« Tuxedo clad waiters in Mesquite, Nevada? Believe it.Palm Springs' Thursday night street fair an actual authentic experience »

260 comments

Comment from: MAKE A LIVING ON BASHING WIE [Visitor]
There are all kinds of people making a living on wie. Bald wins a piece by bashing her.
2005-12-28 @ 22:09
Comment from: jay [Visitor]
I always wondered what is real motivation of chris. Then I realized I was overrating chris when he said he is fan of O'reilly. Chris is simply racist. Simple and easy answer.
2005-12-28 @ 23:45
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Well Chris
Your recent blogs have been pathetic. The only responses have been from Ron Mon and that in itself says a lot. His writing is even less inspired than yours. So back to Wie bashing to get your kicks. Sad.
Alan M
2005-12-29 @ 05:00
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
I have been reading these blogs for some time now. I am curious about one thing. Are the people who write these articles like yourself, Ron Mon and Rebel Blogger professional writers or just people of the street having their say? I don't live in the States and am not familiar with the golf critics/ writers.
Alan M
2005-12-29 @ 05:20
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
In an obvious attempt to rile up Martha Burks and the NOW crowd, the writer of the SI sketch on Michelle Wie said that Michelle "had Hootie sweating with a thrilling run at the Publinks where a win snags a Masters' tee time". Michelle was outside the cut line when she finished medal play in the Publinks. Much poor play by the remaining amateurs enabled Her to make match play in the bottom 25% of qualifiers. She played admirably if not spectacularly in her first three matches, winning them all. She was soundly defeated 5 and 4 in her quarterfinal match. She gave a pretty good account of herself, but it could hardly be described as a "thrilling run". As for "Hootie" Johnson, when he was asked by an anxious reporter what the response of the Tournament Committee would be if Michelle Wie won the Publinx, he answered unequivocally that she would receive an invitation. And he wasn't sweating.
2005-12-29 @ 10:46
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Here are Chris Baldwins responses on his last blogs:

Last Michelle Wie Blog: 187 comments.
Next Blog: 1 comment.
Next Blog: 0 comments.
Next Blog: 1 comment.
Next Blog: 4 comments.
Next Blog: 2 comments.
Next Blog: 2 comments.
Next Blog: 1 comment.

Is it any worry that he has gone back to Michelle Wie bashing?

As regards this blog, he doesn't really say alot, does he?
I thought Chris could wait for the Sony Open, but obviously he needs a blog sooner, where people actually respond.
2005-12-29 @ 13:15
Comment from: Kit [Visitor]


YAWN.....................................
2005-12-29 @ 13:24
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex, Michelle Wie did have a thrilling run at the Publinx.

As regards being outside the cut line when she finished play, what has that got to do with anything????
Since you seem to be lacking in understanding, I will explain. The cut is made when all the players are finished their 2nd rounds ie. when they have all played the same number of holes. The position she held when she finished her round, doesn't matter, it is the position when everyone is finished that counts. For the record, she finished in a tie for 49th out of the field of 156, of which she was the first female ever to qualify for.

For match play tournaments, it wouldn't have mattered if Michelle finished 1st or 64th in the stroke play section. Your score is scrapped when matchplay starts.
For example the eventual winner of the tournament, finished a shot behind Michelle, right on the cut line.

By the way, for those who critise Michelle's mental strength down the stretch, she finished with 2 birdies on the last two holes of stroke play, what does that suggest?

For people trying to Wie bash, you would probably be better off ignoring the Publinx, where her performance was outstanding.
2005-12-29 @ 13:30
Comment from: No body will read bald's writing if he doesn't throw Michelle in [Visitor]
Bald inserts Michelle's name in his writing (mostly title) to draw attention. To avoid his junk, in google type

"michelle wie" -"chris baldwin"

The above search will return all writings abotu Michelle except baldwin's
2005-12-29 @ 14:20
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
NORMAN

Interesting note. Wie blogs don't work for everyone. Ron Mon has a blog from Dec. 8--Creamer, Pressel, and Wie: Open for Business. 3 weeks later he has only 4 comments, and two of those he made himself.
2005-12-29 @ 14:21
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim, interesting about Ron Mon.
I had a look at his topic.
However, it wasn't very controversial, I think that was the problem. He needs to make a point, either strong pro or anti-Wie to get the desired comment return.
2005-12-29 @ 15:50
Comment from: Visitor [Visitor]
You seem to be tinkering on the edge of a hate crime with these anti-Wie bashing post of yours. Whats the deal? Are you racist, anti-woman, or anti young teenager playing with the big guys? It's getting old Chris, find something else to write about.
2005-12-29 @ 16:07
Comment from: Kara [Visitor]

I don't believe Chris is "tinkering" with racism when it comes to Michelle Wie, he's very much engulfed in it.

2005-12-29 @ 17:15
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

Baldwin,

I know you're barely literate but here's some reading for you...

"With Big Money Comes Resentment, as Newly Minted Pro Michelle Wie Finds Out"

http://www.pga.com/news/tours/lpga/wie122805.cfm
2005-12-29 @ 17:17
Comment from: Jim [Visitor]
Baldwin=

Wahhh, Wahhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Michelle is in Sports Illustrated and Paula Creamer isn't!!!

Wahhhhh , Wahhhh!!

How about Paula ? Everyone always wants to give all the attention to Michelle! Its always Wiesy, Wiesy, Wiesy!!!

Wahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2005-12-29 @ 17:31
Comment from: NorCal Golfer [Visitor]
Kyle

// "With Big Money Comes Resentment, as Newly Minted Pro Michelle Wie Finds Out" //


Or instead of drenching yourself in the negative vibes that characterize the Baldwin-Wie kerfluffle, you could have posted something positive from the very same site, the very same month:

*****
Prodigy in Pink
Paula Creamer blew onto the LPGA scene like a teenaged tornado in 2005. When her whirlwind first season finally calmed down, the 19-year-old who only graduated from high school in May owned four tournament titles and the Rookie of the Year award.


http://www.pga.com/news/tours/lpga/creamer122505.cfm
*****
2005-12-29 @ 19:34
Comment from: george [Visitor]
This is the best short analysis of the new dynamic in women's golf, which will also include Wie and Pressel in 2006, to one degree or another:

*****
(From Newsday)

Annika, Meet Paula.
Admit it. It was getting a little boring when Annika Sorenstam kept amassing LPGA titles and her fellow golfers raved about her in venerated tone.
But 19-year-old Paula Creamer changed all that, letting Sorenstam know she was coming after her by arguing a rules call with Sorenstam at a November tournament, then not backing down when Sorenstam was upset.
It's worth noting Sorenstam didn't blink, either. She blew Creamer's doors off the next two days and won the tournament.
Can you say "It's on?"

*****

To be sure, the analysis did not mention Michelle Wie, Morgan Pressel, Natalie Gulbis, Christina Kim, or Ai Miyazato. But they also could have been easily included, and justifiably. More importantly, it does sketch very well what looms in 2006 for women's golf.

We can argue until the cows come home about woulda, coulda, shoulda regarding Creamer, Wie and Pressel.

What happened, happened. Those who won, won. Those who lost, lost. Those who were close ... were close. Yet there's always next Sunday for another opportunity.

As the article noted, what's of FAR greater interest in the LPGA is this:

It's on.

-George
2005-12-29 @ 20:12
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Alan,

Thank you for critiquing my uninspired writing in Chris Baldwin's blog. Here is a resolution for 2006 for you: when you find my writing uninspired, please post a comment directing me to the uninspired phrases. In this way, I will have a chance to improve my writing so as to summit the slippery slope of international golf writing. To answer your second question, I am not a man off the street. I was born in a pond, spent my youth in the clouds, and was recently released from solitary confinement in a jungle gym. I hope to know the streets one day.
2005-12-29 @ 21:05
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Jim and Norman,

Why must I take a stance? Do you take a stance on every event that influences your life? A true fan appreciates all angles of competition, and does not allow him or her own self to be blinded by passionate rage. In fact, the calmer the writer, the greater the ease with which she or he presents the relevant facts. Finally, re: my two comments on the W/C/P blog. Isn't it the blogger's responsibility to reply to the folks who take the time to read and comment?
2005-12-29 @ 21:10
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
It's on, kind of.

I still think both Wie and Creamer have a long way to go to truly challenge Annika.
Pressel has a massive way to go.

I don't fully agree that standing up to Annika is a good idea, because Annika "lets her clubs do the talking", and as pointed out, Annika played even better, when she was stood up to.

Creamer is indeed the most likely to challenge Annika in the short-term. She is the "next best" full time golfer out there, after Annika. In my opinion Creamer will be a better lpga player than even Wie next season, but Wie will probably be the one to overtake Annika a few years down the line.

For Pressel, I think there will be a very successful career, with wins nearly every season. However there will be a bitterness at not being the top dog. Of course, she could just prove me wrong, win everything, and then be proved right, that Wie is overhyped and Pressel was indeed the next big thing.
2005-12-29 @ 21:19
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Ron Mon, I wasn't in any way critisising your writing.
I was simply saying that Chris Baldwin's provacative tones get responses.
That is why he writes the way he does.
2005-12-29 @ 21:24
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Norman, Weren't you the guy that said there is a great difference in the amount in which one makes or misses a cut? Look, Norman, I like Michelle as much as anyone, but being eliminated 5 and 4 in the quarterfinals does not constitute a "thrilling run". If she had been in the top four in medal play and had made it to the final pairing and had lost 1 up, THAT would have been a "thrilling run".

2005-12-29 @ 21:44
Comment from: Joe Cool [Visitor]
IN 2006...WIESY WILL MAKE THEM ALL QUIESY!
2005-12-30 @ 00:36
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Did Creamer "stand up" to Annika? Did she "front" in any way? No. She had a different perspective on the banana of the ball, and felt that it never crossed land. I think that all four of the ladies (AS, MW, PC and MP) will let their clubs do the talking, and I believe that there is a slight chance that 2006 will be the greatest year ever for the LPGA.
2005-12-30 @ 00:54
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
NorCal Golfer--

I was referring to something written about Michelle Wie -why would I even think about posting that article about Paula Creamer ?
2005-12-30 @ 03:29
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

Baldwin--

Michelle's in the new ESPN The Magazine too--in case you want to bitch about that for your next blog.
2005-12-30 @ 03:41
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
I did notice that Kyle. But the Wie Warriors didn't call for their winless wonder to boycott ESPN. So no story there. Thanks for the idea though.

And to explain NorCal Golfer's point -

Paula Creamer's better than Michelle Wie now, will always be better than Wie.

Get with it Kyle.

So of course Creamer's always relevant.
2005-12-30 @ 03:54
Comment from: jay [Visitor]
Chris. Why don't you make fun of gulbis? She hasn't won for more than 4 years and better known for appearing in swimsuit calenda and reality series. But You will never make fun of gulbis because she is blue eyed blonde girl unlike wie.
2005-12-30 @ 06:27
Comment from: Jake [Visitor]

Don't forget Kyle--

Michelle Wie's in the Persons of the Year issue of Time Magazine as well--- that can be Baldie's next blog after the ESPN the Magazine one.
2005-12-30 @ 07:26
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex said:
Norman, Weren't you the guy that said there is a great difference in the amount in which one makes or misses a cut? Look, Norman, I like Michelle as much as anyone, but being eliminated 5 and 4 in the quarterfinals does not constitute a "thrilling run". If she had been in the top four in medal play and had made it to the final pairing and had lost 1 up, THAT would have been a "thrilling run".
*********************************

Alex, yes I was one of the guys who said it does matter how much you miss the cut by. That discussion was about stroke play.
In stroke play, the position you are in after day 2 affects the weekend. If you are 10 shots off the lead, you have very little hope of winning on Sunday.
However the publinx are different. For this competition, you had to be in the top 64 of the stroke play section of the tournament. Unlike a stroke play tournament, it did not matter if you were in 1st place or 64th place after the two round. Having a 10 shot advantage after the 2 days is scrapped.
The eventual winner of the competition Clay Ogden was 13 shots off the lead after the 2 days. That obviously had no impact on the rest of the competition.

Addressing the "thrilling factor", here is why it was thrilling:
- She qualified in 1st place in the sectional tournament, only 2 players qualified from the sectional.
- Doing so she was the first women ever to qualify for a usga event.
- In a field of 156 players (155 male), she made the cut of 64, by finishing with 2 birdies over the last two holes. Many people have stated that she couldn't make cuts under pressure.
- In round 1, she came from being behind the whole round, and finished with 4 birdies in the last 5 holes, to snatch the match away from her opponent. If that wasn't thrilling, then what is?
- Second round, a thrilling 6&5 victory.
- Third round, a 3&1 victory.
- That put her into the quarter finals where she lost to the eventual winner, but what exactly had she achieved.

In an event, where she was the first woman to qualify, where many people thought no woman would be able to qualify, she not only qualified, but finished in the position, joint 5th with the other 3 losing quarter finalists. Not bad for a field of 156 top amatuers, 155 of which were male, and some of which said she shouldn't have been allowed to play, because she was a female. It is those kind of thrilling runs which helped get her 10 million in the bank, and closer to the Masters tournament than I thought she would get at this stage of her career.
2005-12-30 @ 09:47
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
When Chris Baldwin refers to Wie proponents as "Wie Warriors", or recently as "Wie Delusionals", or as drinking too heavily of the Wie Koolaid, he's playing "devil's advocate", he's eliciting comment. That's his purpose, it's his job to "rattle your cages". And, boy, is he ever succeeding! He has jay and Kara portraying him as a miserable racist. And Norman insisting that Michelle's quarterfinal 5 and 4 elimination in the Publinx was both a "thrilling run" and "outstanding". With statements like these, Chris will never run out of material. Michelle Wie is truly a prodigy and in my opinion has the potential to become a dynamic force on the LPGA tour for years to come. I am skeptical of the way her handlers are doing things, but only time will tell if they were wise or not. To this point, Michelle has not produced any results on the golf course that can be characterized as "outstanding". She has dropped some long putts as in the 2004 Sony, and some superb iron shots in several LPGA events and at the recent John Deere. If she wins an LPGA event this year as the youngest ever to do it, that will be outstanding. I expect her to do just that. As a Wie supporter, i prefer to wait until she does eventually win some tournaments before I do my crowing.
2005-12-30 @ 10:11
Comment from: jay [Visitor]
Chris baldwin once insisted 15 year old creamer achieved far more than 15 year old wie. As long as chris continues to make this type of comments, He will have to risk of being called as racist and chances are he is really racist.
2005-12-30 @ 10:40
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
I have seen much of Chris Baldwin's writing and while I disagree with many of his assertions I have seen no evidence of racist motives. Calling people racist becuase they don't agree with you is shameful and not what the principles of this country and many others worldwide were founded upon. You think Baldwin is wrong in his assesment of Michelle Wie(I personally do) let him know about it, argue your case, but don't resort to cheap name calling it only weakens the case of all Wie supporters.
2005-12-30 @ 13:16
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
RON MON

I wasn't criticizing your writing. I was merely observing something unusual. Norman and I certainly appreciate saner writing than what we get from Chris.

2005-12-30 @ 13:27
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
ALEX

If you only want to count wins, then remember Michelle did become the youngest winner of an adult USGA event when she won the 2003 WAPL at 13. What would make becoming the youngest ever to win an LPGA event outstadning at 16 outstadning, while youngest ever to win an adult USGA event at 13 not outstanding?

What about a top ten finish in an LPGA Major at 13, or missing a PGA cut by a single storke at 14?
Frankly, I consider missing a PGA cut by just one or two strokes to be more impressive than winning an LPGA event. I would not put a narrow win in a weak LPGA event at 16 to be her greatest achievement.
2005-12-30 @ 13:49
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Jim, Do you realize what you said? Do you really believe that the greatest accomplishment a woman golfer can have is missing a cut by one or two strokes in a PGA event to which the player received a sponsor's exemption? If that is the case, Michelle can quit right now since she has missed the cut in Men's events six times to Annika's one and Paula's none. Now, doesn't that seem silly? Take it easy guys, Michelle will win many times in the future on the LPGA tour. When she does we can exult in her success. These things take time. Let's give her the time she needs.
2005-12-30 @ 19:28
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I realize exactly what I said. The best performance by any woman alive in a men's pro event was Michelle Wie's 2004 Sony missed cut(by one stroke)--and Michelle Wie did it when she was a 14 year old amateur attending high school full time. Did you happen to notice what happened to Ai Miyazato. Men's events are tough. Obviously I don't think just missing a PGA cut is the greatest accomplishment a woman golfer can have. I have said I thought it was 50-50 Michelle Wie would make the Sony cut in 2006. But taking age into account, I would say at present, Wie's 2004 Sony may be the most impressive performance ever by a female.
2005-12-30 @ 20:47
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Mr. Baldwin,

I commend you for having the wisdom and guts to see through and buck the feminist spirit of the age and label Wie correctly. Wie is nothing but the creation of a big mouth, an aggressive father and a fawning, politically correct media. She's won nothing, proven nothing, and done little. Yet, because all the mind-numbed robots (like the ones criticizing you in this thread) lapped up the media drivel, she was able to parlay her nascent, style-over-substance career into a premature payday of tens of millions.

Sheep.
2005-12-31 @ 00:01
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Since I just noticed a few other comments made by posters, I'll mention something else. A 14-year-old girl -- who was as physically mature as an 18-year-old -- missing the cut at the Sony by a stroke doesn't mean all that much. What you don't know is that in the second round of that event she had only 23 putts. Do you know what that means? It means it was a flukey round, the kind of round that all golfers have once in a while.

On top of it all, the Sony is played on one of her home courses, a place where she knows every blade of grass.

The point is that such are the vagaries of golf; her performance was simply "sample variance." If you folks understood golf you'd realize that basing ANYTHING on a one or two round performance is silly.
2005-12-31 @ 00:09
Comment from: Kevin [Visitor]

Under Par--

Well Michelle only missed the cut at the John Deere by two shots , and that was the first time she's played that event and was totally unfamiliar with that course.

She was actually under the cut line for most of the 2nd round until the mistakes got her on the 17th and 18th hole.
2005-12-31 @ 08:46
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par, Although I am more of a fan of Michelle than you are, I do agree that she has been over-hyped. I fear that her father and her agents might turn her into more of a sideshow than a real competitor. Reading these posts, I get the impression that many Wie fanatics truly believe she has already achieved immortality. One Wie devotee even stated emphatically that in his opinion, Michelle missing the cut at the 2004 Sony by one stroke was the greatest performance yet by a female golfer. To that fellow and several others like him, Annika Sorenstam's 66 LPGA wins including ten this year, and Paula Creamer's outdistancing a quality field at Geneva were of little consequence. Such statements are patently ridiculous. Being close to the cut line in golf means nothing. What is axiomatic in golf is "a miss is as good as a mile". I'll say it again, guys, Michelle has the talent; but developing into a proven winner like Annika, or even Paula, Lorena, Karrie, or Julie takes time and experience. Guys, we gotta be patient!
2005-12-31 @ 09:26
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex, like many others, you seem to like misquoting people.
What Jim said, was that it was the greatest achievement by a female, TAKING HER AGE INTO ACCOUNT.

If he said it was the greatest achievement period, I would have to disagree with him, but taking being a 14 year old into account, it indeed probably was at least one of the greatest achievments.

