By blaming SI reporter, Wie Warriors, clueless caddy and (gasp!) Mario sink to new lows
Add commentsForget for a moment that Michelle Wie showed no sign of knowing anything about winning in her 30th career pro tournament. Forget even that Michelle Wie showed no sign of knowing anything about the rules in her 30th career pro tournament.
The new issue to emerge from the Palm Desert is the ridiculous notion that Sports Illustrated reporter Michael Bamberger turned Wie in because he “wanted to make a name for himself.” Are you serious? Come on, Wie Warriors. No one gets a bigger kick out of you guys then me. I love the creative ways you come up with a new and grander excuses for the
reason the LPGA Tour’s new Natalie Gulbis cannot win. But this is too far out there for even you guys.
It’s like saying that Jack and the Beanstalk is a true life tale. Carl Everett, the Chicago White Sox slugger who believes that man never landed on the moon, is now waiting for you guys at his next meeting. Pat Robertson is about ready to hit you with his 9-11 cause and effect theories again, figuring he’s finally found the right audience.
This is so absurd, it’s almost not even worth writing about. But then TravelGolf.com’s own Jennifer Mario comes out and floats the argument. Come on Jen. You’ve had experience in the business. You should know better.
He wants to make a name for himself? He feels the need to create a big story? He works at Sports Illustrated. I think he’s pretty secure about his lot in the journalistic world.
I hate to break to all you Wie Warriors, and apparently Jen as well, but most sports reporters could care less who wins and loses. Sports reporters worry about deadlines (they hate TV pushing important games to late at night). They worry about their access to the athletes, really the fans access to what the athletes are really like, being cut off by the trend of mass press conferences. Heck, they worry about the quality of the free food at the games or the golf tournaments.
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. Sports reporting is a job, people. A great one often - though not nearly as often as a lot of fans assume - and that’s how it’s almost always approached. These reporters are just trying to earn a living, keep their bosses off their back and spend some time with their families and friends. Like any other person in almost other job.
I don’t know Michael Bamberger personally. But I’ve been a sports reporter for more than 10 years and this idea that Bamberger is relishing his role in the story just doesn’t ring true. Here’s a news flash of all you Wie Warriors: You’re a lot more wrapped up in what Michelle Wie does than Michael Bamberger. Call it an educated guess.
Bamberger was pursuing a story and he came across a rules violation. He went to Michelle Wie first with it, giving her a chance to report it herself, before finally getting into it himself.
The biggest lout in this tale is Michelle Wie’s soon-should-be ex caddy. Greg Johnston better hope that Juli Inkster will take him back after that unforgivable caddying. You’d better believe Johnston was yelling at Bamberger. Anything to divert everyone’s attention away from the fact he should have stepped in as Wie was making the illegal drop. That’s his job.
If this is the best Team Wie can do, they’d better get to the boardroom for an emergency strategy session. With a $10 million no-win hype monster on the line, you’d think they could get Michelle some decent help.
| « 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 feed for this post
Jason Scott Deegan:
The Accidental Golfer:
Katharine Dyson:
Kiel Christianson:
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.
If Greg Johnson should look for a new job (I don't necessarily disagree), then the unethical Michael Bamberger should be, too.
Maybe in your own mind Baldie but from what I've read, you give yourself too much credit.
Not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 ....
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Bob
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
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.
-George
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.
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
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051017/APS/510170584
Bamberger's point of view..
http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/17/news/story01.html
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.
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.
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.
lol
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)
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!
Its embarassing
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Brian
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/archives/2005/10/reporter_ruins_1.html
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
** Comment from: Britney [Visitor]
George,
If her mistake has been discovered right after her shot, she would have been given a 2 stroke penality. However, as soon as she signed her score card at the end of that day, there was nothing left to do but disqualify her (disqualifation is the automatic penality for submitting an incorrect score for the round). **
George:
Hi, Britney, thanks for your response.
I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure. So being as it was a round-by-round sich, there is no conspiracy.
To rescue Wie & her caddy from their blunder, Bamberger actually would have had to become part of the story, by speaking up at the moment the drops occurred.
Two scenarios:
"Hey, Michelle, the way you're doing that drop is wrong. You've advanced the ball toward the hole."
Or...
"Hey, Michelle, you had better not sign that round-3 scorecard, you might get disqualified. You took an illegal drop and didn't take a 2-stroke penalty."
In both of these hypothetical scenarios, that would be a case of the reporter actually interjecting himself into the events, and no longer being an observer.
The events happened and the reporter was honest and reported the infraction to the officials.
In reality, so long as Wie conducted the drop, didn't take the 2-stroke penalty, and then signed the scorecard, she was over with and done after round 3, as soon as she signed that card.
It matters not when it was brought to the officials' attention, she was eligible for DQ, as long as the officials found out about it.
-George
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.
-George
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.
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.
I guess those real journalists are conspiracy theorists and Wie apologists as well right Chris ....
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.
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.
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.
George,
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.
-George
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
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.
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
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!
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????
Boycott Sports Illustrated.
