to prove they can win a MLB game.
2005-10-22 @ 06:13
Comment from: Mary [Visitor]
You're right. The sports reporter doesn't care who wins, but they DO care about getting a story (the juicier and more controversial the better) with their byline, and getting lots of attention for themselves.
Kind of like your blogs.
2005-10-22 @ 11:27
Comment from: Leo Jones [Visitor]
Why did BUMberger wait until after Michelle signed her card? Conscience about the play? Come on! His action was for, for whatever reason, maligned sixteen year old Wie and robbed the winner of the tournament from her just accolades. I will never buy another copy of Sports Illustrated and hope others of fair and honest treatment will do the same. BUMberger might be better suited to reporting on PEE WEE Golf.
2005-10-23 @ 18:49
Comment from: AJF [Visitor]
This DUMberger guy knew exactly what he was doing.

are you buttheads saying he had no idea what would happen by waiting?

I would bet money he was bragging about before it was anounced.
2005-10-24 @ 06:51
Comment from: Asur Bekanan [Visitor]
I finally figured it out:

Wie is Baldwin's Tracy Flick.

"Fill me up, Jim, fill me up."
2005-10-24 @ 12:11
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
I believe I gave you enough time to defend yourself. Do you need more time?
2005-10-24 @ 13:50
Comment from: Geoff [Visitor]
The whole thing is sickening. That this young woman should be subjected to this kind of abuse is revolting to any civilized person. This is extremely bad news for golf. Bamburger and his editor should be fired!

2005-10-26 @ 22:48
Comment from: Brendan [Visitor]
I'll say it again, Chris Baldwin's columns are too predictable and, sad to say, rather sophmorish. I truly believe that Baldwin continues to write about Michelle Wie because that's the only way he will ever get any attention from the high school level trash he calls journalism. Everything else he writes simply goes by unnoticed (see the responses to his other articles). Bottom line...Baldwin is the biggest "Wie Warrior" of them all!!! Hypocrite. Ride Wie's coat-tails while you can...
2005-10-28 @ 17:23
Comment from: Rick [Visitor]
Wow, I stumbled on this blog after doing a Google search trying to select which golf ball to buy. You folks are REALLY into this topic.

Frankly, I’m not sure I read any posts I think are reasonable and why this ‘incident’ is generating this much intensity is beyond me.

1. Wie screwed up and she absolutely should’ve known better. She’s been playing competitive golf for years. Do I think they did so intentionally? Absolutely not. She seems like a great girl with a stunning future ahead of her. But still, she screwed up and she deserved to be DQ’s from the tournament. Break a rule, pay the consequence. Period.

2. The SI writer didn’t do anything hundreds of fans have done over the years when they called in after seeing something on TV and reported it to rules officials. You all can question his motives all you want, but it’s truly irrelevant why he did it. I could care less. If you break a rule, and are found out (regardless of how you’re found out), you pay the penalty.

If you’re pissed about this incident, be pissed at Wie and her caddy for such utter carelessness in a big moment.

Frankly, in my opinion it’s over, she made a mistake and hopefully it’s one she will not repeat as she moves forward with what will in all likelihood be a very impressive career.

2005-10-30 @ 22:19
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
I actually am in a situation that has alot of similar situations as Michelle Wie.

My son is in a school that goes from Kinder thru High school and is on the schools baseball team. When he was in the 7th grade the high school Junior Varisty baseball coach mentioned to me that my son is good enough to play at the JV level and said my son would actually help the team. at first, I was reluntant to let him play with and against 14,15 and 16 year olds
but my son made the decision to play at the higher level. He even became the starting pitcher

I realize this is not the same scope and jump as Michelle Wie and all that goes with her story but my point is this: Why is it that when my son first started playing the same exact comments came out like:

'let him dominate at his own level first', 'he has to learn how to win', 'he's not ready', he's taking a spot from someone else', 'does'nt deserve to be there',' others deserve it more than him', etc, etc.

sound familiar?

What I noticed is that all these comments came from jealous, narrow minded, 'go with the masses' thinking people. they sound alot like your comments. Why is that Mr. Baldwin? this I would like to know, please respond.

Did he make mistakes? yes, he balked home the winning run in the 1st game he pitched! (sound like a bad drop?)
had balls go between his legs, etc, etc.

but my son, like I KNOW Michelle will, showed the tenacity that he did belong in the higher level and ended with a 6 and 3 record after losing the first 3.

Here you are condeming a 16 yr that has already proven she belongs in the highest level and will win in the very near future.

2005-10-31 @ 02:15
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
Everyone agrees with you except for one thing. The penalty MW paid was too much (2-shot penalty versus DQ). And Bamgerger's explanations really didn't hold water.