On your other point, being close to the cut line DOES MATTER. Surely you can agree that Michelle missing the cut by one shot is much better than Ai Mirayato missing the cut by 12 or 14 shots and finishing in last place in a field of about 140 or so.
2005-12-31 @ 10:33
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex said:
And Norman insisting that Michelle's quarterfinal 5 and 4 elimination in the Publinx was both a "thrilling run" and "outstanding".
*******************************

Again Alex you are misquoting people, which seems to be a habit of yours.
I didn't say the quarter final was thrilling. I said getting to the quarter final was a thrilling run.
To be the first woman to qualify for such an event, and then to finish tied 5th in a field of 156 players is OUTSTANDING.
To qualify from stroke play with 2 birdies in the last two holes is thrilling.
To win three matches, one by 6&5, and another where she came from behind with 4 birdies in the last 5 holes. That is THRILLING.
2005-12-31 @ 10:41
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Norman, As I've said many times, Michelle Wie has all the tools to become a big winner on the LPGA tour. I seriously doubt that she will ever be a contender in a PGA event. By that I mean being in any of the last five groups om Sunday. Although she obviously has the tools, as yet she hasn't put them all to full use by winning an LPGA event. I am confident that she will win an LPGA event this year. But if she doesn't, all will not be lost. A number of top ten finishes would be almost as good. The number and quality of the women on the LPGA tour is increasing dramatically every year. At 16 years old, Michelle has plenty of time to reach the top. But she is not there yet, and in my opinion she won't get there by becoming a sideshow trying time after time to make a cut in PGA events. She will need the competition in the best LPGA events to bring out her best. After all, these events are where she played her best in her brief career. I would encourage Michelle and her agents and advisors to take their time and exercise caution with their prodigy. She has the talent, and at sixteen, she has plenty of time.
2005-12-31 @ 11:20
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex, I am glad that you at least have stated what you consider contending ie you think if she is in the top 10 going into the final round, that that is it.

In my opinion, if she were to make a cut in the next two years, it would be outstanding.
Furthermore, if she were to win an lpga event, it would be unprecedented.
Therefore I don't think people should talk about her not having achieved the above two goals yet, as some sort of failure on her part.

On your point about "becoming a sideshow trying time after time to make a cut in PGA events".
I think that is a very inaccurate statement.
The Sony Open is near her home. Like it or not she is likely to compete in it every year for the next few years at least.
Apart from that she has played 1 (ONE) other pga event. I think you are giving the impression, as if she were taking 7 sponsors exemptions per year and not making cuts in any of them. The reality is very different.

MW can only compete in 8 lpga events, this year and next. I don't think there is anything wrong with her competing in 1 or 2 pga events, and some others also.
2005-12-31 @ 11:52
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Norman, I assume you meant it would be outstanding if Michelle made a cut on the PGA tour. Maybe so. I would be more impressed if she won on the LPGA tour. Some posters on this board do not share this opinion. Jim says that Michelle's fondest desire should be to finish 70th in a PGA event. The fact that she is a sideshow whenever she is in a PGA event is obvious. Last year at the Sony, ESPN followed Michelle nearly every step of the way until she was mathmatically eliminated. At the same time, they paid very little attention to Shigeki Maruyama who shot a 65 that day. Incidentally, in the 2005 Sony, Michelle shot 75-74 149, nine over par and missed the cut by seven strokes. She was 17 stroles behind Maruyama, but received ten times the television coverage. That is a sideshow. Michelle deserves something besides such blatant patronizing.
2005-12-31 @ 12:20
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

I want to point out some very significant facts. Yes, Wie has only played in the two PGA Tour events you mentioned (although she has played in the Sony more than once). However, she has also played in quite a handful of men's mini-tour events and failed to make the cut in them also. Moreover, she hasn't done anything that Annika Sorenstam couldn't do better. If Sorenstam (who I'm also not fond of) played in as many men's events, she might have come equally close.

Regardless, all the Wie acolytes are going to have their bubble burst in a major way. I say this because Wie isn't a "winner."

Think about it: players like Woods and Nicklaus won on every level on which they played -- that's what true champions do. Wie, however, has exhibited just the opposite pattern: she has, generally speaking, LOST on every level at which she has played. Remember that the last time she played in an amateur girls' event she LOST. And I think this goes a long way toward explaining why the Wies have steered her away from her peers like a ship away from an iceberg.

It's not just that she loses, though, it's HOW she loses. Someone pointed out that she was under the cut line in the John Deere until she faltered over the last two or three holes. I say: exactly. This is the pattern Wie has exhibited: whenever it's time to close the deal, she collapses. It's nothing new for her, and I predict that it's never going to be anything old, either. You can change your swing, your physical conditioning or your equipment, but knowing how to win is inherent.

Having said this, will Wie be a force on the LPGA Tour? Sure. Will she make a cut in a men's event? You can almost bank on it. Probability dictates that -- why, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. And when she does she'll be lauded by the media once again, it will played up by those nattering ninkompoops who wouldn't know golfing from rolfing if they didn't have to write about it.

Anyway, I have said this before and I say it again: Wie will never surpass Sorenstam's records. You heard it here first.
2005-12-31 @ 12:31
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Yes Alex, I meant the pga tour.

I think the real point you are missing is that if she were to make the cut it would be historic. It has not been done by a woman in 60 years, and if Michelle makes the cut, she would be the first woman ever, to play the final day of a tournament on the pga tour.

That is why the camera's follow her around. In the case of Shigeki Maruyama, it can be argued that the camera's should be on him more, but to be fair, the tv stations were just giving the viewers what they want, and the tv stations owe that to their advertisers.

It is perfectly fair for you to think an lpga victory would be better. That point is just a matter of opinion.
For me and others, we look at the relative difficulty of the pga and lpga, and that is why I think a pga cut would be more impressive than an lpga win, although an lpga major is different. Practically every lpga winner could not get within 7 shots of a pga cut in my opinion. That is what makes it so impressive, if it gets done.
2005-12-31 @ 12:33
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
As regards the other mens events Wie has entered, you have to put it into perspective. When she competed in the she was 13 years old. In the one month between those events, she also missed an lpga cut. I hope that you will agree that she is a better player now than she was then. Those events mean nothing when talking about Wie on the pga tour, she couldn't even make an lpga cut in those days.

As regards saying Sorrenstam could do better, you are simply wrong. She is not as good as Wie over the pga courses, because of the length and different rough.

You may well be right that Wie won't break Sorrenstam's lpga records. Perhaps she won't be playing the lpga full time. She will win plenty though, that is my prediction.

As regards, closing the deal. You stated examples.
I can also state the example of the Publinx, where she closed with 2 birdies to make the stroke play cut. That sounds like closing the deal.
She also won everything she entered in her younger years, that is why she moved to stiffer competition to learn more. I think she has taken the wise path, but time will tell.
2005-12-31 @ 12:43
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
I agree that she has "some" length that Sorenstam doesn't, although her distance has been greatly exaggerated. However, I am aware of the fact that her relatively unique tools give her an advantage on longer, tougher layouts. That's why I said that Sorenstam "might" have done as well.

As far as her making a cut being historic goes, yes, it would be, but I think it's silly. It's also historic when a guy breaks the record for pancake eating, but that doesn't mean it's a great accomplishment. I'll say it again: give ANY of the longest and best female golfers enough tries and they will eventually make a cut. Sorry Stormin' Norman, but it ain't that big a deal.
2005-12-31 @ 13:19
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Another example of Wie closing the deal is the Women's amatuer event she won where she was down 4 twice in the final and came back to win.

Under Par, what evidence do you have that "any of the longest and best female golfers" would eventually make a cut. Gustafsen is one of the longest on tour and she missed the cut at the same event Wie played in Japan by 7 strokes.
2005-12-31 @ 13:50
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
I agree that winning a pancake eating competition would not be a great achievement.

However making a pga cut, as a 16 year old would be a great achievement. Add in that she is a girl and that increases the achievement further.

Other women have tried to make cuts on tours. You have referred to longer hitters!
Of the longer hitters, as Paul has stated, Sophie Gustaffson missed the cut by 7 shots, in the same event in Japan that Wie entered, two years previously.
Laura Davies missed the cut by a long way when she entered mens events.
Those two women were the 2nd and 3rd longest hitters on the lpga in 2005, and Annika was 4th.

Who are these long hitters that you are referring to, because I don't think there are any who could do as wll as Wie on an pga course.
I would love if many women could compete on the pga, but I simply don't think that it is a reality at the present time.

For the record, Brittany Lincicome 270.3 yards, was the longest driver of 2005 on the lpga.
From driving stats of tournaments that Wie has entered on the lpga, she averaged 276.8 yards in 2004, and 269 yards in 2005. This is calculated on 6 tournaments per year, that I have driving stats for.
If anyone is interested, Wie averaged 308.1 yards at the Samsung in 2004. She has also been in the top 3 driving distance averages, in 9 of the 13 tournaments for 2004 and 2005, that stats are available for.
2005-12-31 @ 16:19
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

If you understand golf you know that every once in a while a player captures lightning in a bottle, and this is when the individual has that once-in-a-year performance. This is why I said that any one of the logest hitting women would make a cut eventually. You just have to wait for one of those flukey performances to coincide with a cut attempt.

Next, why does everyone feel compelled to throw a bone to the feminists and say things like, "I'd love to see many women be able to compete on the tour," as if such a thing is good for society? Quite frankly, I'd like to see people once again recognize that there should be certain barriers between the sexes, so we'd have a prayer of perpetuating a sane civilization.
2005-12-31 @ 17:55
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
I do understand golf, and yes there can be lucky performances here and there when everything seems to go right, like chip-ins and when dreadful shots into awful places on the golf course end up, with the player having a beautiful lie.
However, I think what you are failing to understand is that most of those girls could have their best day with plenty of luck and still miss the cut with shots to spare.

I am pretty sure, that if you gave the top 10 longest hitters (minus Annika) on the lpga tour, 3 attempts each, none of them would get within even 2 shots of a cut line.
I'm not sure if Annika would either, but it would be somewhat possible for her, if she had a great day, for the others it would be practically impossible.

I say this not out of joy. I would like it if more women were able to do better on the pga, but I am simply being realistic. At this moment MW is the only one who can aquit herself well.

As regards your question of why do we want women to play with men?
Because it is interesting, to find out exactly how far women can go in a sport like golf. I think we would all agree that it is not feasible for women and men to compete together in tennis, because so much power and speed and physical strength is required.

A question I would ask you is why are you scared for women to enter in mens events. Could it be because you think some may be good enough.
Van de Velde is scared that women might be good enough. Here is a quote for Van de Velde:
******************************
"This is an issue that needs resolving or it is going to get out of hand," said the Frenchman, forever to be remembered for his closing triple-bogey 7 when leading the 1999 British Open by three. "We could get 50 Michelle Wies entering our qualifying school, maybe 10 of them make it through to the finals and perhaps two get their cards.

"If it goes on this way in 20 years you could have women playing in the Ryder Cup," he said, "and I just don't think that was the original intention for those matches."
********************************

That is blatent sexism. When the Ryder Cup originated, black people weren't allowed to play, but they are now.
When the Ryder Cup originated, French people weren't allowed to play, it was just Great Britain and Ireland versus the USA.
Perhaps Van de Velde should remember that.
2005-12-31 @ 18:39
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
PC Norman,

The only "sexism" in this PC, anti-male society is that which redounds negatively upon men.

But I'll tell you how "scared" I am. It is my preference that we eliminate ALL these separate, protected, inferior little tours, leagues and teams for women and have the sexes compete together. If the feminists want equality, I'd LOVE to give it to them.

As for the other women's chances, I agree that given three attempts they wouldn't get within two shots of the cut line. However, I never said that a handful of attempts would suffice. Give a Laura Davies ENOUGH attempts -- it may take 20 or 30 -- and she'll make a cut. It proves nothing.

By the way, I am a tennis pro, and I would agree with your comments about that game.
2005-12-31 @ 19:25
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par,
It's not "throwing a bone to the feminists" to say that people should be able to achieve what their natural abilities and hard work enable them to achieve. Setting up arbitrary barriers strikes me as un-american and hardly a formula for a "sane civilization."
2005-12-31 @ 19:44
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Really, Paul? Then I guess I can count on you to support my proposal to eliminate separate leagues, teams and tours for women. We wouldn't want any arbitrary barriers, after all.
2005-12-31 @ 19:50
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
My response to your "lets eliminate the women's tour" is this.

Then by that definition, lets eliminate the Seniors tour. Why should the over 50's be able to have a league of their own, and yet still be able to compete on the pga tour?

The similarities in the two cases, are identical.
LPGA and SENIORS, have their own tours, which are of a lower standard than the pga tour. This enables good women golfers to compete on the lpga tour, and good over 50's players to compete on the Seniors Tour. Both the women and the senior players are entitled to their tours.
However, both the seniors and the lpga players should be allowed to compete on the pga tour (the best tour), if they are good enough.

In my opinion, the pga tour is for the best players in the world, period. There should be no exclusions based on sex , colour, race, or age.

Other tours can be exclusionary to try to promote the game among Older People, or Women, or Amateurs, but the pga should be for the best no matter who they are.
2005-12-31 @ 19:54
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Having a league just for women is hardly an arbitrary barrier. If you allowed men to play in the LPGA, it would ruin it for women since men have a natural advantage. The same argument can't be used to justify a men's only league.
2005-12-31 @ 19:57
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Sorry, guys, but that's a double-standard, which, by the way, is fine, as long as you don't turn around and rail against double-standards like the liberals do.

But you miss my point. Women have been allowed entry into anything and everything based on an equality argument; it may not be YOUR favored strategy, but that is the approach that has held sway in our time. However, if the sexes really are equal, then there's no reason under the sun to have separate tours. On the other hand, maintaining that separate tours are necessary is tacit acknowledgement that women are not equal in this arena. Now, if this is the case, then it throws in to question all the social structures that have been erected based on the fiction of equality of the sexes. You can call such walls of separation "arbitrary" if you like, but if we -- unlike the feminists -- accept the supposition that the sexes are not equal across the board, it has to occur to us that perhaps the sexes really do have different roles in this world. And, if they have different roles, it follows that those "arbitrary" barriers between the sexes may not be that arbitrary after all.

Lastly, I find it ironic that the people who call these barriers arbitrary are never struck by the fact that the barrier between church and state is arbitrary. People are very selective about the "arbitrary" standards they choose to complain about.
2005-12-31 @ 20:16
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par, interesting rambling response, but I have no idea what your position is. It sounds like you just don't think women have any business trying to compete with men in sports (and probably other endevours as well) no matter how talented they are.
2005-12-31 @ 20:28
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Okay Under Par,
first of all you have got me all wrong, in the whole politics area.

I am perhaps one of the least liberal orientated people around. I am very much anti-abortion, and I don't agree with a barrier between the church and state, which you in the USA seem to have settled on. So I am hardly a liberal.

What I do believe is that every person is different and deserves the same opportunities. The women have a right to their own league, because physically they are disadvantaged to men.

However that does not mean that you should exclude women if they are good enough to make the best (male dominated) league.

Michelle Wie should not be excluded from playing against the best players in the world, simply because of her gender.
2005-12-31 @ 20:31
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
The sexes are NOT EQUAL.

but that doesn't mean that if SOME women are good enough, that they shouldn't be allowed to compete against men.
2005-12-31 @ 20:35
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
And it doesn't mean they should, although that is modern dogma.
2005-12-31 @ 21:17
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
First of all, saying "What I do believe is that every person is different and deserves the same opportunities. The women have a right to their own league, because physically they are disadvantaged to men" is contradictory. If women have their own league, then not everyone has the same opportunities. For then, women who can't cut muster with the best have recourse to a protected realm, whereas the men who cannot do so do not.


2005-12-31 @ 21:28
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
If women can exclude men, then yes, men should be able to exclude women. But a lot of us would like to see Michelle Wie compete against men. It adds interest to the game.

I would support excluding females from male contact sports like wrestling, particularly in high school. But I see no compelling reason in a non-contact sport like golf. Thus I would hope that the European Tour does not choose to exclude women--but I would strongly object if anyone were to say they did not have the right to do so given the existence of the Ladies Europen Tour which excludes men.

Laura Davies. With 20 or 30 chances when she was in her prime she might have been able to make a PGA cut. But now? She has played 85 LPGA tournaments in the past 4 years without a win, with only 3 top tens in the past year.

2005-12-31 @ 22:14
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Okay, Jim, I do respect the fact that you understand the importance of freedom of association and would not seek to trump it. We just disagree about what the roles of the sexes should be in this world, but that's an issue that cannot be done justice in a few paragraphs.

Suffice it to say, however, that I find myself bisecting the line that separates Gloria Steinem from the Taliban. But while both are extremes I detest, our errant civilization is now infinitely closer to the former than the latter.
2005-12-31 @ 22:39
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
I'll cede the point about Laura Davies, though. I failed to take into account her dreadful play of late.

However, I stand by my assertion that making a cut in a men's event is no great accomplishment. But let's be precise here because I think we have to define this properly. If she could make 25% of them, it would be a different story -- that certainly would be an accomplishment. But are you going to tell me that it's a great accomplishment regardless of the percentage of the time that she does it? In other words, at what point does it cease to impress you? When she only makes one of twenty? One out of thirty? Forty or fifty? My point is this: if you're going to tell me that you find it impressive regardless of her success rate, I'm going to tell you -- to use a bit of Norman's British lingo -- that you're daft.
2005-12-31 @ 22:47
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
I am slightly confused...when the best players of the world (i.e. Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Tiger Woods) praise Wie and state that she will make the cut in a PGA event soon, and that she was better than all of them at her age, doesn't it mean that she's the real deal? I highly doubt that they would ever praise Creamer, Pressel, or Miyazato like that, and you know how stern and stiff Els and Singh comment on other golfers.

If they didn't believe 100% that Wie is one of the best female golfers out there right now, one of the best prodigies ever to have lived, and one of the most talented golfers to ever have competed, they would not say all those praises and comments about Michelle.

as to Under Par, who has stated that she is a "spoiled" brat just because she wants to, and she believes that she can beat the men, that I must give you a cold reality check here: HER GOLE IS TO BE THE BEST GOLFER THAT SHE COULD BE, AND THAT MEANS TEEING IT UP WITH THE MEN...

HECK I ALSO HAVE DREAMS TO BEAT THE MEN OF THE PGA, BUT DOES THAT MAKE ME A SPOILED BRAT?

ALSO:

MORGAN PRESSEL HAS ALSO STATED THAT SHE WANTS TO BEAT ANNIKA, BEAT MICHELLE, AND BEAT ANY WOMEN OUT THERE, BUT HAS STATED THAT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS BESIDES HER ONLY TOP5 FINISH IN AN LPGA EVENT...SHE MUST ALSO BE CALLED A SPOILED BRAT. (but I think you too would agree that she is infact one of the biggest of them all...)

on another note:

I attend school with Michelle, and I am not friends with her in any way, but with every aquaitence of Michelle, I have never seen/heard anything that would relate to her as "a spolied brat"...she is infact very polite and nice, even giving a little freshman a signiture when asked...

Although discussions like this are very fun and exciting, the bottom line here should be:

THE LPGA HAS ITS GREATEST YEARS TO COME, AND WITH THE HELP OF WIE, CREAMER, PRESSEL, MIYAZATO, KIM, INTERETS IN THE LPGA WILL RISE TO A NEW LEVEL.

CREAMER, WIE, AND PRESSEL, ARE ALL GREAT GOLFERS WITH GREAT TALENT, AND THEY WILL BE NOTHING BUT GOOD FOR THE LPGA IN FUTURE YEARS!

(so lets stop being racist, being mean, and being snippy at each other, cause we are about to witness an all-time first for the LPGA...BY THEY WAY, HAPPY NEW YEAr!)
2005-12-31 @ 23:29
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
lol...i spelt "goal" wrong as gole...sorry that just irritated me...
2005-12-31 @ 23:31
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Patrick,

If you attend school with Wie you're obviously in high school, so I won't be too hard on you. However, I think you need to learn the facts of life, meaning, the truths that your teachers won't tell you because they're peddling politically-correct drivel.