215-247-0155
Stan,
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.
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" ??
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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!
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,
IF THIS IS THE CASE, TECHNICALLY, I COULD FOLLOW TIGER WOODS AROUND THE COURSE WITH AN HIGH RESOLUTION VIDOE CAMERA WITH A POWERFUL ZOOM, AND RECORD EVERY SHOT IN THE SAND (AND IF THE BALL MOVES EVEN A 1/2 MM AFTER HE STEPS IN THE SAND DUE TO WIND OR VIBRATION), EVERY SHOT ON THE GREEN (AND IF THE BALL MOVES EVEN A FRACTION IS CLOSER EVER AFTER HE PLACES IT), AND AS AN INDEPENDENT FAN, I COULD GO THE NEXT DAY TO RULES OFFICIALS AND SHOW IRREFUTABLE VIDEO PROOF THAT HE TECHNICALLY VIOLATED THE RULES, AND SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED.
IS THIS HOW GOLF IS GOING TO HANDLE RULES INFRACTIONS?
RIDICULOUS.
(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)...
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.
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.
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.
AWESOME
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.
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...
*****
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?
-George
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?
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?
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.
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.
Aloha.
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.
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.
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...
IMHO
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.
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.
Out.
Thank you for the clarity and common sense.
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.
From the Golf Channel website.
Woods, Others Weigh in on Wie Incident
By Mercer Baggs - October 18, 2005
(Continued)
“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!!!
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.
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!!
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.
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?
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.
Is Len Shapiro sinking to a new low?
------------------------------------
From Jason
THE BEST ARTICLE ON THIS SUBJECT FROM LEONARD SHAPIRO OF THE WASHINGTON POST --HE'S A PAST PRESIDENT OF THE GOLF WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA--He rips Bamberger for his actions !!
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
-George
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
-George
** 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
SECTION: SPORTS
LENGTH: 845 words
HEADLINE: Creamer Leads U.S. to Solheim Cup Victory
BYLINE: DOUG FERGUSON; AP Golf Writer
DATELINE: CARMEL, Ind.
BODY:
The United States won back the Solheim Cup, and picked up a new star along the way.
Paula Creamer, the 19-year-old rookie who all but guaranteed a
victory two weeks ago, backed it up Sunday with a crushing victory over Laura Davies that set the tone for an American rout in singles.
The Americans won six of the first seven matches - none of those even reached the 18th hole - and were leading 14-10 when Meg Mallon clinched the cup with a par putt on the 16th hole for a 2-up lead, assuring them at least the 14 1/2 points required to win the cup and keep their record perfect at home.
[...]
The scoreboard was so awash with American red numbers that when the final twosome teed off on a sunny afternoon at Crooked Stick, Europe was not leading in any of the 12 matches.
And it was the youngest player in Solheim Cup history leading the way.
Creamer, four months removed from her high school commencement in Florida, birdied the first hole against Davies and was on her way. She was 6 up at the turn and won the match with a tee shot that stopped 3 feet above the hole on the 13th, a birdie that was conceded for a 7-and-5 victory.
For the first time all week, the United States had the lead.
*****
Fish in a barrel.
-George
*************************************
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!
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.
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...
Well said!!
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
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.
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.
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.
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 ?????
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.
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!
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.
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.
Baldwin
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I consider myself a neutral observer in all of this. Gosh you are taking a beating. Good luck.
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.
Thanks.
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!
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.
r&a loath to drop wie in it over disqualification by lewine mair
What's your thought on the incident in the press conference?
Still waiting...
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.
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. :)
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.
While waiting for your answer I also want to hear your answer to my question here:
http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2005/10/17/by_blaming_the_sports_illustrated_report#c6820
----------
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.
Still waiting...
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!!
Kathy
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.
Kind of like your blogs.
Leo
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.
Wie is Baldwin's Tracy Flick.
"Fill me up, Jim, fill me up."
I believe I gave you enough time to defend yourself. Do you need more time?
GK
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.
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.
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.
:)
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.
She just signed a deal worth more than most of us will make in two lifetimes, so she’s doing something right. And looking at it objectively, if she’s this good at 15, it’s scary to think of how good she’ll be in 10 years.
Only thing that concerns me about her is her body. I’m the clinic director of the Egoscue Clinic in Austin, TX (www.egoscue.com). We do postural therapy and work with a lot of athletes. The guy who founded our method, Pete Egoscue, worked extensively with Jack Nicklaus in 1985 when Jack was about ready to pull the plug on his 1986 tour schedule because of severe back pain. Pete got him ready to go, the 86 Masters rolled around and the rest is history.
But I digress.
I was watching Wie in the tourney being discussed here and her right hip is about a good inch (at least) higher than her left. That’s going to put torque on her low back and the deep muscles of the pelvis. She can get away with that now, but with her swing speed the day is coming when if she doesn’t fix this her body is going to start really hurting. And that would be a shame. I hate to see athletes unable to perform because of fixable problems like this.
But if she stays healthy, she’s going to be a load.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MIchelle did in fact not drop properly inre shoulder height