BTW, Chris I'm still waiting for your response.

2005-10-31 @ 17:41
Comment from: Rick [Visitor]
dba......i might be wrong (it happens more often than I care to admit) but didn’t MW sign an incorrect scorecard? If so, isn’t that an auto DQ?

Incidentally, I hate that rule. I’ve always thought it was way too harsh and that post-round corrections should be allowed, but there’s got to be a time limit.
2005-11-01 @ 07:38
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
If there is a Big Difference between consistent top 10 finishes and actually winning--even if the winning is at a lower level, then why don't we see men continuing to play on the Nationwide Tour even if they qualify for the PGA so they can learn to dominate in Nationwide events before they attempt to play with the big boys. Actually, I don't know that there aren't a lot of male golfers who do that--BUT I HAVE SOME VERY STRONG SUSPICIONS THAT THERE ARE NOT.
2005-11-01 @ 19:02
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Well said Jim.
There are too many people here with bees in their bonnets about winning, winning, winning.

She has only just turned 16 years old. She has lots of time. She only plays very few events so by the law of averages, even if she was a very top player, she should not be winnning on her very limited schedule. Looking at Michelle, Annika is the only woman player who is clearly better than her, and only a few can say that they are at or near her level.

Those idiots who go on and on and on and on about winning should try to keep in mind that she only played 8 lpga events this season.
If she plays a full season and doesn't win once, then you might at least have some basis for an arguement that she couldn't close the deal.
2005-11-02 @ 16:09
Comment from: Rick [Visitor]
that’s a valid point. Most PGA pros, by the time they’ve earned their card, have won at least important amateur or collegiate events. MW hasn’t won anything I’m aware of at the national amateur level.

If there are PGA pros who got to the tour via exemption and never won at any level of note in their careers and still haven’t won on tour, then I think their path was flawed.
2005-11-02 @ 19:21
Comment from: j [Visitor]
Well said Rodney.
2005-11-03 @ 04:38
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Rick, I haven't been posting here that long but I have read the following IMPORTANT point a few times:

Michelle Wie lives in Hawaii. Basically that is in the middle of nowhere. For her to come all the way to mainland USA, just to play junior and amatuer titles just was not financially viable. Keep in mind you have to be an amatuer to play these so she was getting no money.

Now sponsors were helping her for pro events, like at the John Deere she got put up in accomodation and expenses paid for her. Had she chosen to play in ordinary amatuer events, no sponsor would have paid her expenses for these unimportant little events, so she simply could not afford to make the trip to mainland USA just to play a little tournament.

It would be different if she were living in mainland USA.

As regards the whole winning thing, she needs more time that is all. There is no magic formula. If she learned to win lots and lots of amatuer events, she would still have to learn to win bigger events. Lots of players win amatuer events and never win pga events.

Winning amatuers does nothing to guarantee your professional career, because the standard on the professional tour is of such a higher standard.
2005-11-03 @ 06:40
Comment from: Rick [Visitor]
Rodney, I agree with both points above. Frankly, I think she made the right choice for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is if the money is available now, grab it. You don’t know what tomorrow may bring. She could be in a Hogan-esque car accident and have her career finished. Nothing is guaranteed but now she’s set for life and that’s a good thing.

I just think the ‘learning to win’ argument is too easily dismissed by many. A major part of Annika’s development, for example, was competing (and winning) in the college ranks while at Arizona. I think it boils down to how tough she is mentally. If she can hang in there and keep plugging without developing a ‘settle for’ mentality, then it won’t be an issue. But if she gets discouraged and starts learning how to finish 2nd (or 5th or 20th) every week, then perhaps it was a mistake.

Either way, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
2005-11-03 @ 13:49
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Learning to win by competing and winning in college or in the Junior ranks is probably a major part of the development not only of Annika but also the other 148 LPGA players who finished behind her in the LPGA Championship. If Michelle Wie can finish ahead of 148 out of 149 players who have learned to win in college or the Juniors, that would seem a very good reason for dismissing the learning to win argument.

Actually it seems to me that it is Annika who has developed a 'settle for' mentality since it is Annika who has chosen to settle for playing against women. Michelle is the woman who is not willing to just settle for competing against women, but is continuing to compete against men as well as women.

On a tour like the LPGA, there are two parts to settling for 2nd or 5th or 20th. One part is what you do in tournaments, and the other is what you do in practice. In a tournament, you need to play your best golf--which will often involve settling for 2nd instead of making hopeless attempts to win. The other p[art involves practice. If you are satisfied with 2nd and don't work harder. That is something different.
2005-11-04 @ 02:35
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim just there on you points about Annika. I think it is a dreadful shame that she backed off against the men so easily.