The pros you mentioned will never say anything critical of a feminist sacred cow because they know they'd be pilloried in the media and their images would be tarnished. Moreover, many of these guys have public relations consultants who tell them what to say, didn't you know? Who knows, this might even account for why Phil Mickelson said something as dumb as predicting that Sorenstam would finish about twentieth in the Colonial, when I knew she didn't have a prayer of making the cut and predicted her finish almost exactly. Of course, though, Mickelson could just be stupid. That certainly would go a long way toward explaining some of his shotmaking decisions.

Lastly, Patrick, I know you've been conditioned to call every politically-incorrect opinion "racist," but that's not only bunk, it's also very dishonorable, underhanded and manipulative. It also doesn't work on me. You know how I react when people try to cow me with such ploys, Kiddo? I get in their faces twice as much and become thrice as strident in my views.

Have a happy and blessed new year.
2006-01-01 @ 00:16
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
LOL but you have to agree that some of my points were correct...that you calling michelle a spoiled brat because of whatever quote she said was also very rash and very impulsive...because if you had thought that post out, you would have realized that most people have goals and aspirations in life just like Michelle, and everyone who makes comments like that are NOT in fact spoiled brats, but people who obviously have goals in life that they want to achieve...

HAppy New Years!

(I'm not calling anyone racist, but I suspect a few out there, so I just said let's all stop being whatever we were and get along...cause you have to agree the LPGA is gonna get quite exciting in the years to come...and all 3 of the golfers that have been a hot topic will contribute in a huge way)
2006-01-01 @ 00:25
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
Oh and also, what about all those pros who lashed out against Michelle? Allenby and Van de Velde (are the names I could come up with at this time) have lashed out against Michelle and I have even heard correspondents on the Golf Channel agreeing with them, so it's not like these pros can't speak their mind. Obviously ccontroversy is inevitable surrounding a 16-year-old female golfer trying to play on the PGA, but these golfers are NOT dumb bricks..they know what they're saying and what they are not saying...

why haven't any one of these pros spoken for Pressel or Creamer? I personally adore all three of them and believe that they are all true golf phenoms, but you have got to wonder why it's only Michelle they're praising....The answer could obviously be that they think she's great publicity and she's over-hyped, but they don't want to get the Wie-supporters angry, or that they really believe she is the real deal...
2006-01-01 @ 00:31
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!
2006-01-01 @ 00:34
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
PATRICK and UNDER PAR

I once called a particular individual racist about Wie(and later modified that to chauvinist)--but I believe it is entirely a matter of gender with UNDER PAR. As I noted, if women can exclude men, then men should be able to do the same to women. I would, however, hope that tours like the PGA or the European Tour would not do so. As far as spoiled brat is concerned, some people misrepresented Michelle's comments at the Casio--and the press did blow her pretournament quote out of proportion. I'm not sure UNDER PAR would still be as strident on that issue.

On the other hand, UNDER PAR seems to have been conditioned to attack what he sees as political correctness at the drop of a pin. I realize that may be the only way to attack political correctness--but it does run the risk of hitting innocent targets. There is also a risk of saying things one might not want to stand by. If Annika didn't have a prayer of making the cut on her short dog legged handpicked Colonial course, that would seem to make Michelle Wie's 2004 Sony performance rather more impressive than UINDER PAR had been saying earlier. In any case, UNDER PAR has acknowledged that making the cut 25 per cent of the time would be an accomplishment. I see no reason why Michelle should not be able to improve enough to achieve that goal--indeed, I am sure her sights are set much higher than that. I differ from UNDER PAR in that I am willing to take age into account and so I am impressed by some of what she has done that might not impress me if she were to do the same thing five years from now.





2006-01-01 @ 01:03
Comment from: David Doig [Visitor]
.

Because they don't try to make the cut in men's events - it's as simple as that. they're just being nice to Michelle
2006-01-01 @ 01:46
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Patrick,

You seem like a nice young guy, and I don't doubt that Wie is very gracious in person. However, I know what she has said and done in the past, and it made me lose all respect for her. Of course, though, I also believe that her statements and behavior were calculated marketing ploys. And, guess what? It worked.

Lastly, Patrick, if you think that the pros feel free to speak their minds, I suggest you go online and study "political-correctness" for a while. Sure, a pro or two -- like Van de Velde -- may throw caution to the wind and give voice to unfashionable truths, but they'll pay the price in terms of endorsements if they refuse to bow down at the altar of liberlism. Just ask Vijay Singh -- he spoke for many when he said Sorenscam didn't belong at the Colonial, and he was raked over the coals for it. He won't be saying such things again.

Of course, though, it wouldn't and DOESN'T stop me. I'm not that kind of coward.
2006-01-01 @ 03:16
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
As a further example of how the television networks make a sideshow of Michelle when she is in a PGA event, in last year's John Deere, it was all Michelle all the time during the broadcast of the first two rounds Sean O'Hair was on his way to his first PGA win, but he got practically no mention.
2006-01-01 @ 10:25
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
The women have a right to their own league, because physically they are disadvantaged to men" is contradictory. If women have their own league, then not everyone has the same opportunities. For then, women who can't cut muster with the best have recourse to a protected realm, whereas the men who cannot do so do not.
*******************************

Under Par, you are ignoring a very important point that I raised.
Why are you against the women having their own tour, yet you have not mentioned that the Seniors have their own tour. If you are calling for the women's tour to be abolished if some of them want to play with men on the pga, THEN you should be calling for the Seniors Tour to be abolished if some of them want to play on the pga.
2006-01-01 @ 10:34
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
However, I stand by my assertion that making a cut in a men's event is no great accomplishment. But let's be precise here because I think we have to define this properly. If she could make 25% of them, it would be a different story -- that certainly would be an accomplishment. But are you going to tell me that it's a great accomplishment regardless of the percentage of the time that she does it? In other words, at what point does it cease to impress you? When she only makes one of twenty? One out of thirty? Forty or fifty?
********************************

What would be impressive is for her to make a cut this year or next. As a 16 or 17 year old girl, that would be impressive, assuming she has only a couple of tries. It would not be so impressive if she got a whole raft of exemptions. As Jim said, her age is important at the moment.
However it won't be in 5 years. You have suggested that 1 in 4 would be a good success rate. I would hope for something a little higher, but I suppose it would be okay if she were just starting as a full time golfer ie. when she is finished school.
So to answer your question, 1 in 20 is unacceptable. 1 in 4 which you said would be an accomplishment - would be much better.
2006-01-01 @ 10:40
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
Sure, a pro or two -- like Van de Velde -- may throw caution to the wind and give voice to unfashionable truths
********************************

So you agree with Van de Velde.
Well Van de Velde believes that women could compete successfully on tour, and he is scared that they could become full time members.

Here is a quote from Jean Van de Velde:
"We could get 50 Michelle Wies entering our qualifying school, maybe 10 of them make it through to the finals and perhaps two get their cards.
"If it goes on this way in 20 years you could have women playing in the Ryder Cup," he said, "and I just don't think that was the original intention for those matches."
2006-01-01 @ 10:46
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Alex, I agree that MWs participation gets too much attention, but O'Hair was T14 after 2 rounds, six strokes out of the lead so I wouldn't expect him to have gotten much coverage on Friday.
2006-01-01 @ 11:02
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par said:
I'm not that kind of coward.

Under Par, or John Z or whatever your name is,
You call yourself courageous for posting on an anonymous blog and calling a 16 year old girl a spoiled brat without any justification? Maybe you should get your facts straight before bothering everybody with your rants.
2006-01-01 @ 11:06
Comment from: Steve [Visitor]

Under Par-

You're a total wing nut-- and news flash its 2006 not 1956.
2006-01-01 @ 11:29
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
As I have said previously, I am a fan of Michelle. I like her swing, her golf generalship, just about everthing about her game. What I find disconcerting is the incessant over-hyping of Michelle by the by the various media. Here are a few examples: At the 2004 Sony, ESPN stayed with coverage past the tournament's allotted time to see if Michelle would make the cut. She didn't, but as far as I know , that is the first and only time that a golf event was given extended coverage on a Friday. At the 2005 Sony, ESPN stayed with Michelle coverage almost exclusively until she was mathmatically eliminated. At the 2005 John Deere, it was all Michelle all the time. Even when she missed the cut, the network continued to show some of her shots on the weekend. Sean O'Hair, a brilliant young golfer, was in the process of winning his first PGA event, but he got practically no coverage until the post-tournament interview. On the segment called "shot of the day", Michelle was given that prize for an excellent approach to within about four feet of the pin. What was absurd about this bit of hype was the fact that in that same round, Shigeki Maruyama had shot a spectacular ace. In the Casio, the Golf Channel actually had second round TV coverage in anticipation of Michelle making the cut, something they would never do for any other player. Of course, after all these events we had the predictable spate of interviews and re-plays of her better shots. Such over-hyping is not reporting the golf news, it is creating the golf news. One wonders what will be the reaction of the media if Michelle actually makes a cut in PGA event. Maybe a ticker tape parade down Fifth Avenue will be in order. I like Michelle, I think she has a lot of game, but she is not yet Hall of Fame material. Thw Wie hype machine has been working overtime, and that is why guys like Chris Baldwin and Under Par. have so much ammo.
2006-01-01 @ 11:47
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex, Michelle gets so much coverage because the public want it that way.

The tv stations are catering for their audience. If people were not interested in Michelle, they would switch their channels in disgust as the coverage.

The exact opposite is true. When she plays, the viewing figures go up. This applies not only to the pga events that you mentioned, but also lpga events.

Whether you like it or not, the tv channels will do their best to try to provide the coverage that people want so that people will tune in.

As regards your underlying question of why do we need to have so much coverage, the reason you are perplexed is probably because you are underestimating the magnitude of the event that was happening. At the John Deere, it looked like she would make the cut, through most of the 2nd round. You are simply underestimating what it would mean for a 15 year old girl to make a pga cut.
2006-01-01 @ 12:51
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
if you want an example of what a spoilt brat is like, here are some Pressel comments:

"She's going to make something like $10 million? For what? For winning one tournament?'' sniffed 17-year-old Morgan Pressel, in Fortune Magazine.

Michelle on the other hand, doesn't comment on other players performances and just gets on with her own game.
2006-01-01 @ 12:55
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
When Tiger says nice things about Michelle Wie, I don't know whether he is speaking his mind or following the Nike party line. But claiming that gender political correctnes protects Michelle Wie from criticism is almost like saying racial political correctness protects Clarence Thomas. If Nancy Lopez and other LPGA members criticize MW as harshly as they do, then others including men have PC permission to do the same, as long as the criticism is couched in the proper way.
2006-01-01 @ 14:32
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Wow, there really have been some off-base statements on this board.

First, Paul, my comment that "I'm not that kind of coward" is relevant because I'm a columnist who treats politics, religion and social issues and I write a LOT of controversial things. And, by the way, I don't start to grovel like a sniveling little sissy every time someone shrieks that they're offended.

Stormin' Norman: no, as I have already made quite clear, I'm so "scared" of the fairer sex's competition that I would vote to have the sexes compete together in ALL sports right now. As far as Van de Velde's prediction goes, it's possible that two out of fifty Wies could get their tour cards in Europe (although even this is questionable), being as their tour isn't nearly as competitive. However, the idea that they could ascend to a level where they'd qualify for the Ryder Cup is a bit fanciful. As far as the USA goes, I think it's highly doubtful that any woman will survive the men's qualifying school.

Next, your point regarding the women's vs. the senior tour is invalid. I said that we should eliminate separate tours, leagues and teams for women for a very specific reason.

The fact of the matter is that every time the feminists want to intrude into a masculine realm and someone -- based on a traditionalist argument perhaps -- objects, there is a hue and cry and all we hear is equality, equality, equality! Men and women are equal, therefore, you must not deny these interloping broads this opportunity. Okay, if they really are equal, let's treat them that way. No special, inferior, protected little arena for the inferior competition.

I want to make something clear: it's the inherent dishonesty that bothers me. If society would just say, look, we know that women pale in comparison in this area, so they need their own divisions, but since men are better it isn't unfair for women to sometimes "play up," I wouldn't find it so unpalatable. But I do despise dishonesty, and I find it amazing that so many men take this like sheep.

Then, Norman, you're partially correct when you say that Wie gets the coverage she does because "the public wants it that way," but only partially. The fact of the matter is that the media are driven by the feminist agenda and are always carrying water for feminist causes. Thus, they feel compelled to exaggerate women's accomplishments (think: Jessica Lynch fraud) and give them air time whenever doing so will further the feminist agenda. You think the media are driven soley by market forces? That's funny. Try working in the media for a while; that is, if you can get a position without drinking the PC Kool-Aid. They manage the news ALL THE TIME in the thinking that rubes like you need to be guided toward enlightenment. Wake up. They're laughing at you.

I also want to add that the public only has the appetite it does for Wie because the media created her in the first place! As for Pressel, sorry, but see if someone else will play. I neither said nor implied that she wasn't a brat, and I don't think that there's a rule in the eternal constitution that states that there will only be one brat per generation in the golf world. However, she is correct in what she said -- Wie is getting money for nothing because she's been created by the Dr. Frankensteins in the press.

And, last but not least, Jim. Jim, can you possibly be this naive? Thomas is criticized by LIBERALS on a basis of political correctness. He is a conservative black guy, and our PC social code dictates that such a person can be called an "Uncle Tom" by blacks and can be pilloried by all for not toeing the liberal line.

Then you said,

"If Nancy Lopez and other LPGA members criticize MW as harshly as they do, then others including men have PC permission to do the same, as long as the criticism is couched in the proper way."

That's ridiculous on the face of it. So, because Charles Barkley calls other black people niggers, it means that white guys will be able to follow suit (in the same spirit) with impunity? Please.

Besides, the criticism by Nancy Lopez and the other women is NOT the kind of criticism to which I'm referring. They are NOT coming from the point of view of a traditionalist, but, rather, are merely saying that Wie's attitude is an insult to the other women and does a disservice to their tour. You're mixing apples and oranges.
2006-01-01 @ 15:34
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
For one who obviously thinks alot of his own intelligence you really take up alot of things wrong.

Nobody wants both sexes to compete in all sports together. I recognise that men have a huge advantage in sports like tennis.

In golf they have a slight advantage. Women have the right to have their own leagues, because yes they are physically inferior.
However if a woman comes along that, despite her natural disadvantage, she can overcome that and still compete with "the best", then she should be allowed do so.

I predict that this won't happen in tennis, or indeed any sport where either physical contact occurs, or two players and directly involved in striking the one ball.

In golf, where each player has their own ball, and nobody interferes with each other, than despite having a physcial disadvantage, the disadvantage is not so great that it cannot be overcome.
An example of a similar disadvantage is where a 5 foot 7 guy has a disadvantage over a 6 foot 3 guy, like Ernie Els.
In golf, these disadvantages are not so great, that they cannot be reasonable overcome.

Under Par, the real point you are trying to make is about the liberal agenda. Unfortunately you have tried to integrate this into the area of golf. It simply has no basis whatsoever in this argument. Furthermore, your complete lack of knowledge of the game, leads you to making statements that you have no idea about.
Vijay Singh, Tiger Woods and Ernie Els are not told to say nice things about Michelle or else! Ernie Els is certainly not forced to play a practice round with Michelle at the Sony every year. He simply likes her, thinks she has great potential and that she is one of the finest young golfers male or female.
2006-01-01 @ 16:08
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

First of all, you either are being obtuse or lack the cultural literacy necessary to grasp my point. The most definitely pertains to golf because, as in everything else, the equality fiction is put forth every time someone resists the lowering of a barrier that the feminists despise.

Secondly, I never said that every single golfer has someone whispering in his ear. However, these rich athletes are surrounded by many people, and there's no doubt that they often hear advice about what they should and shouldn't say. Wie even admitted that she had seen an "image consultant." Do you really think -- in the age of crossing every "t" and dotting every "i," with sports psychologists, personal trainers, PR people and God knows what else -- that she is the only one? Of course, pcness is such a powerful force that explicit proscriptions against voicing unfashionable truths usually aren't necessary, but to think they're never issued is naive.
2006-01-01 @ 16:30
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
When Michelle Wie was aksed at the Evian if she did not feel she had a responsibility to promote the women's game she was being treated like Clarence Thomas is treated by black liberals. It is not as extreme--but it is much closer to the Clarence Thomas model than it is to name calling involving Charles Barkely and another black athelete. Why do you think there are so many male journalists who attack Michelle Wie? Sports journalists need to toe the politically correct line a lot more than pro atheletes do.
2006-01-01 @ 16:51
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
The most definitely pertains to golf because, as in everything else, the equality fiction is put forth every time someone resists the lowering of a barrier that the feminists despise.
*********************************

What barrier are you talking about that has been lowered. As far as I know, women weren't banned from pga competition at any time. Babe played back 50 or 60 years ago with the men, and no woman played on the pga again until Annika did at the Colonial. However, to my knowledge there was never a ban put in place blocking any woman from entering a pga event.
So when you are discussing the removing of a barrier, what barrier are you talking about?
2006-01-01 @ 17:02
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
Of course, pcness is such a powerful force that explicit proscriptions against voicing unfashionable truths usually aren't necessary, but to think they're never issued is naive.
********************************

You have talked about how well up you are in the media, yet from your comments it is as if you read no news media at all.
Michelle Wie is perhaps the most critised golfer around. Only last night I watched a golf show, reviewing the year, and when they came to the lpga section, they discussed Annika, and Paula and other pros and then they discussed Michelle Wie for a while. One golf expert on the panel said that "Michelle Wie competing against the men was a load of nonsense until she was able to topple Annika". This view has been expressed widely by many people.
I have not said that anyone doesn't have the right to express this view. However it is also my right, to point out to them that I believe they are completely wrong, and also to issue various statistics, which prove my points.
2006-01-01 @ 17:08
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par said,
First, Paul, my comment that "I'm not that kind of coward" is relevant because I'm a columnist who treats politics, religion and social issues and I write a LOT of controversial things. And, by the way, I don't start to grovel like a sniveling little sissy every time someone shrieks that they're offended.
************************

I guess you are courageous, those liberal, feminist, pc types are powerful and dangerous! One of them might challenge you to a game of golf some day.
2006-01-01 @ 17:45
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
This is for alex, who has said that the media has overly exposed and covered michelle....

If a 15-year-old FEMALE golfer is well below the cut line in a PGA event, any television station is going to keep up its coverage. This is history in the making... and I don't know about the true facts, but I believe if michelle were to have made a PGA cut at the John Deere, she would have been the youngest to do so disregarding sex (anyone with accurate information?...I heard this on an analysis somewhere..)

so SORRRY if the media is covering an event that almost had the outcome of a feat that has never happened for more than 50 years.
SORRY if the media is overly covering an event where the possibility of the PGA's youngest competitor to ever have made the cut would most likely have happened.

Any sane person probably realizes what a huge feat that this would have been, so for you to say that her coverage at the john deere was excessive is a bit rash and unthoughtout...if history is going to be made, the media will be all over it. Just a fact of life.
2006-01-01 @ 18:10
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
To Under Par:

thanks for your well-thought out posts unlike somepeople (**ahem cough alex**) ;)

but I disagree with some of you statements, and I also realize that you disagree with most of my statements, but that's the great thing about this country ain't it? ;D

Like your statement on the media's coverage of michelle being fueled by feminist agendas is partially correct as well. it's plain and simple, Michelle sells. michelle brings more money in to wherever she plays. And I know that you, Under Par, being a great intellectual yourself realize that. Bivens has told her LPGA tour members that "this girl is going to be good for you," so she obviously sees what Michelle could do for the LPGA. Creamer, Pressel, Miyazato, Lang, Kim, Gulbis, or any of the "young" stars on their tour do not have the ability to pull in the types of markets and publicity that Michelle pulls in.

I hope that makes sense...I pulled an all-nighter and I think i was just rambling... =/
2006-01-01 @ 18:17
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par, There is a lot of truth in your assessment that the media over-hypes Michelle. Whether or not they "created" her is another matter. As a case in point, two female members of my own family remarked recently how they had read about Michelle being the new Tiger. They referred to the SI article as their "proof". When I told them that Michelle was a teenager with a great deal of potential, but who as yet had not won anything of substance, one of my female relatives was skeptical of this revelation and the other absolutely refused to believe me. After much "googling" and other research they reluctantly agreed. So apparently the media do have influence, especially on the uninformed and uninitiated.
2006-01-01 @ 18:48
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Patrick, I must have missed it somehow. When was there a 15-year-old female golfer well below the cut line in a PGA event? Please don't take this as anything but constructive criticism. Your grammar, spelling, syntax and use and/or misuse of capitals need a lot of improvement.
2006-01-01 @ 19:05
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Patrick,

As I said, there are multiple factors here. Wie would merit more coverage than usual regardless of the ideological biases in the media because, as you have said in so many words, she is a prodigy. However, as I said, and I will never shrink from its expression nor doubt its veracity, the media have exalted her above and beyond what her abilities and accomplishments warrant, thereby creating an inordinate hunger for her.

Secondly, they ALWAYS feel compelled to skew coverage in favor of feminist imperatives, which mainly involves exaggerating women's accomplishments and travails -- if not outright lying about them.

Norman,

I really don't know what media you're paying attention to (perhaps it's slightly different in the UK), but I cannot think of one mainstream sportswriter in the states who has leveled at Wie the kind of criticism of which I speak. Of course, I'm sure one exists, but the fact that I know of none is a testimonial as to how rare it is.

Jim,

Perhaps you are having trouble assimilating new information (Patrick, sadly, this sometimes happens to people when they get older). Asking Wie whether or not she feels a responsibility to promote the women's game is NOT, I repeat, NOT, N-O-T, politically incorrect criticism, which means it is NOT what I'm talking about. Do I really need to spell it out for you? I'm talking about criticism coming from a TRADITIONALIST'S perspective.

Sheesh, with citizens completely incapable of rational thought, no wonder Western Civilization is in decline.

I almost forgot. Patrick, the youngest person to make a cut on the PGA Tour was a fifteen-year-old boy in the 1950s. I don't remember his name, but I believe that Wie was older than he had been when she played the Deere.
2006-01-01 @ 19:10
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Well Alex, well done for succeeding in convincing two people who know little or nothing about golf to come around to your way of thinking.

Unfortunately there are others of us who have a great knowledge of the game, and can actually give you some facts.

When Michelle Wie is referred to as the "New Tiger Woods", it is meant that her launch is like his was.
* They were both very good young players.
* They both signed multi-million dollar endorsement deals.
* They both showed potential to do well in golf.
* They both were, and in Michelle's case will continue to be given sponsors exemptions to pga events.

So where are the differences by the time they turned 16.
* Well Tiger had won 1 amatuer titles of significance, "The US JUNIOR Amatuer title".
* Michelle had been the youngest ever to win an ADULT USGA title at 13 years of age, winning the Women's Amatuer Publinx.
* Michelle got to the quarter finals of an ADULT usga MENS event, the US Amateur Publinx at 15 years old. By contrast, Tiger didn't get out of the stroke play section of the US Amatuer Championships at 15 years old. Actually he failed to get past the last 32 until he was 18 years old.
* Then comes pga events. At 14 and 15 Michelle's performances are significantly better than Tiger's first 7 exemptions when he was 16, 17 and 18 years of age and failed to get as close as MW to making a cut.

It is highly unlikely that Michelle Wie will ever obtain anything within a country mile of the success that Tiger Woods has in his career, but her progress at this stage, makes calling her the next Tiger Woods, a very correct statement, because she can only be judged on what she has done so far.
Alex, perhaps you could go back to your 2 lady friends and tell them that you have some new information.
2006-01-01 @ 19:15
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex,

I just read your lastest posts, and I thank you for buttressing my point. Alex, and the real problem is that this extends to EVERYTHING. And of course the media have tremendous influence. They determine what will be covered, HOW it will be covered, what will be suppressed, who will be criticized, who will be praised, and what values will be presented as good and which ones as evil. Remember, unless something occurs in your immediate vicinity or you get wind of it through the grapevine, you'll only know about it if the MEDIA tell you. Think about that.

Alex, I am a columnist and am deeply immersed in these things, and I have written many articles debunking the "conventional wisdom" disseminated by the mainstream media. And I'll leave you with a final thought. Most people know as little about politics, social issues and foreign affairs as your female relatives know about golf. So, if they could be fooled that easily about Wie, imagine how easily most people can be fooled about matters of far greater import.
2006-01-01 @ 19:20
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex said:
Patrick, I must have missed it somehow. When was there a 15-year-old female golfer well below the cut line in a PGA event?
*******************************

Alex, I am glad that we agree on something. Michelle Wie was never well below the cutline. She had only 1 shot to spare.
I think the point Patrick was making is that it was looking good for her, and obviously then the tv stations would want to stay with the coverage to it's conclusion.

Glad we agree Alex, that she only had a very tight margin, which was a point I had tried to make to other people in earlier blogs.
2006-01-01 @ 19:22
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

Sorry, but that's a specious analysis. Since girls mature physically earlier, these comparisons really aren't valid. Of course, though, they would seem convincing to someone who can't look past facile analyses.

I also will mention that you can't compare the Publinx to the US Amateur Championship -- the latter is a much tougher event.

I commend you, however. You'd make a great propagandist in the mainstream media. You put that idiot Mary Mapes to shame.
2006-01-01 @ 19:24
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par, unfortunately it you who has been fooled about Wie.

I have absolute rafts of information about Tiger Woods that I can give you to show you that Wie is actually ahead of where he was at her age. She is even at least as far as he was at 17 years of age. You have entered this debate with preconceived notions. Perhaps tomorrow, if you still arn't convinced I can give you a full list of Tiger Woods achievements at young ages and you can decide if he was hyped before he turned pro.
2006-01-01 @ 19:27
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Under Par or JZ
I have read some of your trash but I will respond to the opening drivel.

Mr. Baldwin,
I commend you for having the wisdom and guts to see through and buck the feminist spirit of the age and label Wie correctly. Wie is nothing but the creation of a big mouth, an aggressive father and a fawning, politically correct media. She's won nothing, proven nothing, and done little. Yet, because all the mind-numbed robots (like the ones criticizing you in this thread) lapped up the media drivel, she was able to parlay her nascent, style-over-substance career into a premature payday of tens of millions.sheep.

First of all you must be a complete idiot if you think Baldwin is wise.
You are a smug using phrases like parlay her nascent, and you know nothing about Wie if you think she has won nothing.
Her career to date is nothing short of amazing. She has earned the title of phenom because she is. Her career between the ages of 9 and 15 is unparalleled. I would challenge anyone to name a player who achieved as much at such a young age.
She gets more media attention and TV coverage because people want to watch her. TV stations show her because they know they will get the audiences.
She is invited to tournaments because the organisers know she will double the number of people attending.
She is polite and very likeable and has earned every cent of the 10-20 million she has received to-date.
She earned an estimated 1-2 million playing in Japan. The district she played in profited by an estimated 10-20 million because she played.
As I have pointed out on numerous occasions before, her average placing for the LPGA events she participated in last year was second to Annika. Not bad for a school kid.
Her run at the publinx was amazing. Ogden played extremely well to beat her. She didn’t play poorly.
There are a number of reasons she is so good and it’s not because she is physically more developed than other kids of her age.
She practices 20-30 hours a week and attends school at the same time. How many other kids her age are so dedicated?
Girls are better students than guys.
Asians are better at dedicating themselves to study than Europeans.
I have inserted a summary of her career. Please tell me how she is a loser?
1996
• At age 7, plays her first 18-hole round and finishes 14-over par.
2000
• At the age of 10, shoots a 64.
• Becomes the youngest player to qualify in a USGA amateur championship event at the USGA Women's Amateur Public Links Championship.
2001
• Wins the Hawaii State Women’s Stroke Play Championship.
At age 11, Wie is the event's youngest winner.
• Wins the Jennie K. Wilson Invitational, the most prestigious women's amateur tournament in Hawaii. At age 11, Wie is the event's youngest winner.
• Reaches the third round of match play in the U.S. Women's Amateur Public Links Championship.
2002
• At age 12, becomes the youngest player ever to qualify for an LPGA tournament by Monday qualifying (with an 83) for the LPGA Takefuji Classic.
• Wins the Women's Division of the Hawaii State Open by 13 strokes.
• Reaches the semifinals of the U.S. Women's Amateur Public Links Championship, the youngest semifinalist in the event's history.
2003
• January: Attempts to Monday qualify for the PGA Sony Open. Shoots 73, finishes 47th out of 97. She played from the men's tees and all other competitors were men.
• February: Playing in the Hawaii Pearl Open, a pro tournament that includes players from the Japan Tour, places 43rd. Wie is the only female in the field.
• March: Finishes in a fourth-place tie at the Hawaii State Amateur Stroke Play Championship as one of only three women in the field.
• March: Plays in her first LPGA major, the Kraft Nabisco Championship. Plays in the final group on the final day befor settling for 9th place. Becomes the youngest player to make an LPGA cut.
• June: Wins the U.S. Women's Amateur Public Links Championship, one of the USGA's national championships. At age 13, Wie is the youngest-ever winner of the event.
• August: Shoots 74-79 and misses the cut by five strokes in the Canadian Tour's Bay Mills Open Players' Championship - her first professional men's event in the mainland U.S.
• September: As the only female in the field at the Nationwide Tour's Albertsons Boise Open, Wie shoots 78-76 and misses the cut. She turns 14 in a month.
• September: Wie finishes her final LPGA event of the year, the Safeway Classic, at 2-under par, tied for 28th place. She shoots 69-72-73 for a 214 total. It is the fifth time in six LPGA events in 2003 that she makes the cut.
2004
• January: Plays in her first PGA Tour event, the Sony Open, and shoots 72-68. She misses the cut by one stroke.
• March: Finishes in the Top 25 in her first LPGA event of the year, the Safeway International, then finishes 4th in the first LPGA major of the year, the Kraft Nabisco Championship.
• June: As a member of the U.S. team, is the youngest golfer in the history of the Curtis Cup. Wins both her singles matches to help the U.S. defeat Great Britain & Ireland, 10-8.
• June: Playing in a qualifier for the U.S. Amateur Public Links Championship (a k a, the Men's Publinx), Michelle Wie shoots 71-71--142. She finishes two strokes behind the winners and, while she fails to earn a bid to the Men's Publinx, she earns status as one of four alternates for the event.
2005
• January: Shoots 75-74 at the PGA Tour Sony Open and misses the cut. Finishes ahead of 14 PGA Tour players.
• February: Earns her highest finish to date in an LPGA event, tied for second, at the SBS Open at Turtle Bay.
• May: Finishes as third alternate in U.S. Open sectional qualifying. Wie is believed to be the first female ever to enter a U.S. Open qualifier.
• June: Places second to Annika Sorenstam at the LPGA Championship, tying her best finish to date in an LPGA event and marking her best finish to date in an LPGA major.
• June: Is the third-round leader at the U.S. Women's Open, but stumbles to an 82 in the final round.
• July: Shoots 70-71 (1-under par) at the PGA Tour John Deere Classic, missing the cut by two strokes.
• July: Wie reaches the quarterfinals of the (traditionally men's) U.S. Amateur Public Links Championship before bowing out.
• October: Just a few days before her 16th birthday, Wie announces she is turning professional.
• October: In her first pro start, Wie finishes fourth at the Samsung World Championship, only to be disqualified for an improper drop

Alan M
2006-01-01 @ 19:35
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alan,

Thank you for the trove of useless information. The history of sports is replete with female athletes who had great achievements at young ages and then faded into oblivion. Wie does quite well when she is "supposed to lose." Heck, the pressure is off. But when it's her peers it often seems to be a very different story. Don't forget that the last time she played against her peers -- a girls' amateur event -- she LOST.

The problem with people like you is that your are the embodiment of knowledge divorced from wisdom. All you can do is regurgitate statistics; you are incapable of permeating the surface and reading between the lines. The Wie camp has been ducking competition that would make her look bad for ages now. I am thoroughly convinced that when she lost to that junior girl the thiking was, "Okay, Kiddo, no more of that. A few more performances of that kind and the mystique will be gone completely."

Wie is a prodigy, but she is also the product of a fawning media and slick marketing. I'm no great fan of Woods, but he never ducked competition -- he took on all comers.

The Wie legend is more Memorex than real. None are so blind as those who will not see.
2006-01-01 @ 20:19
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Think about it. A Frenchman is leading the charge to keep Michelle Wies out of men's golf. France is so politically correct that it condemns Brigitte Bardot for speaking out against animal abuse by Moslems. Clearly Michelle Wie is not being protected from criticism by the politically correct like Annika was when she played at the Colonial. If male golf pros are afraid of speaking out why have so many of them criticized Wie with such impunity. The only example of repurcussions seems to have involved VJ Singh and Annika. Nevertheless, I suspect a lot fewer will be criticizing Wie in the future, not because of any politically correct reasons--but because now such criticism will anger Nike and any other sponsor that Michelle Wie has.

I think it is very offensive of UNDER PAR to suggest that without fears of being labelled politically incorrect male golf pros would to be ungentlemanly in even greater numbers than we have already seen. That sounds to me like some sort of femminist male bashing propaganda to me. Only fear of reprisals will keep boorish men from acting like male chauvinist pigs even in a sport with the gentlemanly traditions of golf.
2006-01-01 @ 20:31
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par said:
The problem with people like you is that your are the embodiment of knowledge divorced from wisdom. All you can do is regurgitate statistics; you are incapable of permeating the surface and reading between the lines.
****************

The problem with people like you is that you start out with an assumption and try to bend the facts to fit it. In your case, you look for a feminist liberal agenda everywhere and try to find things that confirm it for you. Sort of the opposite of the scientific method. Maybe you should take off the paranoid biased glasses you wear and look at the facts with an open mind.
2006-01-01 @ 20:37
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
You guys are nothing but Kool-Aid drinkers. Jim, that was really nice spin, but it doesn't work on me, Chief. You have every right to be offended. In fact, I'm offended that you're offended.

Also, I see no men leveling the kind of criticism I'm talking about. I've said this a few times now, though, and it seems as if your eyes just skip over the words.

Put your pants back on, you little emasculated wimp.
2006-01-01 @ 21:12
Comment from: jay [Visitor]
Wie recorded 4 top 10 finish at major (2nd,3rd,4th and 9th) before her 16th birthday. Creamer and Pressel manged to make ONE CUT COMBINED before their 16th birthday and that was pressel's 54th finish at women's open and some people still wonder why wie is being compared to tiger.

Also was Pressel complaining when she was media darling by becoming youngest player to qualify for women's open? She was enjoying all the spotlight and now she is complaining because other player is getting spotlight. I am sure people like one under par wasn't complaining when pressel was media daling despite she had absolutely no credential at that time.
2006-01-01 @ 21:19
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Jay,

I couldn't care less about Pressel; I'm no fan of hers and she isn't the issue here. Over-hyped, overpaid, over-and-over Wie-wie is.
2006-01-01 @ 21:26
Comment from: James [Visitor]

I shudder at the state of journalism if Under Par is a "columnist"

He is quite the blissful idiot--at least he and Baldwin will be happy together.
2006-01-01 @ 21:45
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
I believe Under Par is John Z, a well-established moron and a liar. He said he would go to Carribean and stay away from Wie bashing till mid-January. I guess he lied again. I wouldn't believe anything he says.
2006-01-01 @ 23:40
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Sorry, but I don't even know who John Z is. However, if you're confusing me with him, he must be a mighty literate and perspicacious man.
2006-01-01 @ 23:43
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
lol...this is fun...
;D
2006-01-02 @ 01:21
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
jon, I don't see the similarity in the writing styles of Under Par and John Z. Unless, of course, the former has developed quite an imagination. Didn't John Z say he was 75 years old and a retired construction worker? I didn't find him saying anything about being a columnist or a tennis pro. BTW, there is one "r" and two "b's" in Caribbean
2006-01-02 @ 10:00
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Patrick, I'm glad you think this is fun. Think of how much more fun your correspondents would have if we had less difficulty understanding your posts. Please learn a lot more about punctuation and spelling, usage, etc. Again, this is constructive criticism. Your parents are investing about $15K per year to send you to the Punahou School. They deserve better.
2006-01-02 @ 10:23
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Under par,
What a plonker.
Am I right in assuming no never watch Wie play and therefore have no concept of her unquestionable ability.
You don't care about Pressel, you don't care about Woods who do you care about other than yourself. Do you play or watch the game of golf at all?
Alan M
2006-01-02 @ 10:24
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alan said:
2001
• Wins the Hawaii State Women’s Stroke Play Championship.
At age 11, Wie is the event's youngest winner.
• Wins the Jennie K. Wilson Invitational, the most prestigious women's amateur tournament in Hawaii. At age 11, Wie is the event's youngest winner.
2002
• Wins the Women's Division of the Hawaii State Open by 13 strokes.
• February: Playing in the Hawaii Pearl Open, a pro tournament that includes players from the Japan Tour, places 43rd. Wie is the only female in the field.
2003
• June: Wins the U.S. Women's Amateur Public Links Championship, one of the USGA's national championships. At age 13, Wie is the youngest-ever winner of the event.
************************************

Alan, I strongly object to you listing Wins that Michelle Wie has had. Furthermore I object to you showing that she made the cut in a mens event at the Hawaii Pearl Open. It is simply unfair of you to state these facts, when the anti-Wie brigade are trying to claim that she isn't capable of winning at lower levels and isn't able to make any cut against the men.
Most rude, Alan.

Also, the proof contained in your stats that she qualified and won titles as youngest to do so, is most distateful. You are making the case very hard for the anti-Wie brigade to pedal at this stage.
Also shown, was that played plenty of mickey-mouse events like Pressel has been recently, until she became a big time player and started qualifying and getting invited to lpga events.
2006-01-02 @ 12:59
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
We hear over and over the claim that Wie has been over hyped.
I must confess I am not aware of this. I read a lot of articles written about Wie and they are generally very reserved.
The Golf Channel has also been very reserved. Please tell me where I can read this hype.
I think the Wie bashers are getting confused with people wanting to watch her and hype.
comments like "but she is also the product of a fawning media and slick marketing".
Show some examples of fawning media.
Slick marketing. Who was doing the slick marketing before she turned pro a few weeks ago?
Alan M




2006-01-02 @ 13:03
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jay said:
Wie recorded 4 top 10 finish at major (2nd,3rd,4th and 9th) before her 16th birthday. Creamer and Pressel manged to make ONE CUT COMBINED before their 16th birthday and that was pressel's 54th finish at women's open and some people still wonder why wie is being compared to tiger.
***************************

Well said. It is obvious to anyone with any common sense that Wie has had the best female career up to the age of 16. She is OBVIOUSLY so far ahead of where Pressel or Creamer were at her age, and yet people still question whether she has taken the correct path.
Overhyped, how can she be over hyped when she has achieved so much.
2006-01-02 @ 13:04
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
Michelle Wie is a great golfer and she will get even better, but to cite local/state tournaments as examples of her dominance and greatness is a little silly. Someone of Michelle's skill and god-given talent should dominate Hawaii golf, the reality is that the local tournaments mentioned above are of little consequence no matter what Michelle's age. Hawaii junior/amateur golf is known to be weak, lets give all the credit in the world to Michelle for her Publinx title, her terrific finishes in LPGA events, and her near cut misses in Men's events all amazing accomplishments. I am also a little confused as to why Michelle's age seems to be mentioned in nearly every post, her accomplishments at a young age are impressive, but hardly unprecedented in the world of women's competitive sports. Gymnasts, swimmers, tennis players and many others have been more dominant in their respective sports at similar ages. Michelle Wie's feats are certainly impressive on their own merit, lets not get carried away with her place in history just yet.
2006-01-02 @ 14:19
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Stone,
The reason we mentioned her less significant titles, were because people claimed that she could not win a tournament, that she would be expected to win.
Tiger also won many local amateur JUNIOR events, and they are listed among his early accomplishments. His only big achievement by Michelle's age was 1 amateur JUNIOR champsionship title, and remember that it was a JUNIOR title. Michelle is competing against ADULTS.