Annika is a magnificant player so I find it hard to critisise her, but I do think that a few years down the road she is really going to regret her decision. When her career is over, or on a downward spiral, she will most likely wonder at some stage "what if", she will wonder how exactly she would have done at her peak against the men.

After the Colonial, she said she found all the publicity very hard to take at that event, but she also said she learned heaps. If playing once on the PGA taught her SO MUCH, imagine what she could learn if she played a few tournaments on the pga. I was really disappointed by her attitude about playing against the men since, although it was nice to hear her say that she would be interested in qualifying for THE OPEN, but the opportunities aren't great for that, with schedules etc.

The main thing that let Annika down at The Colonial was her putting, and it doesn't take a big strong man to be good at putting, so she has no strength disadvantage there.
2005-11-04 @ 09:35
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I disagree about Annika and playing with the men. To seriously play against the men she would have had to work on putting on PGA greens which are cut faster than LPGA greens. Not only could this be difficult, but it might undermine her superb instincts on LPGA greens. The Colonial was handpicked for its length, so she would not have a lot of PGA Tournaments where she could be competitive. Finally there is the matter of loyalty to the LPGA. It would be one thing for a non-LPGA member like Michelle to treat the LPGA as a minor league--but for a long time LPGA member and champion like Annika too much of a preocupation with the PGA might very reasonably be viewed as disloyalty. And nothing less than such a preoccupation would be likely to get Annika anywhere.

I think to have any success on the PGA a woman needs to start working towards that goal as a girl. If Michelle Wie were to wait until she had overtaken Annika on the LPGA it would probably be to late for her on the PGA--and if she were an LPGA member when that happened, the Nancy Lopez comments about loyalty to the LPGA would actually have much more weght.
2005-11-05 @ 18:50
Comment from: Gerry [Visitor]
Rick, Your comment about Michelle's body reminds me of a past discussion at my workplace. The question came up, "What's the possibility that Michelle has Marfan's syndrome?"
2005-11-06 @ 02:22
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim, just wondering, if Annika were to win many more titles on the lpga. Lets say another 7 majors and lots more titles in the next few years.

When she retires, do you think she would be completely satisfied with her career, or do you think she would have niggling regrets about not finding out exactly what her position would have been in relation to men.

I think the reason Michelle can succeed is her attitude is just so different. She believes she belongs on the pga tour. She doesn't particularly care if people disapprove of her playing with men. She doesn't think they are better than her, and I think that could be the single most important factor in her later success. Belief.
2005-11-06 @ 09:08
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I don't think Annika will have regrets. Compare Annika and Michelle. Annika started playing golf at 12, Michelle started at 4. Annika is 5'6", while Michelle is 6 feet or 6'1". Annika has probably maxed out on her length off the tee, and she managed at the Colonial because it was an old fashioned course witrh doglegs that largely negated the advantage the men had off the tee. On a typical PGA course she would have been at a huge disadvantage off the tee--not to mention the difficulties involved in the different way PGA courses are set up which seem to have caused her problems even at the Colonial. It can be hard for a cagey old vet to pick up a new sport, which is essentially what PGA golf would be for Annika. She still has challenges to keep her interested in the LPGA.

I see nothing wrong with Annika's attitude--but Michelle has more going for her than just attitude. But just as an aside, her aggressive attitude does backfire at times when she plays too agressively. As long as it doesn't get to her, it is not really a problem--nut I jwould like her to let her caddy call the shots like she does when BJ carries her bags just to ease the pressure on her a bit.

2005-11-11 @ 16:16
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Sergio Garcia is only 5 foot 2.
2005-11-14 @ 16:34
Comment from: shadow rider [Visitor]
Bamberger, as an ex pro golf caddy could have identified himself immediately after the drop to Michelles caddy. Pro golf caddys do belong to a rather small fraternity/sorority and can be approached by one another. This shouldve been done!

MIchelle did in fact not drop properly inre shoulder height
2005-11-14 @ 19:13
Comment from: rose mary [Visitor]
I want to see what is the name, age, birthdate and hobbies of michelle wie. Thank you very much.
2006-06-29 @ 07:52

Comments are closed for this post.

Myrtle Beach Golf Packages
Dates: March 1, 2018 - May 31, 2018
Revel in the PGA 6 Round $100 Rewards Package with lodging at North Beach Plantation. Experience the magnificent North Beach Plantation for 6 Nights and with 6 Rounds of golf on the East Coast Group golf courses.
Price range: $640