Stone, as regards the age thing her age is important. You mentioned other sports, but these are completely different.
For golf there are so many situations and so much to learn, that players don't usually peak until well into their 30's. Can you name another sport like this? I wouldn't think so. Golf takes years and years of learning so many shots and so many different situations. That is why the age factor is so important.
2006-01-02 @ 14:32
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
As Stone said, mentioning her results in local Hawaii tournaments is silly since any number of top female golfers could register similar results at that level.

As far as her being hyped goes, I don't take issue (not too much anyway) with the predictions involving her prospects for success on the women's tour. What I do find profoundly stupid are the claims -- sometimes implicit but often rather explicit -- by some sportswriters that it's a lock that she'll compete successfully on the men's tour, when the chances of her even being able to qualify for and remain on the men's tour are slim. As far as her being able to be a top contender on the men's tour goes, the chances are between slim and none . . . and slim just left town.

Anyway, anyone who hasn't perceived what I'm referring to either hasn't read much or is EXTREMELY dense.
2006-01-02 @ 15:36
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
I also will say that Wie will have a great career on the women's tour, barring some unforeseen happenstance. However, to reiterate a previous prediction, she will never eclipse Sorenstam's records and will fall far, far short of expecations.

She's been set up for a fall because people have built her up so much.
2006-01-02 @ 15:57
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
A major flaw in the thinking of Wie fan(atics) in my opinion is this: They believe that Michelle will continue to improve as she matures. This may or may not be true. What they seem to fail to take into account vis-a-vis her performance against men on the PGA tour, are the numbers and the abilities of literally hundreds of aspiring young male golfers. Early last month, my wife and I were spectators for the final three rounds of the PGA 'Q" school in Orlando. We saw some of the play of about 50 of the participants and much of the play of medalist John B. Holmes, Alex (love that name) Cejka, and anchorman Bill Haas. To put it mildly, the play was spectacular. These fellows, as well as about 100 others and most of the pros now on the PGA tour will probably be competing nearly as long as Michelle will be. And they will also be improving. From what I've seen, neither Michelle nor any female has the game to compete against these guys on the Nationwide tour, much less the PGA tour. This is not meant to disparage any of these fine, young female golfers, to my mind it is simply a matter of visual observation.
2006-01-02 @ 16:15
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex,

You're absolutely correct, and this is a point that I have made many times before. Many people look at someone like Wie, who is the tender age of 16, and assume that she will follow the pattern of a normal 16-year-old. But that's the point: she is NOT a normal 16-year-old.
To assume that she has lots of improvement ahead of her, when she has been playing her whole life and has the physical maturity of a 21-year-old, is silly. She will improve, but I'd be willing to bet money that she won't improve very much.

Wie is a person who reached her highest level at a very young age, and there have been many, many individuals like her in that regard.
2006-01-02 @ 16:36
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
How exacly do you know if she has reached her highest level?
The odds are that she hasn't.

If she peaks in golf at 25, that would be exceptionally early, even for a woman. Saying 16 is her peak is ridiculous, particularly when her obvious weaknesses are experience related.

Chances are she won't peak until her late 20's at earliest, and more likely her 30's, like Annika, and nearly every other great golfer.
2006-01-02 @ 17:21
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
IMPROVEMENT FOR WIE.

She should show improvement in 2006 if for no ther reason than her now first class pro support team. She should also show improvement after she finishes school, since she will be able to concentrate on golf full time. Currently the weakest part of her game is her putting. With profesional help now, and later with a full time focus on golf that should improve. These are improvements we can expect even if she does not become physically stronger.
2006-01-02 @ 17:42
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

You see, you're very sloppy in your analyses. I purposely avoided the word "peak" -- although it was in my mind -- because it wouldn't be accurate. I said that she has reached "her highest level," and that's a very different thing altogether. This is because there is a difference between improving on YOUR level and ascending to the NEXT level.

As I indicated, I do believe that Wie will improve, but I don't believe that the improvement will be great enough to vault her to the "next level." And just so you know, I define the next level as her being able to do well on a developmental men's tour.
2006-01-02 @ 17:51
Comment from: June [Visitor]
Anybody who says a player, a boy or a girl, won't improve his/her game after his/her 16th birthday is a complete moron. Good bye.
2006-01-02 @ 18:11
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
UNDER PAR

Your definition of the next level for WIE seems meaningless. She is not going to play on a developmental men's tour. Try something relevant to the events she will play. Maybe somnething like two LPGA wins and a PGA cut. Would that be the next level?
2006-01-02 @ 18:17
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
A couple of days ago Wie had the physical maturity of a 18 year old now she has the physical maturity of a 21-year-old. When she is 21 will she have the physical maturity of a 30 year old. What crap.
Also she has no intention of chasing records set by Annika or anyone else. I don't believe she has stated any such goals. She is not like Tiger who is trying to catch Jacks Major record.
Alan M
2006-01-02 @ 18:29
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
It's very difficult dealing with the developmentally retarded.

Alan,

I said that when WIE was FOURTEEN she had the maturity of an 18-year-old; now I am saying that TODAY it is more akin to that of a 21-year-old. You see, this is what happens when you jumpt to conclusions.

June,

You've just displayed your own ignorance. The history of sports is replete with figures (mostly girls) who failed to improve beyond their 16th birthdays, and this is a fact. One of them was Andrea Jaeger, who was a great tennis player in the 80s. Furthermore, I didn't say that Wie wouldn't improve. So, I will close with: anybody who cannot read a post and grasp easily poerceived nuance is a complete moron. Goodbye.
2006-01-02 @ 19:00
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Jim,

No, let's not be silly, what you describe would not be the next level. This is because she will accomplish those things even if she doesn't improve one lick. She already has been close to winning numerous times on the LPGA and close to making a cut on the PGA, so all that is necessary for that to happen is for her good weeks to coincide with the attempts.

However, doing well on a men's developmental tour is a different matter because that would require CONSISTENT play at a higher level.
2006-01-02 @ 19:11
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par, From the tenor of these posts from the Wie fan(atics), the message seems to be one of "you're either for Michelle or against her." I've tried to insert a little temperance in the gulf that exists between yourself and Norman and alan. Now, because of a difference of opinion, people are tossing in insults like moron, idiot, stupid, and illiterate. It would seem that to the Wie fan(atics), a mere sip of the Koolaid is not enough; one would have to drink the whole pitcher.
2006-01-02 @ 19:11
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Alex, I haven't seen insulting language from Norman or Alan's posts. Under Par on the other hand has been very insulting in his comments.
2006-01-02 @ 19:58
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Yes, Alex, they are so overcome by their biases that they fail to analyze the matter and what we write about it objectively.

For instance, I've stated that Wie is a great talent who, barring some unforeseen tragedy, has a great career -- perhaps even one of the best -- ahead of her on the women's tour. However, that's not good enough for the Wie-nuts.

No, they are so immersed in their own prejudices that they can't perceive what we find objectionable: the gratuitous coverage and excessive laudation she has received. They also are oblivious to the bearing that the feminist spirit of the age has on these matters.

Lastly, they are either oblivious to Wie's past verbal indiscretions or have identified so closely with her that they'll defend her right or wrong. The fact of the matter is that Wie initially attracted a lot of attention by doing the "Ali thing," and Ali only did it because it works.

Of course, they fall back on the excuse that she has been nothing but gracious as of late. Of course, while it may be a functions of maturity -- and I say "may" -- it also serves her ends. After all, she has now secured her place in the limelight, so any further mouthing off might just have the effect of making her seem boorish. Now the strategy calls for her to polish up her image as a media darling.

In summary, aside from the media's fawning, what bothers me is that I believe the Wies have marketed her in a very calculated and manipulative way, and people have fallen for it.

Mr. Wie is a college perrrrrrfessor -- I wonder, does he teach psychology?
2006-01-02 @ 19:59
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Alex, Under Par's most recent post is a case in point. He calls Wie a spoiled brat and continues to claim she has made "verbal indiscretions", but he has never presented evidence of any.
2006-01-02 @ 20:05
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
UNDER PAR

I think Wie has already done well not at the developmental level --but on the PGA Tour itself. Obviously, you disagree. You will need to be more specific about what you mean by doing well. Since she will not play developmental golf, could you say what would be the next level, considering the tournaments she will play? Let us try this. Compare her performance in PGA events next year with players who are already at the next level(new PGA members who played on the Nationwide Tour last year and moved up to the PGA--or all new PGA members if that is easier). If she finishes ahead of more than half of these guys then she must be at the next level.
2006-01-02 @ 20:28
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Jim,

Let's be logical, okay? She hasn't finished ahead of anyone on the PGA Tour in any kind of meaningful way, since the results from one tournament mean nothing. Why, ANY scratch golfer who has a great couple of days could approach the cut in one PGA event.

If Wie played the PGA full time she would not retain her card, and anyone who doesn't realize this has poor discernment. Anyway, if you want evidence, you only have to look at how she has done on the developmental tours -- she didn't make any cuts their either.

Where's the beef? Show me the money.
2006-01-02 @ 20:46
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Under Par
You said
"The fact of the matter is that Wie initially attracted a lot of attention by doing the "Ali thing," and Ali only did it because it works"
What on earth are you talking about.
Can you give us some examples of what Wie has said that is Ali-like. This will be very enlightening.
You also accuse the Wies of marketing their daughter in a calculated way. How did they do this, placing ads in Newspapers?
You make lots of accusations but have no facts to back them up. Most of your comments are malicious.
Alan M
2006-01-02 @ 21:01
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alan,

I provided an example. Wie was shooting her mouth off about how she was going to contend with the men, and prior to one event she made a wise-guy comment about how she was going to beat them. And trust me, I didn't imagine it.

The problem here is that many men accept such behavior from females because they've been conditioned to take it on the chin. But a true lady doesn't say such things.

As for the Wies' marketing, it is my belief that they knew that having her make bold pronouncements about how she was going to take on the men would differentiate her from the other young phenoms, and of course it did. It's also my belief that they steered her away from competing against her peers -- especially after she lost to that girl in that junior event -- because they knew that such defeats were inevitable and would take the shine off her undeserved golf goddess image. You obviously can't see how you've been played, but the Wies are laughing all the way to the bank

The Wies did whatever they had to in order to ensure that people would never find out she's more sizzle than steak.
2006-01-02 @ 21:56
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par said,
But a true lady doesn't say such things.
******

A true gentlemen doesn't call young girls "spoiled brats" without cause.

You still haven't provided any evidence.
2006-01-02 @ 22:32
Comment from: Jerrod [Visitor]

""Wie was shooting her mouth off about how she was going to contend with the men, and prior to one event she made a wise-guy comment about how she was going to beat them. And trust me, I didn't imagine it.""

Under Par-- That's the "verbal indiscretion" that's got your panties in a bunch?? You gotta be kidding...

Just because you and Baldwin have been beat up by women all your life, don't take it out on Michelle.

Grow up and grow some.
2006-01-02 @ 22:55
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Just so you know, I'm the consummate gentleman with ladies . . . feminists get my verbal boot.

Jerrod,

Actually, I've had nothing but good experiences with women. This is because, unlike you little capons who can't recognize female vipers with hidden fangs, I can discern the difference between the feminine and the feministic.
2006-01-03 @ 00:23
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
I said that when WIE was FOURTEEN she had the maturity of an 18-year-old; now I am saying that TODAY it is more akin to that of a 21-year-old.
*************************

The physical maturity of a 21 year old boy or girl?
2006-01-03 @ 09:16
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
The history of sports is replete with figures (mostly girls) who failed to improve beyond their 16th birthdays, and this is a fact. One of them was Andrea Jaeger, who was a great tennis player in the 80s.
*****************************

I have explained several times, just how different tennis and golf are.
You are not helping your argument by trying to compare those two sports which are poles apart.
2006-01-03 @ 09:18
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex said:
I've tried to insert a little temperance in the gulf that exists between yourself and Norman and alan. Now, because of a difference of opinion, people are tossing in insults like moron, idiot, stupid, and illiterate. It would seem that to the Wie fan(atics), a mere sip of the Koolaid is not enough; one would have to drink the whole pitcher.
*******************************

Alex, if you go back over the blog, you should notice that it is Under Par uses insults constantly.
There are some people who retaliate but I haven't been one of them. All I have done is display facts to show him how wrong he has been. Unfortunately the penny hasn't dropped yet anyway.

2006-01-03 @ 09:24
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
She already has been close to winning numerous times on the LPGA and close to making a cut on the PGA, so all that is necessary for that to happen is for her good weeks to coincide with the attempts.
***************************

Believe it or not, you have made some progress with this comment. "All she needs is a good week to make a pga cut".
At 15, 16 and 17 years of age, Tiger Woods was a long way away from making a pga cut. I am glad that you are at least recognising that Michelle is practically at that level, which Tiger didn't hit until he was an adult.
2006-01-03 @ 09:29
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
Why, ANY scratch golfer who has a great couple of days could approach the cut in one PGA event.

If Wie played the PGA full time she would not retain her card, and anyone who doesn't realize this has poor discernment. Anyway, if you want evidence, you only have to look at how she has done on the developmental tours -- she didn't make any cuts their either.
*************************

Many scratch golfers, could certainly not approach a pga tour cut. Many scratch golfers could not even approach a development tour cut. I think you are underestimating completely the level you need to be at to be anywhere in professional golf.

As regards, Michelle's result in the Nationwide Tour. She was 13 years old and missing lpga tour cuts at that stage, so her result there is completely irrelevant.
2006-01-03 @ 09:37
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Norman said:
Alex, if you go back over the blog, you should notice that it is Under Par uses insults constantly.
There are some people who retaliate but I haven't been one of them. All I have done is display facts to show him how wrong he has been. Unfortunately the penny hasn't dropped yet anyway.
*************

Norman, I admire your patience, but you'll never convince Under Par of anything. He seems to have larger issues with women.
2006-01-03 @ 11:31
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Under Par
You said
"I provided an example. Wie was shooting her mouth off about how she was going to contend with the men, and prior to one event she made a wise-guy comment about how she was going to beat them. And trust me, I didn't imagine it."
Which golfer at the beginning of a competition doesn't say that they want to win. If that is shooting your mouth off then every sportsperson is just as guilty as Wie
Sorry you lost that one.
Also she didn't say she would win but it was her stated goal.
Your second response about the Marketing.
Yes Michelle and her parents chose a different career path, which has indeed meant she is in demand and consequently super wealthy. So What. That is not marketing. If she didn’t have the talent to pull it off we wouldn’t be having these ridiculous chats. She has earned every cent and has several hundred million to come. Doesn’t that make you sick.
Your arguments are totally flawed.
Also Wie is the only phenom around at the moment. Pressel, Creamer and co are good players but they certainly don’t qualify as phenoms.
Alan M
2006-01-03 @ 12:06
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
With apologies to George Orwell, allow me to interject a little levity into this thread. Under Par, it has been decreed that it is not enough to merely recognize Michelle Wie as a prodigy, a girl with tremendous potential, and a sure future success on the LPGA tour. This is "1984 and by order of Big Brother, Norman, alan, and Paul W and others hav been assigned the role of Master Inquisitor and Torturer, O'Brien. You and I are Winston Smith. And just as O'Brien would not give Smith any rest until he "loved Big Brother", our "O'Brien" won't be happy until we love "the Big Wiesy"
2006-01-03 @ 13:27
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex, I think that your analogy is apt.

Normy,

You're getting silly. Woods would have made a cut at ANY of the ages you mention had he had even chances. If you don't understand probability, I can't help you.

And again, the same thing applies to scratch golfers. When the stars align just right, they're in there.

Alan,

I have never heard Woods or any other golfer I can think of make the kind of in-your-face comments Wie did. If you're a member of the rubber suit crowd, that's your affair. It's not my bag, though.
2006-01-03 @ 13:38
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
You're getting silly. Woods would have made a cut at ANY of the ages you mention had he had even chances. If you don't understand probability, I can't help you.
****************************

What do you mean by even chances?
2006-01-03 @ 13:48
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
Norman are you sure you don't work for Wie's management firm. You certainly are to be commended for your knowledge about and admiration for Michelle Wie. You also raise some good points, especially about the level of competition on the PGA tour and the actual greatness of Michelle's achievements. The average scratch golfer would be giving up at minimum two shots a round to Michelle Wie who is currently a plus 2, but in actuality they would be giving up a lot more because all her scores are tournament scores with immeasurably more difficult conditions then those of your average scratch golfer on his home course on Tuesday afternoon. Let's give Michelle her due, her accomplishments to date are truly remarkable, we will all have to watch and see whether or not she can continue to mature and win some LPGA events and make some PGA cuts. Alan, the use of the term earned is a relative one. Her endoresment contracts were signed because they beleive she will sell their product, so if she does prove to be marketable then she will have earned that money. In order to earn hundreds of millions more a number which only a handful of athletes ever have she will have to win and frequently maybe even in dominating fashion. Like basketball contracts/endoresement deals are given somewhat on potential, but you have to eventually put up the numbers. Nike wasn't paying all that money to Michael Jordan because he was good or even great, they were paying him becuase he bcame known as the greatest and that is what Michelle Wie will eventually have to become.
2006-01-03 @ 13:57
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Stone,
I am glad you recognise the difference between a normal scratch golfer and a profressional pga golfer.

From some people's comments, it is as if they think that a scratch golfer could watch onto a pga tournament and hit an average round of even par.

For the British Open, in difficult conditions, the commentary team, made up of experienced ex-pros, were saying that the average scratch golfer would do very well to shoot ninety on that course with those conditions.
As a scratch golfer myself, I am well aware that, you can be of that standard and still be nowhere near good enough to make a comfortable living from golf.
2006-01-03 @ 14:19
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

I mis-wrote -- it should have been "enough chances."

Stone,

I agree with much of what you say, and the idea of "earning" tens of millions for inferred potential is an interesting concept. I think of a man who works in a factory for $10 an hour as "earning" his money. Of course, I'm no communist (I don't even believe in income tax) and I don't begrudge people what they have. As far as I'm concerned, they can keep all their wealth. I'm just making a larger philpsophical point.

Of course, it all depends on your definition of the word "earn."
2006-01-03 @ 14:20
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

I realize that, but there's a difference between being able to make a confortable living and making a cut once in a blue moon.
2006-01-03 @ 14:25
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Alex, I don't care if you and Under Par "love big wiesy" or not. I like to see a mix of opinions. However, I have little patience for someone who makes a lot of claims they can't back up and peppers their posts with useless insults which only make their case look weaker.
2006-01-03 @ 14:29
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
We mainly agree on the money issue.

I don't think she has particularly earned 10 millions dollars, but I can say the same thing about Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams and others.

The same can be said for footballer here in Europe, and I am quite sure that the same is even more true in the US for players of major US Sports.

Top sportspeople are overpaid, in comparison to others, but so are actors and musicians and many others.
2006-01-03 @ 14:30
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
As regards enough chances, yes if someone gets enough chances they will succeed, provided they are near the level required.

It took Tiger 8 CHANCES.
I think Michelle will succeed quicker, but I don't claim that, that is a certainty.
2006-01-03 @ 14:32
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
stone , You had better watch yourself. Your comments are bordering on Wie sedition. By the tone of his last post, Paul W is on the warpath. He's mad as hell, and won't take it any more. He may be alerting the "Golf Thought Police" right now!
2006-01-03 @ 16:11
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex,
What has been happening in these blogs is as follows:
* someone like Baldwin has been claiming that Wie is useless, and just all a load of hype.
* Wie fans have said this is not true and backed up their claims with sound facts.
* An anti-Wie element has clambered in, saying that she has achieved nothing and is overhyped.
* Wie fans have shown relevant facts and examples as to just all she has achieved, how well she has done, and how she is far ahead of other famous golfers at her age.
* The anti-Wie element have not been able to back their claims up with facts and so have resorted to insults and making up stuff.
* Some Wie support, have reacted insulting back the non-Wie element, but people like me and others have not engaged in this.
2006-01-03 @ 16:25
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Alex, you need to share whatever it is you're putting in those hand rolled cigarettes you smoke with the rest of us!
2006-01-03 @ 16:48
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Well said Norman.
I logged on to make exactly the same comment. You beat me to it
Alan M
2006-01-03 @ 17:11
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

I absolutely have backed up my claims; I think that part of the problem is that you don't really know what my claims are.

I have never said that Wie wasn't a phenom nor have I said that she isn't deserving of much exposure. What I HAVE said is that the amount of exposure she is getting is gratuitous and that she has been overly-hyped. For instance, if you read some of the nattering numbskulls who have written about her, you'd think that she was a lock to be one of the best players on the PGA Tour and that she already hits the ball farther than most of its players. I know you've said you haven't seen such intimations, but I HAVE.

Furthermore, in the pieces of which I speak care is taken to avoid pointing out that she lacks ANY victories that would serve to vindicate THAT -- note, I said "THAT" -- prediction.

Next, you don't seem to understand that I evaluate matters very differently than you do. You are impressed with her accomplishments because of her age, I am not. This is because you will only look at her chronological age -- I look at her biological age. There is no denying that she has never been a typical girl in terms of her physical development.

Why do I stress this so much? Because I have seen a plenitude of sportsmen who excelled in the juniors largely because they matured earlier than everyone else. Thus, you can talk till you're blue in the face, but I will never be impressed by the age factor the way you obviously are.

Lastly, there's little question in my mind that the Wies have managed her image by ducking competition that would make her appear less the golf demi-goddess and more the talented mortal. It's just too bad that more people didn't call her on it.
2006-01-03 @ 17:16
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
A number of issues raised, and I must say, even with some articulation and points thrown in.

For the hype factor, I do not live in the USA, so maybe there is more hype than I know about. So perhaps I am wrong in that regard, if it is indeed gratuitous.

If people claim that she is "lock to be one of the best players on the PGA Tour and that she already hits the ball farther than most of its players", then they are wrong.
She hits the ball long for a woman, and indeed as far as some of the pga players, but is still well below average on the pga. As regards being practically guaranteed success on the pga, I don't think that claim can be made about any player, male or female.

As regards the age factor, I certainly do take it into account. I do agree that she is more physically advanced than most 16 year olds, and at 14 was far more advanced than the very high percentage of girls her age. However, I also know from experience that you cannot become a very good golfer overnight, and so much of it relies on experience, and that there is too much to golf, for a youngster to hit the top, like can happen in tennis.

Funny you mentioned about excelling in the juniors because of maturing faster than others.
The fact is that Ms. Pressel has excelled in the juniors, and she hasn't matured faster than her peers. Im my opinion, Wie's results are a few steps up from excelling in the juniors. That is what I think puts her a level ahead.

As regards the avoidance factor, I just don't buy it. I admit that if Michelle were still an amateur and she went in a women's amateur and lost out, it would indeed take away some of the gloss. I also know that winning would do little to enhance her reputation. It is also possible for some girl to have a great round, and beat an off-form Wie. So basically there would be a big risk with little reward. So I can take the point as to why Amateurs aren't good for her marketing.
However people claiming that she should have played the Women's Amateur are without foundation.

Nobody skips a major tournament like the British Womens Open to go play an amateur tournament. It is making claims like this that makes me call into question people intelligence.
2006-01-03 @ 18:12
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norm,

I made all those points before -- you're just finally getting it.
2006-01-03 @ 18:33
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Under par
You continuously state thate Wie is being overly hyped by the media. Who are the authors of these articles. Which magazine, paper or website do these articles appear in?
Put up or shut-up.
Alan M
2006-01-03 @ 18:52
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alan,

I'm not going to spoon-feed you the obvious. Go play with your Silly Putty.
2006-01-03 @ 19:01
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Paul W, I don't smoke anything, nor have I ever. However, I have been known to imbibe of a little
"Wild Turkey" on occasions. Under par, it would seem that any attempt at rationalization among these well-meaning folk is futile. I am an attorney, and I thought that I had seen and heard every attempt at convolution and hyperbole that could possibly be contrived in the courtroom. But these guys beat "anything I ever stuck an axe in", to use the vernacular of my roots. I strongly urge you to divorce yourself from this thread, lest this insanity becomes contagious. I will follow in hot pursuit.
2006-01-03 @ 19:34
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
bye
2006-01-03 @ 20:01
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Comment from: James [Visitor]
I shudder at the state of journalism if Under Par is a "columnist"
He is quite the blissful idiot--at least he and Baldwin will be happy together. **

Yet another insightful analysis by a member of the Wie Warriors! That's about the best we can hope for from that group of sad sacks.

Disagree or agree, Under Par and Alex have posted detailed objections about why they are Michelle Wie skeptics. They have taken a great deal of time to respond directly to people.

And somebody else criticizes the use of the perfectly good words parlay and nascent? That's all you Wie Warriors have? No wonder Baldwin knows how to play Pied Piper with you rodents whenever he's bored. What child's play!

The only person who has even made a half-baked attempt to respond directly to the skeptics in this thread is Norman. But even Norman has brought only a knife to a gun fight.

The main problem Norman bumps up against, time and again, is the fact that the Wie mystique currently outstrips the Wie accomplishments. Wie has yet to win a pro woman's event.

Maybe it is true that few in the oldstream media care about Creamer or Sorenstam, even though they have multiple professional wins. Neither Creamer nor Sorenstam, with their nearly total focus on the women's tour, fit the template required by the Wie Warriors and the media. Neither does Pressel or Christina Kim or anyone else on the tour.

If Wie -- today, right now, even as we speak, at this very moment -- is that complete of a package, you'd figure that by now Wie would have won somewhere in a pro women's event someplace. If Wie is that great as we hear constantly from the Wie Warriors, surely she would have found some way to win in some tourney somewhere.

But Wie hasn't.

She might someday, sooner or later. Who knows?

But not today.

Until then, all we have is shoulda, coulda, woulda about Wie, and a lot of hype. And that hype is fueled by the fanatical desire by the media and the Wie Warriors for this specific woman to play on Sunday in a men's pro golf event.

It is absolutely crucial for Wie's handlers to maintain the Michelle Mystique, which is why she will continue to focus on as many men's events as possible. That's why it is unlikely Wie will play full time on the LPGA any time soon. Because if she did, whatever she accomplishes will be subject to ready analysis.

And that would imperil the carefully concocted Wie mystique. That is a mystique that must be preserved in the cocoon spun by B.J. Wie as long as possible.

Otherwise, imagination's butterfly might turn out to be reality's moth.

-George
2006-01-03 @ 20:16
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Comment from: June [Visitor]
Anybody who says a player, a boy or a girl, won't improve his/her game after his/her 16th birthday is a complete moron. Good bye. **

June, based on the 100% record you have for making silly comments in Travel Golf, I hope when you type "good bye", that it's a promise and not a threat.

-George
2006-01-03 @ 20:40
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
George, since Under Par and Alex seem to be unable to back up their rhetoric with evidence, maybe you can take up Alan's challenge and point us to some of this "fawning" media hype you guys talk about.
2006-01-03 @ 20:58
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
You know, I just realized what is perhaps the best way to place the Wie hype (not to be confused with "wee hype") in perspective.

I think that we have all agreed -- if not explicitly, then tacitly -- that Wie has been one of the most celebrated and lauded golfers of the last two years. Who has gotten more glowing exposure other than Woods? Am I missing someone? Even if I am, she has still got to be in the top 3 or 4.

Okay, now, what is it based on? After all, she's getting more exposure than most every player who has won a major, a regular PGA or LPGA event.

As we know, she not only hasn't won anything of that magnitude, she hasn't won much above the local amateur level, period. The truth is that her exposure is based on inferred potential. In other words, it's based on where some ASSUME she'll be in the future. Thus, how can anyone claim that she isn't overly hyped?

Look, if you want to say you think she has the potential to be the greatest female player ever, I'll say that's reasonable. But even that doesn't justify how they've turned her into a marquee name.

Michelle Wie is much like an over-valued stock. She is trading at a very high price based upon inflated expectations for her future.

And the reality of the matter is that she will never live up to those expectations -- because no one could. Anything short of breaking the sex-barrier in golf by being a force on the PGA Tour will be seen as failure. That is how much she has been exalted.

Lastly, I find it amazing how people will glom onto a player and identify with him so much that any criticism of him seems to be taken personally. Woods acolytes do this too.
2006-01-03 @ 21:07
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Norman:
I don't think she has particularly earned 10 millions dollars, but I can say the same thing about Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams and others.

The same can be said for footballer here in Europe, and I am quite sure that the same is even more true in the US for players of major US Sports.

Top sportspeople are overpaid, in comparison to others, but so are actors and musicians and many others. **

Norman, you display your ignorance of economics and the free market. Wie, Creamer, Sharapova, Williams Sisters, actors, musicians, construction workers, etc., are NOT OVERPAID.

Wie is NOT OVERPAID. Over hyped, yes, when her accomplishments are viewed.

OVERPAID, NO.

Why? Sony, or whoever paid her the $10 million/year, decided that Wie had something profitable to sell Sony, the combination of her talent, potential, mystique, goals, intangibles, charisma, looks, etc.

Wie is not overpaid, because somebody is willing to pay her that much money.

Think Wie at one point asked for more than $10 million? Sure she did. Think Sony offered less than $10 million at one time? Of course they did.

Is Wie worth that much money? At this moment in time, absolutely, because at least one sponsor decided she is worth that much. That's the free market, which you apparently don't understand.

No one is overpaid or underpaid in a free market. They are paid what the market will bear, at a specific moment in time.

Will the investment in Wie prove to be wise? Now THAT is another question entirely. No one knows the answer to that, just like the Wie Warriors have no idea how Wie will do in the future, or how she woulda, coulda, shoulda have done in the past.
2006-01-03 @ 21:24
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par,
I agree Wie gets a lot of coverage. From what I've seen it is by no means all positive, there have been some very skeptical articles about her and skeptical commentary during tournaments from people like Dottie Pepper and Nancy Lopez.

I have never seen anyone either in the press or on a blog say they assume she will be a force on the PGA in the future. Some have said she has the unproven potential to play in the PGA which she does.

I don't think her current "stock value" is based on her having to be a major force in the PGA. It is enough that she is trying something new and has the potential.

I'm not sure what you find so objectionable about her getting coverage. It is bringing new interest to golf, especially women's golf, which has been losing viewership and could use a boost. It's certainly very possible that she could fail to be a power even in the LPGA, in which case her 15 minutes of fame will end. Hopefully, even if that happens, she will inspire a lot of girls to stretch themselves (something you seem to disapprove of).

Lastly, I don't think people would take your criticism personnaly if you didn't constantly insult them.
2006-01-03 @ 21:30
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Paul W, I just had to come back when you demanded evidence of media hype for Michelle as I had suggested. In a previous post, I referred to the network plugging Michelle's approach iron as the "shot of the day" at the 2005 John Deere despite the fact that Maruyama had an ace that day. Is that , or is that not, over-hyping? I rest my case.
2006-01-03 @ 21:45
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
George, since Under Par and Alex seem to be unable to back up their rhetoric with evidence, maybe you can take up Alan's challenge and point us to some of this "fawning" media hype you guys talk about. **

Below, I quantified the media attention. There are two sets of searches, one prior to October, the month when Wie announced she was turning pro. The second set applies to all of 2005, including the announcement period and the subsequent controversy.

Since the Wie Warriors can't even agree about the nature of Wie's comments at the Casio, to prove "fawning" to their satisfaction would also be open to interpretation and therefore a waste of my time. When you are an acolyte of Wie, it is impossible to discern fawning, since fawning to objective observers would merely appear to the Wie Warriors to be normal behavior.

Now that I have dealt with that, it IS possible to quantify the number of articles that are primarily about the three most prominent women's golfers.

This group includes Wie and the two best female golfers -- Annika Sorenstam and Paula Creamer. I state that objectively because Sorenstam was the LPGA player of 2005 and Creamer was rookie of the year in 2005. They were ranked 1 and 2 on the money list, respectively.

And it is possible to compare how many stories were devoted to each.

Also note that Sorenstam has multiple major wins, including two in 2005 and won what, 10 times in 2005.

Creamer won four times as a rookie, including two LPGA wins, and was the primary spark for the USA's Solheim Cup victory

Wie has yet to win an LPGA tournament, or any professional tournament.

I searched for stories that had at least 10 mentions of each of these three golfers, which would indicate a story that was primarily about that golfer.

1st try:
michelle wie and atleast5(wie) and date aft 12-31-04 and date bef 10-1-05
SEARCH INTERRUPTED: more than 1,000 hits

next, I tried:
michelle wie and atleast10(wie) and date aft 12-31-04 and date bef 10-1-05
794 hits

Next,
ANNIKA SORENSTAM AND ATLEAST10(SORENSTAM) AND DATE AFT 12-31-04 AND DATE BEF 10-1-05
950 hits

Next,
paula creamer and atleast10(creamer) and date aft 12-31-04 and date bef 10-1-05
170 hits

Finally, the same search terms, but date = 2005 (that is, to include October, November and December of 2005. That is, all of 2005, for the thicker of the Wie Warriors)

For all of 2005, stories primarily about the following golfers totaled as follows:

Wie: 1198 hits
Sorenstam: 1177 hits
Creamer: 198

Sources for all the searches: Nexis database for news stories.

So together, the LPGA's golfer of the year and the LPGA's rookie of the year barely had more stories written about them -- combined -- than Michelle Wie by herself.

You can decide if that is hype or right on par.

I suppose you could also do a ratio of stories per victory, if that helps you reach a conclusion.

Of course, in one of the three cases, the ratio would be mathematically meaningless.

-George
2006-01-03 @ 22:02
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Wow, it's nice to see you Wie bashers actually try to come up with some evidence.

Alex, yeah Mayuyama probably should have gotten the "shot of the day". I didn't see Michelle's shot so I don't know what it was. Those "shots of the day" always seemed kind of random to me.

George, I already agreed Wie gets a lot of coverage, but, from what I've read it's hardly all positive, especially in October where there were tons of articles with titles like "Wie gets the hype, Annika gets the hardware" -- true, but hardly fawning.
2006-01-03 @ 23:06
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
You could also do a ratio of stories per google hit. Annika an Wie are virtually tied in news stories for 2005. But my google search gave 2,990,000 hits for Michelle to only 739,000 for Annika and 243,000 for Creamer. Relative to the level of people's interest as expressed by the Google numbers, the official media is more generous in doing stories about both Annika and Paula than they are about Michelle. Michelle Wie is not the media princess of golf, she is the people's princess--and the media is actually dragging it's feet in giving her the coverage people want. (I think it sounds better to say the media is rather than the media are).
2006-01-04 @ 01:31
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
I'm just pleased that our position has been vindicated.
2006-01-04 @ 08:10
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:
If Wie -- today, right now, even as we speak, at this very moment -- is that complete of a package, you'd figure that by now Wie would have won somewhere in a pro women's event someplace. If Wie is that great as we hear constantly from the Wie Warriors, surely she would have found some way to win in some tourney somewhere.
********************************

Who said that Wie is the complete package now? I certainly haven't.
She is great for her age. She is far ahead of any woman at her age. Don't forget she still has 2 years to become the youngest winner on the lpga. Her success at the top level is unprecidented on the lpga at her age. When Creamer and Pressel, turned 16 they had ONE made cut between them on the lpga. Wie has 5 top 10 finishes.
2006-01-04 @ 09:25
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:

For all of 2005, stories primarily about the following golfers totaled as follows:

Wie: 1198 hits
Sorenstam: 1177 hits
Creamer: 198
*********************************

George, to be honest, I would've thought Wie would of had a higher number in comparison to Sorrenstam.
Your figures produced have shown one thing. The media doesn't particularly care about Creamer. There is no point in you adding Creamer & Sorrenstam together and saying they are just above Wie. The fact is that Creamer's figures are negligable.

Annika and Michelle have practically identical hits. Sorrenstam, because she has won lots. Wie because she has done well in lpga tournaments, and because she has participated in a number of mens events. That is bound to generate more stories. For example during her Amateur Publinx tournament, there would have been many stories "Wie wins again", "Can she make the Masters", "One Step Closer", etc. etc. as well as her being the first woman ever to qualify for such an event, which would again generate many stories.
2006-01-04 @ 09:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Jim C, If you are aware of the fact the "media" is the plural of "medium", then "media is" is incorrect, and how it sounds is irrelevant. A prominent sportscaster whose name escapes me, frequently uses the expression "between you and I", but he doesn't have the advantage of being corrected by me on the site:-)
2006-01-04 @ 09:36
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
For the definition of fawning media one has to look no further then this site and Jennifer Marino's interview with Michelle's first golf instructer. Did anyone else notice the mention of the 11 year-old girl who qualified for the women's Public Links and won the Hawaii Women's State Championship already, two things stand out; Hawaii junior/women's golf must really suck and how long before Norman begins touting this girl as the next big thing. Before all you Wie fans go into attack mode, remember I am a fan myself. I just wanted to point out that there will always be somebody who comes along and does things at a young age, who we will claim is the next Nicklaus, the next Tiger, the next Annika, whoever, lets allow Michelle to be the first Michelle Wie and see what she does with it.
2006-01-04 @ 12:23
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Stone, I think Jennifer's "fawning" is pretty well compensated for by Baldwin's bashing.
2006-01-04 @ 12:36
Comment from: alan [Visitor]

You Guys come on.
The number of articles written about a person doesn't relate to hype. You have to look at the content. You still haven’t shown any evidence that Wie is overly hyped or that she has berated anyone, made wild claims about her own abilities or anything else that might detract from her phenomenal achievements.
The fact is there are so many articles about Wie because the public are interested. Supply and demand. Ratings etc
With so many articles about Wie surely there must be some evidence to support your wild claims.
We have an attorney and a columnist that constantly excrete a lot of verbal dihhorrea on these blogs.
I suppose that is to be expected given their respective careers.
Alan M
2006-01-04 @ 12:36
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]


By her 16th birthday, Michelle Wie had 5 top 5 finishes, and 6 top 10s. A Kraft 9th at 13, a Kraft 4th at 14, and 3 2nds and a 3rd at 15. 4 of the 6 were in Majors and 1 was in a near Major, the Evian Masters. The other was the 2005 SBS.

I'm sure Michelle Wie would have happily traded a little less coverage at the John Deere for a little less coverage at the Samsung. If Michelle Wie had been anyone else at the Samsung, either no one would have noticed or the incident would have been reported immediately. Only because it was Michelle Wie did it wind up being reported at a time when it meant a DQ.

Wie supporters can find numerous news stories and blogs critical of Michelle Wie. Can critics find negative stories or blogs about Annika or Paula?

Annika went into the last round of the Open 5 shots back with a chance for the 3rd leg of the grand slam she had proclaimed as her goal for the season. She shot a 77. Yet her failure was completely overshadowed, at least in America, by the final round 82 of a 15 year old amateur who started the day tied for the lead. Paula Creamer started 1 shot back and shot a 79, that didn't get much notice either. Going into the final day Michelle Wie was the biggest story. She would have been the biggest story if she had succeeded, and unfortunately for her, she was also the biggest story when she did not. Most golfers get to be the big story only when they succeed--Michelle Wie does not have that luxury. A lot of those stories Wie critics complained about, were the Open stories talking about Wie's worst round of the year.
2006-01-04 @ 12:41
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
Paul I could not agree more. In my estimation somewhere in between Jennifer and Chris(probably closer to Jennifer) is a nice place for the Michelle Wie coverage and expectations.
2006-01-04 @ 12:42
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Jim,

You buys yo' ticket and you takes yo' chances. The Wies wanted attention. Guess what? They got it!

You have to take the bad with the good.

Also, to say that it definitely would have been reported earlier had it been someone else is ridiculous. Wie made a mistake and she rightly paid the price.
2006-01-04 @ 13:40
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
alan, Dihhorrea? Really! Even for a semi-literate Brit, you've taken misspelling to a new low. I believe the word you're groping for unsuccessfully is "diarrhea", which has several denotations and connotations, but which in your case could be most aptly put as the unintelligible rantings of a poorly educated Cockney. Alan,for the sake of all that is holy, try to learn something! Anything would help!
2006-01-04 @ 13:45
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Stone said:
Did anyone else notice the mention of the 11 year-old girl who qualified for the women's Public Links and won the Hawaii Women's State Championship already, two things stand out; Hawaii junior/women's golf must really suck and how long before Norman begins touting this girl as the next big thing.
***********************

* If she gets within a couple of shots, of a pga cut, then she can be called the next big thing.
* Or if she qualifies for a male USGA event, and even qualifies out of stroke play. She doesn't even need to make the quarters.
* Or if she has a series of top 10 finishes in majors, like for example 4 top 10 finishes in lpga majors by the time she is 16.

Those would be good criteria to call this 11 year old the next big thing.
2006-01-04 @ 14:10
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim Coulthard said:
By her 16th birthday, Michelle Wie had 5 top 5 finishes, and 6 top 10s.
*****************************

She had a 7th top 10.
I think the one you missed out on was the Wendy's Championship in 2004.
She had a 6th place finish.

I think another important stat is this.
Up to 2005, MW had 1 top 5 finish.
In 2005 she had 4 top 5 finishes. That could have been 5 top 5's but for a dq when she was in 4th at the Samsung.
Her rate of progress is outstanding.
2006-01-04 @ 14:17
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Well, I guess Alan just exploded the myth of the highly literate Englishman.

Alex, I think these old coots just have the hots for young Miss Wie.
2006-01-04 @ 14:59
Comment from: george [Visitor]
Norman:
** George, to be honest, I would've thought Wie would of had a higher number in comparison to Sorrenstam. **

The only thing your post proves is Annika Sorenstam needs a better PR agent! Even a self-proclaimed Golf Expert such as you can't spell her name correctly.
(and I presume it wasn't a typo since you did it thrice. Or maybe you should blame the hardware. Those Best Buy keyboards can be so cheap!)

** Your figures produced have shown one thing. **
That you need to learn about Annika Sorenstam?

** The media doesn't particularly care about Creamer. **
[shrug]

** There is no point in you adding Creamer & Sorrenstam together and saying they are just above Wie. **

Sure there's a point. You just don't like the point. The point being that Wie gets a ton of hype.

** The fact is that Creamer's figures are negligable. **
Or news reporters are ignorant and fall prey to hype. Maybe reporters are also Wie Warriors.

** Annika and Michelle have practically identical hits. **
Behold Norman, the Master of the Obvious!

** For example during her Amateur Publinx tournament, there would have been many stories "Wie wins again", "Can she make the Masters", "One Step Closer", etc. etc. as well as her being the first woman ever to qualify for such an event, which would again generate many stories. **

I wonder how many of those stories were about Michelle winning the finals of that event?

Oh. Right.

-George
2006-01-04 @ 16:10
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:
** There is no point in you adding Creamer & Sorrenstam together and saying they are just above Wie. **

Sure there's a point. You just don't like the point. The point being that Wie gets a ton of hype.
******************************

Wie: 1198 hits
Sorenstam: 1177 hits
Creamer: 198

That means Wie has 21 more hits than Annika. You adding Creamer's shabby total is simply trying to confuse the issue.
If you said Michelle is nearly equal to Annika, you would have been over 8 times closer to the fact than saying that Michelle was nearly equal to Annika and Paula combined.
2006-01-04 @ 16:22
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Comment from: alan [Visitor]

You Guys come on.
The number of articles written about a person doesn't relate to hype. You have to look at the content. You still haven’t shown any evidence that Wie is overly hyped **

Alan, I've already done the heavy lifting for you Wie Warriors.

Bottom line: Even before Michelle went pro, before she and her caddy bungled their way to a disqualification, over the first nine months of 2005, the number of articles primarily about Michelle came fairly close to the Sorenstam articles.

So you have a winless princess who gets about as much attention as the queen of golf who during that period was chasing a grand slam of the LPGA and was a stalwart for her losing Solheim Cup team.

Now it's time for you to step up and do some actual work.

Alan, YOU find a negative newspaper article (and do try to be semi-objective: an article that says "Michelle Wie did not win a tournament on Sunday" doesn't count as negative).

And if you manage to find one, then I'm sure somebody can come up with at least two positive articles to counter that.

So it's up to you. Find the negative articles and then we can proceed. Like Under Par said, it's time for you Wie Warriors to get off your fannies, do your own research, and stop expecting people to spoon feed you everything.

-George
2006-01-04 @ 16:26
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
George,

Well done. The strategy being pursued by these fellows is a common ploy used by those bent on denying reality. What they do is demand that you "prove" obvious point after obvious point, thereby stalling the debate and wearing you down with legwork that only proves that 2+2=4. As you have said, the fact that a winless wonder has gotten more press than a woman who is quite possibly the best female golfer who ever lived -- and has received this disproportionate attention during the peak of that titan's career -- speaks volumes.

Listen, if it makes the Wiemen feel any better, I understand that what attracts attention and what gets results aren't always the same thing. That's the media and the market. But that's the very definition of being over-hyped: when the attention exceeds the accomplishments.
2006-01-04 @ 17:55
Comment from: Ronnie [Visitor]
I read some of the postings on the number of hits and it is an absolute disgrace.

Paula Creamer should have more publicity than Michelle Wie.
Paula is the rookie of the year, and she will be player of the year, either next year or the year after.

It will be close between Paula and Annika next year for number 1, but then Paula will blaze a trail.

You should all watch her play in person if you can because she hits it better than most of the pga tour professionals.

Paula won 4 times in 2005.
And she won the Solheim Cup on her own, hammering Laura Davies in the process. Paula was 7 under in 9 holes.
That is pure class.
2006-01-04 @ 18:40
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Ronnie,

Now there's something we agree on; Wie is over-hyped and doesn't deserve this kind of coverage. However, your comment below is utterly ridiculous. What's your handicap, Ronnie? 20? 25? Maybe 30?

Listen, you have said that Creamer will be playing the PGA Tour successfully. Wanna bet? What kind of a time frame do you want? Ten years? Because I'm willing to bet a LARGE amount of money ($5000) that it won't happen. We can draw up a contract. Let me know . . . if you really believe what you're spouting.

Ronnie said:
You should all watch her play in person if you can because she hits it better than most of the pga tour professionals.

2006-01-04 @ 19:20
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
George
I tried 3 US newspapers at random.
The New York Sun. No articles in the past 45 days.
A Houstn paper whose website wasn't fuctioning, and finally The Los Angeles Times.
The later had a lot of articles mentioning Wie. These were written by Thomas Bonk & Jerry Crowe who I obviously don't know being English.
All of the articles were neutral.
No hype in sight. Your turn
Alan M
2006-01-04 @ 20:47
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Alan, I realize that it would be difficult to convince you that the sun rises to the East, much less to attempt the infinitely more difficult task of having you realize that Michelle Wie has been grossly over-hyped. However, being a glutton for punishment, and as a consummate optimist who believes that "hope springs eternal", I'll give it my best and final shot. When Michelle was making her bid at the US Men's Amateur Public Links event last summer, my hometown daily newspaper had extensive coverage of her play each day, by both the Associated Press feed and their own reporter. At least two photographs of Michelle were on the sports' pages each day she was competing. It is important to note that in all the years prior to Michelle's appearamce at the Publinx, this daily, one of the largest in the US, NEVER had printed a single word about this tournament. The coverage included many interviews with Michelle, how her adoring crowds were following her, and how "stage father" B.J. Wie was heading up the cheerleading, and on and on. When she ended her quest, which Norman has consistently called a "thrilling run" and "outstanding" by being unceremoniously dumped in the quarterfinals by 5 and 4, the newspaper even spoke sympathetically of her shedding tears upon her defeat. The tournament ended two days later, but by that time the daily had resumed its customary coverage of the event: no article, no photos, not even the result of the Championship match. Now I know the Wie fan(atic)s will say, but, but, but,.. the paper was just giving the readers what they wanted. There is no Wie hype machine and she has never had anybody promoting any publicity for her. You know, I read that paper every day and I talk to many people every day, and I've never been aware of any hue and cry for more Wie coverage. Case closed. End of story.
2006-01-05 @ 10:28
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex,
I am also an optimist, so I will try to explain to you about the Wie coverage in that newspaper.

Michelle Wie qualified in first place in a sectional tournament for the US Amatuer Publinx. If she was a man, that would not be a big deal.
If she were a young boy, there would have been, "that is nice, fair play to this youngster", but there wouldn't have been a big deal made about it.
Here comes the critical point.
Try to take this in if you are able.
She is a female. Why is this a big deal? Don't female qualify for male usga tournaments every day of the week?
Ah, actually it is the first time a woman has ever qualified for such an event. Oh, okay, this is something new. This is something that never has been done before. Hopefully, Alex, you are beginning to follow my line. This was an unprecidented event, just for her to qualify. This was new territory, something a female had never done before.

Then to the tournament herself. Add to the fact that she was the first female ever in a usga event, the fact that the winner would get an invitation to The Masters.
The Masters is one of the biggest, if not the biggest event in golf, and a female had stated her ambition to qualify for it, and had got a step closer, this was a story in itself.
But of course, she was still a long way away. There were 156 players in this tournament. She had no chance. Only 64 would qualify from stroke play. This girl had very little chance of making the top 64.
Then what happens, she makes it out of stroke play, with 2 birdies in her last 2 holes to make the cut for match play.
Well done. Very good. Unprecidented, and making it to the match play, but now is time for her to go home and leave the men to play their game.
Sorry, afraid not, the script changed again. She won her first match. Then she won her next and her next. She got to the quarter finals, only 3 matches from booking her place in the Masters.
Starting out as the first girl to qualify and with few people giving her any hope of getting anywhere in this tournament she had confounded her critics. Even the skeptics were sitting up and taking notice. There is a rumour that Chris Baldwin had even wet himself when she made the quarter final.
This was a story. Primarily because it was of someone going where no other woman had gone before, and this a 15 year old girl at that.
That story got plenty of coverage in newspapers and why wouldn't it, it was a big story.
2006-01-05 @ 11:19
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Still no hype.
Newspaper print news that's what they do. If they thought for one minute that their readers didn't want to read about Wie they wouldn't have wrote the articles. Believe it or not Wie is news whether you like it or not. End of Story. Media coverage does not automatically relate to hype.
Alan M
2006-01-05 @ 11:24
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex,

The problem here is largely one of perception. Of course, what Norman says is true to an extent: since what Wie did in that event was unprecedented, the coverage was going to be greater than usual. The question is, though, how much?

What these folks DON'T realize is that the coverage was excessive even taking that factor into consideration. This is because the media are peddling an agenda, part of which involves carrying water for feminist causes.

But it IS perception (This is NOT to say that all perception is equally valid); most of the people (not all) who don't find the Wie coverage to be excessive are somewhat in line with the mainstream media ideologically. Thus, both they and the media look at such a story and think that its both deserving of such coverage AND that this is what main street wants to see.

But these people may never sense any aspect of the leftist media agenda. Remember, these tend to be the same folks who find nothing amiss when the New York Times runs far more stories about Abu Graib than the oil-for-food scandal. These are also the types -- like that idiot Letterman two nights ago -- who don't believe that there's an attack on Christmas. Ain't goin' on. It's something made up by the fanatics on the right, you see. They also probably thought the Jessica Lynch fraud was no big deal and that it was justifiable when Danica Patrick both had her egregious misstep in the Indy 500 whitewashed and then received far more coverage than the winner, Dan Wheldon (Of course, though, that might be the exception since he's a Brit!). They also probably don't perceieve the media's whitewash of Muslim atrocities.

So, Alex, it's like trying to describe colors to a blind man.

2006-01-05 @ 11:45
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par, As I said before, that was my final stab at some sort of common sense on this thread. But did you check out Alan's reply? Now that's funny! I'm not sure if his message is juxtaposition, contradiction or what. Maybe there isn't a word as yet for that sort of illogical nonsense.
2006-01-05 @ 12:53
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
The most peculiar thing about all this is that I detest the extreme left probably more than anyone with the exception of yourself.

As regards issues like Christmas, I think institutions should be able to display whatever religious stuff they want, I think stopping them is against freedome of expression.

I don't support a free for all as regards immigration, like left wing radicals do in my country.

I've supported Bush throughout everything that has happened in foreign affairs, throughout both of his terms.

I don't support abortion.
I don't support gay marriage.
Need I go on.

As for Danika, I don't think she has been mentioned even once in any form of news media in my country ever. To be honest Indy Car racing is never mentioned here because it is just a minor league anyway. The top level of motor racing is Formula 1 which is like the pga. Indy Car racing is a bit like the Nationwide Tour.
2006-01-05 @ 13:51
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

It did occur to me that you may not fit the profile -- I was characterizing the group in general.

I'm glad we're on very much the same page politically, though. Maybe you and I and the five other chaps should get together.

I also am not surprised that Patrick wasn't mentioned in England, but she was big news here at the time.
2006-01-05 @ 14:40
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Notice the AP female ath;ete of the year voting. 47 out of 81 votes for Annika giving her her 3rd straight win. 17 votes for Dianica Patrick. 5 for Maria Sharipova and 4 each for Venus Williams and Michelle Wie.

The PC position in golf is that Annika proved that the LPGA is on a par with the PGA by her strong showing at the Colonial(Please don't confuse the issue with details on her performance). By wanting to play on the PGA, Michelle Wie is making people question the PC truth that the LPGA is every bit as tough as the PGA. PC cannot be entirely opposed to a girl competing against men--but Michelle Wie certainly does not get the protection Annika or Dianica got.
2006-01-05 @ 15:58
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Ok
Are you suggesting that there is a political agenda to the so called Wie media hype?
Alan M
2006-01-05 @ 16:56
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alan,

If you're addressing me, I'll tell you that there's ALWAYS an agenda with the mainstream media. I could tell you stories that would make your head spin.

Remember, EVERY journalist has a bias; it's just a question of whether you're biased in favor of the truth or a lie. As far as the mainstream media go, it is basically a leftist monolith, and their ideology not only determines how they'll cover something but also WHAT they choose to cover in the first place.

Jim,

Wie benefits from great protection from the media.
2006-01-05 @ 19:53
Comment from: george [Visitor]
From Alan:
** George
I tried 3 US newspapers at random.
The New York Sun. No articles in the past 45 days.
A Houstn paper whose website wasn't fuctioning, and finally The Los Angeles Times.
The later had a lot of articles mentioning Wie. These were written by Thomas Bonk & Jerry Crowe who I obviously don't know being English.
All of the articles were neutral.
No hype in sight. Your turn **

I'll play your useless game once, and once only. The article starts only relatively normally, but by the time you get to the middle, the breathless adoration is in full view.

And this is in that standard for American journalism, the New York SUN. I picked this article to directly refute you, since for some reason you picked the Sun rather than the 100-plus other newspapers that are of far better quality, as lousy as global journalism is these days. But you mentioned the Sun, so that's where I went to refute you.

To be sure, it is beyond the arbitrary 45-day limit you imposed, but it is well within the hype zone time period.

Here are some excerpts. Most of the tenor is like this:

** HEADLINE: The Smart Money's on Michelle Wie **

** The extra draw, of course, is the extraordinarily talented Michelle Wie **

One of very few examples of any approaching criticism or even neutral is

**
To have any hope of toppling Sorenstam and justifying those fat contracts, Wie will have to start winning tournaments, something she hasn't done since the 2003 US Women's Public Links Championship. Since then, she has amassed 16 consecutive cuts on the LPGA Tour, narrowly missed the cut at the Sony Open (twice) and John Deere Classic on the PGA Tour, and reached the quarterfinals of the U.S. Men's Public Links - performances which, though impressive, might be of little use when she finds herself level with Sorenstam with nine holes to go on a Sunday afternoon and with a quarter of a million bucks on the line.
**

Then, the author gets into the suck-up groove gradually but steadily, reaching a crescendo by the end ...

**
Once [Wie] does join the Tour, only injury or a Jennifer Capriati-style meltdown should prevent her from battling Sorenstam for top honors.
**
**
The biggest factor in ensuring that success will be her length. Hitting the ball enormous distances is having an increasingly profound effect on the men's game, of course, and while that trend may not be so apparent in the women's game, a player with Wie's power should find the 6,500-yard courses of the LPGA Tour extremely accommodating.
**
**
Even top-ranked Brittany Lincicome will need to find another 20 yards if she is to keep up. The effect will be to wear down her opponents, who will be hitting a 7-iron while Wie flicks a pitching wedge onto the green, and who will need the mental fortitude of Tiger Woods, or Annika Sorenstam, to avoid developing a severe inferiority complex.
**
**
Watch Wie hit balls on the range at a PGA Tour event and you'll see her ballstriking is comparable with the best male players in the world, save only for Woods, Els, and Goosen.
**

Interruption for George comment: [boggles]

**
**
David Leadbetter has described [Wie's] as the best golf swing he's ever seen, a swing that is sure to earn Wie untold riches over the course of her career, starting this weekend.
**

The full article is below, so you can decide for yourself the context.

"Fawning" is too mild a word for this article.

On the other hand, I'm sure you Wie Warriors will soon be firing off e-mails to the author for daring to disclose that Wie has yet to win a professional tournament.

Oh, and Alan. Go ahead and take your turn. No one cares any more, least of all me.

One minor newspaper, one with a non-functioning site, and one allegedly "neutral" story from a well-known paper is all you have?

Your lazy and incomplete searching has already discredited you.

Actually, the mindless attacks by you and the other Wie Warriors on anbody who is so politically incorrect as to be even mildly skeptical about Michelle discredited all of you folks months ago.

-George

The New York Sun
October 13, 2005 Thursday
SECTION: SPORTS
LENGTH: 873 words

HEADLINE: The Smart Money's on Michelle Wie

BYLINE: By TONY DEAR

BODY:

The LPGA Tour's Samsung World Championship is not an event the average golf fan gets terribly worked up about. Yes, the field is limited to the top 20 women golfers in the world, but do you know who won last year? Okay, maybe that's too easy. But answer this: Who did Annika Sorenstam beat and by how many?

This year's tournament, teeing off this morning at Bighorn Golf Club in Palm Desert, Calif., has an added attraction, however, one that will likely give it more column inches over the weekend than the PGA Tour's Michelin Championship in Las Vegas.

The extra draw, of course, is the extraordinarily talented Michelle Wie, who actually played in the same tournament last year and who recorded her 24th appearance on the LPGA Tour at this year's Weetabix Women's British Open, where she finished in a tie for third. The difference this time is that she is playing for cash - the $212,500 winner's check in particular.

As most of the world knows, the Honolulu school kid turned pro last Wednesday at 15 years and 358 days, after signing contracts worth a reported total of $10 million - one with Nike, whose clubs she will use and whose clothes she will wear, the other with Sony, whose gadgets she will rely on to make a hectic travel schedule more tolerable. In doing so, she instantly became the world's best-paid woman golfer - considerably better paid, in fact, than Sorenstam, who earns "only" $7 million to $8million a year from endorsements and prize money.

But while her off-course earnings may already exceed the Swede's, Wie
starts her professional career 66 tournament victories behind Sorenstam, the women's game's undisputed no. 1 since the turn of the century.

To have any hope of toppling Sorenstam and justifying those fat contracts, Wie will have to start winning tournaments, something she hasn't done since the 2003 US Women's Public Links Championship. Since then, she has amassed 16 consecutive cuts on the LPGA Tour, narrowly missed the cut at the Sony Open (twice) and John Deere Classic on the PGA Tour, and reached the quarterfinals of the U.S. Men's Public Links - performances which, though impressive, might be of little use when she finds herself level with Sorenstam with nine holes to go on a Sunday afternoon and with a quarter of a million bucks on the line.

In recent months, several players, including Tiger Woods and fellow amateur Morgan Pressel, have questioned her wisdom playing events in which she was unlikely to contend, suggesting she would lose the winning habit she enjoyed during her days on the Hawaiian junior circuit. Others, including former coach Gary Gilchrist, have always believed that Wie is better served going up against golfers who play on the tour to which she ultimately aspires. And there is little doubt that is what she will continue to do.

Wie has stated she will accept as many sponsors' invitations as her school schedule allows (she will graduate from Punahou High School in two years and hopes to attend Stanford) to play on the men's tours in both America and Asia, where her Korean roots guarantee massive appeal. She'll also continue to play in the six to eight LPGA events she'll have access to as a nonmember. The experience she gains from playing with the men, plus continued good showings against the women, (of which there have already been several) will surely put her in a very solid position when the time comes for her to take up full membership of the LPGA Tour in two year's time (assuming she doesn't request and receive a waiver to the Tour's minimum age rule before she turns 18).

By then, the hype will likely have died down and Wie will be two years
stronger and more mature. She will be more used to the traveling and more
familiar with a sufficient number of players to feel at ease. Indeed, she could already have a couple of wins under her belt. Once she does join the Tour, only injury or a Jennifer Capriati-style meltdown should prevent her from battling Sorenstam for top honors.

The biggest factor in ensuring that success will be her length. Hitting the ball enormous distances is having an increasingly profound effect on the men's game, of course, and while that trend may not be so apparent in the women's game, a player with Wie's power should find the 6,500-yard courses of the LPGA Tour extremely accommodating.

Heather Bowie, the 10th-longest player on Tour this year with an average of 259.7 yards per drive, will probably find herself 30-40 yards behind Wie on holes requiring a driver. Even top-ranked Brittany Lincicome will need to find another 20 yards if she is to keep up. The effect will be to wear down her opponents, who will be hitting a 7-iron while Wie flicks a pitching wedge onto the green, and who will need the mental fortitude of Tiger Woods, or Annika Sorenstam, to avoid developing a severe inferiority complex.

Watch Wie hit balls on the range at a PGA Tour event and you'll see her ballstriking is comparable with the best male players in the world, save only for Woods, Els, and Goosen. It's the result of what her current coach, David Leadbetter, has described as the best golf swing he's ever seen, a swing that is sure to earn Wie untold riches over the course of her career, starting this weekend.
2006-01-05 @ 22:24
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
How does this compare to Annika, Paula Creamer, or Morgan Pressel articles? Ans there are articles taling about how Michelle Wie is not as good as she is made out to be--I haven't seen such articles about the other 3.
2006-01-06 @ 00:08
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George,
many thanks for sharing this article.

Let's analyse it.

** The extra draw, of course, is the extraordinarily talented Michelle Wie **

What is wrong with this statement? She is extraordinarily talented. She is an extra draw. Both are factually correct.


**
Once [Wie] does join the Tour, only injury or a Jennifer Capriati-style meltdown should prevent her from battling Sorenstam for top honors.
**

Given the way Wie has progressed, and that she is already battling in the top 5 of over half the tournaments she enters on the lpga, I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to say that she should be expected to be battling Annika for titles.


**
The biggest factor in ensuring that success will be her length. Hitting the ball enormous distances is having an increasingly profound effect on the men's game, of course, and while that trend may not be so apparent in the women's game, a player with Wie's power should find the 6,500-yard courses of the LPGA Tour extremely accommodating.
**

They are right that length is a big factor. They are also right, that Wie is about the longers hitter in the professional womens game as it stands, and given that she is only 16, it is reasonable that she will hit it even longer over the next few years. If she does, she will indeed be able to use shorter clubs in her approach shots, and this is definetely a big advantage.


**
Watch Wie hit balls on the range at a PGA Tour event and you'll see her ballstriking is comparable with the best male players in the world, save only for Woods, Els, and Goosen.
**

George, the journalist here is basically quoting what alot of pga tour players have said.
Some players said she could hit it just like a pga professional when she was 14.
Other players have said she has one of the best 5 swings in the world.
The journalis is just quoting what the experts have said.


**
David Leadbetter has described [Wie's] as the best golf swing he's ever seen, a swing that is sure to earn Wie untold riches over the course of her career, starting this weekend.
**

Sorry George, I guess you're right. I was buying into all the hype, but now you have provided a quote from David Leadbetter, saying how great she is.
I think you have now proven that she is just a load of hype, because after all, what would David Leadbetter know about golf?
2006-01-06 @ 09:37
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Jim,

You're not going to see articles about how the other three aren't as good as they're portrayed precisely because they're NOT over-hyped! Not that I've actually seen such articles in mainstream publications, but they only exist because Wie-wie's ability has been so exaggerated.
2006-01-06 @ 10:22
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
There arn't articles about the other 3, because they are not so young.
When they were that age, they were of a much lower standard than Wie.

Pressel is still at a lower standard than Wie, despite her age advantage.
Creamer is on a par with Wie, maybe ahead on the lpga, but behind as an overall golfer ie on a pga course.

Sorenstam is a much better player than Wie, but she is over twice her age, with years of top level experience. In any case Sorenstam gets nearly as much publicity as Wie, based on George's analysis. Sorenstam and Wie are justified in both getting publicity.
- Sorenstam because she is the greatest female player ever.
- Wie because she is the greatest young female player ever, and the only one female golfer over the last 50 years who has aquited herself well in top level male competition.
- Also Wie's results as a 15 year old on the lpga have been unprecidented and deserving of recognition.
2006-01-06 @ 10:30
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

Wrong. Sorenstam has aquitted herself just as well against the men. Wie finished seven shots out of the cut at the last Sony, correct? Sorenstam finished four or five out at the Colonial. Of course, Wie came within one the first time, but give Sorenstam as many chances and she may do the same.

Anyway, you really seem bent on singing the praises of Wie, regardless.
2006-01-06 @ 11:25
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
If you want to compare Wie and Sorrenstam on the pga tour, you cannot simply pick Wie's worst event as a basis.

If you are picking just one event, it would have to be their debut event, which was Wie, missed by one and Sorenstam missed by 5.

I don't like just picking on one event though.
The fact is that in 2 of 3 attempts, Wie got very close to making a cut, something Sorenstam hasn't done.

Maybe if Sorenstam had the ambition for more tries, she might get there, but she doesn't seem to want it and that is her prerogative.

Anyway, the basis point is Wie has shown more, on the pga than Annika has.
2006-01-06 @ 12:17
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Sorry George.
I fail to see the hype in the article you presented.
You also didn't mention the numerous articles I refered to in the Los Ageles Times. I picked the 3 papers at random from an online website because I am not familiar with any US papers. Random means random. Tell me what papers I should have picked.
Also David Leadbetter is not on his own when it comes to his assesment of Wie's swing.
Just out of interest George, how do rate Wie's swing?
Alan M
2006-01-06 @ 12:22
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
You guys keep referring to Annika. How great she is, under hyped bla bla bla.
She needs a better PR person etc.
She’s a great player, but she needs more than a better PR person.
She is a miserable cow. A frump. She’s a sponsor's nightmare.
She filed for divorce because she didn’t want to have kids. That is a seriously disturbed lady. She should loosen up a tad.
Alan M
2006-01-06 @ 12:41
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Annika is far from miserable.
I'd say she is a pretty nice person.

She is also liked by sponsors.
They have given her endorsement of 7 million dollars a year, which is alot of money. Just because Wie got more doesn't mean Annika doesn't get alot.

As regards whether she wants to have kids or not, that is entirely her own business.
2006-01-06 @ 13:26
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Another thing.
Annika sent Michelle a nice text message after the Samsung dq.

She didn't have to do that and it meant alot to Wie.
2006-01-06 @ 13:30
Comment from: Ronnie [Visitor]
Is Wie hyped too much?
Is Sorenstam hyped enough?

People here are missing the real point. Paula Creamer isn't getting the recognition she deserves.
She had a brilliant rookie year and became number 2.

Does anyone think Ryan Moore will be number 2 on the pga money list in his rookie year?

Creamer won 2 lpga titles and 2 titles in Japan.

Chris Baldwin is the only one here who recognises what a great player that Paula Creamer is. The rest of you are obsessed with whether Wie is good or not good.
Chris Baldwin knows who the real deal is. When Paula takes over as world number 1 in 2007, you guys will realise that me and him were right all along.
2006-01-06 @ 14:04
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Sorry George.
I fail to see the hype in the article you presented **

Michelle Wie, as I have stated many times, is not the problem. She is very talented.

The fault, dear Alan, is with you and the other Wie Warriors who have invested so much of your self worth in Michelle's success.

By making that comment, you prove the point I and others have been making about how unhinged the Wie Warriors have become.

thank you.

-George
2006-01-06 @ 15:12
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
....And when she doesn't dominate the world of men's golf in 2016 as you have suggested can we come visit you at the funny farm? I don't think anybody here thinks you are crazy for the prediction that Creamer will #1 in 2007, it very well could happen, it is your other claims that have people questioning your sanity.
2006-01-06 @ 16:19
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Stone,

The funny thing about these people is that what they're exhibiting is akin to following a guru. They've glommed on to these gals, and now they're acting like their gal is their daughter and they are an irrational parent. Ronnie is the quintessence of what I'm talking about; he has some kind of hang-up with Creamer, and now he acts as if she's some demi-god who can defy the laws of nature. It's like he's in love with her.
2006-01-06 @ 16:28
Comment from: June [Visitor]
I would say Creamer enough media attention as it stand. A lot of Creamer fans cry foul for her not receiving more meida attention failed to recognize Creamer's rookie year wasn't even comparable to former greats such as Juli Inskter (2 major in her rookie year), Karri Web or Se Ri Park (4 win, 2 major).

I would even say Creamer got more hype than she deserved. Not that she was one heck of player but people praise her like there weren't any rookie better than her are clearly missing the point.
2006-01-06 @ 16:42
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
Ronnie seems to be more of a Creamer fanatic, than any of the Wie Warriers are over Wie.

I don't think anyone on these boards have claimed that Wie will win a major on the mens tour.
What has been consistantly said is that she is the best young player, and one of the best female players, and a player who has shown good form at the very top level of the sport on the pga at the ages of 14 and 15.
She has also shown that she has lots of potential.

Question for the Wie doubters:
What place does she need to finish in at the Sony, in order for you to say, hold on a minute, maybe she can be a pga tour player?

I think it can be assumed making the cut is a requirement of yours. So what else, where does she need to finish? Top 70%, Top 50%?
2006-01-06 @ 18:40
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
June, I don't know where to start with you. Didn't Under Par give you the rules? Drinking and posting just don't mix!
2006-01-06 @ 18:50
Comment from: Ronnie [Visitor]
What you are all missing out on is Paula Creamer's mental strength.

Did anyone watch the Solheim Cup?

She practically won it for the US on her own.

She is the toughest player on the lpga. She hadn't the experience to topple Annika this year. It was her rookie year after all.
Next year will be different, and Paula Creamer will be world number 1 under the new women's ranking system in 2007.

Some people here have admitted that she is likely to take over as number 1. What you seem to not be able to understand is that, when she takes over, she will want new challenges.
Creamer hasn't failed at any challenge yet and that is why she will move to and dominate the pga.

At this moment Creamer is not some Nike girl, so she doesn't have big teams of engineers trying to make the best possible clubs for her.
When she is world number 1 and states her interest in taking on the men, then the club manufacturers will be clambering to give her the best clubs to increase her driving distance.
2006-01-06 @ 19:00
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim Furyk about Michelle Wie:
He told reporters: "Michelle Wie's a great talent... I would not be surprised at all if she made the cut next week. She's definitely one in a million, or one in a billion, as a player.

"She hits it good and she's come within a shot of making the cut at least a couple of times. That's pretty special."

******************************

Oops, Under Par, it looks like we have another feminist following whatever you call them.
2006-01-06 @ 20:12
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Head to head with Annika last year in comon tournaments. at least as far as I could figure.

Annika 4 Michelle 2 Tie 1
Annika 14 Paula 2 Tie 1

Golf is not auto racing and Michelle Wie is not Dianica Patrick. A millionaire is not at a disadvantage for not being a multimillionaire.
2006-01-06 @ 21:17
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
NORMAN

I think I can answer your question about what Wie has to do next week at the Sony to silence her critics. WIN. If she finishes 2nd Chris will add the Sony to the list of consecutive losses by Michelle Wie.
2006-01-06 @ 21:20
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
Norman--I will answer you're question as a Wie skeptic(not a full-fledged doubter). I think making the cut at the Sony would be a wonderful accomplishment and a great confidence builder for Michelle. As you have said in the past she could finish dead last over the weekend and still call the tournament a success, but it is still just one tournament on what is essentially her home course. I would like to see her make the cut at the Sony and in the near future follow it up with another cut made at a PGA tour event(perhaps even with a higher final finish). Progression is what we should be looking for in her golf game. I think it is a huge leap from where she is now challenging for LPGA titles and trying to be competitive on the men's tour. They are not mutually exclusive of each other. I would like to see her win some women's titles before I felt she was ready to earn and retain a PGA tour card. She has so much potential and promise, but also many questions to answer regarding her finishing capability. Sorry Norman it was a bit rambling, but those are my thoughts.
2006-01-06 @ 21:42
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

You've failed to comprehend my position. I have said that:

1. Wie will make a cut eventually. In fact, although I have made a monetary bet that it won't happen at the Sony, I wouldn't be surprised if she did make the cut there this time. I give her a 35% chance of doing so at THAT event.

2. I have never said that she isn't a prodigy -- I simply maintain that she's over-hyped and has been unladylike in some comments in the not-too-distant past.

3. I don't rule out the possibility that she may be able to qualify for the PGA Tour one day. Golf doesn't encompass as many facets of physicality as most sports, which is why a 51-year-old like Jay Haas can be a force. Thus, it's not inconceivable that a Wie-like woman might be able to make some inroads. What I have scoffed at is the notion that she may be a real contender on it one day, something that many ignorant laymen -- many of whom write for American newspapers -- have implied or asserted.

Moreover, let's gain some perspective here. The real debate here centers around how much she can improve. The Wiemen think that what she has exhibited is just the tip of the iceberg, whereas I maintain that there isn't as much left in the tank as you may think. I've seen early bloomers before, and Wie has shown every sign that this is just what she is. I hope you can grasp my position now.

Ronnie,

You're showing your hacker colors again. You actually have said that Creamer ISN'T playing with the best equipment, equipment designed to maxmize her distance. Ron, who do you think Creamer is, some hack playing for a Division III college team?

Let me clue you in on something: it is now standard on the tours to have your swing computer analyzed so that equipment can be tailor-made for you. It is not something reserved for only the very best players, and these pros cross every "t" and dot every "i." Furthermore, Creamer is already one of the best female players in the world; to think that she can't have the best of everything is quite silly.

Lastly, Ron, I'm only a seven handicap at the moment, and even I intend to have my swing analyzed for the purposes of having clubs custom-made within the foreseeable future.

There's no charge for this golf lesson, you little 100-shooter you.
2006-01-06 @ 23:06
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

I'll answer your question. Since one event doesn't even come close to constituting a scientific sample, it will not necessarily be indicative of a person's overall level of play. Thus, to account for sample variance, I would have to say that she'd have to finish in the top 50% for me to be disposed to alter my position. Having said that, finishing in the top 70% (not including cut players) would raise my eyebrows a bit.
2006-01-07 @ 08:11
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim Coulthard said:
Head to head with Annika last year in comon tournaments. at least as far as I could figure.

Annika 4 Michelle 2 Tie 1
Annika 14 Paula 2 Tie 1
*******************************

It looks as if Paula has a long way to go to challenge and beat Annika regularly. Paula had a good rookie season, but if she's going to topple Annika, as Ronnie suggests, there is alot of work to be done. The simple analysis of the figures show that if Annika is in a tournament, Paula has an extremely small chance of winning the tournament, since she can only finish ahead of Annika 11% of the time, which in itself doesn't guarantee winning.
2006-01-07 @ 09:33
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
I think it may take Creamer a bit longer than a year or two to topple Sorenstam. That is, assuming that Sorenstam doesn't lose her motivation and Creamer is capable of doing it in the first place. Quite frankly, if Sorenstam mantains her current level of play, I don't see Creamer becoming a dominant number one. At best, I think she'd simply join her at the pinnacle of women's golf.
2006-01-07 @ 09:58
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Seems a bit premature to crown creamer as the next #1. She needs to balance her game before she can consistantly win. She's a strong putter, but was 65th in average driving distance last year. Good putting is something that comes and goes. If she can make progress in her long game over the next couple of years she may have a chance, but she has more than just Annika to worry about, Ai and Morgan are strong short game players too.
2006-01-07 @ 10:49
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Under Par

The other three are not over hyped? Look at Annika. Do you really think she was the best female athlete 3 years in a row, including the Olympic year of 2004? Do you really think Annika wasn't over hyped when she played the men at the Colonial? Does it strike you as odd that her run of AP Athlete of the year awards starts the year of the 2003 Colonial? Did you notice how much coverage was given to Michelle's 82 at the Open and how little to Annika's 77 or Paula's 79? Notice how little attention was given to Morgan's 3rd round loss last year in the US Junior Girls? In May or so of last year there were people who wanted to already declare Annika the Sports Illustrated Athlete for all of 2005.
2006-01-07 @ 13:43
Comment from: Ronnie [Visitor]
How could Paula Creamer be overhyped? She is the future of women's golf after all. Admitedly Wie is in the future of womens golf also, but her role is more of many 2nd place finishes to The Ice Creamer. Perhaps, when Paula wins 5 or more titles this season, more people will begin to come around to the reality.

Chris Baldwin is some sort of genius among the masses.
He has stated: "Paula Creamer better than Wie, and will always be better than Wie".
This was a bold statment to make at the time, but who could disagree with him now.

After all Creamer is a 4 time winner, and there could have been more titles if there hadn't been a dominant woman like Annika around.

The Pink Panther found her feet this year on the tour, and over the next few seasons, Chris Baldwin and myself will be able to bask in her achievements.
2006-01-07 @ 14:22
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Jim,

You see, you ascribe to me views that I don't hold because of your own biases. Yes, Sorenstam WAS hyped around the time of the Colonial! That's part of my point: the media are bent on exalting women because they feed at the trough of feminism.

As far as being voted AP Female Athlete of the Year, I have to part company with you there. I can't think of a more dominant female athlete in any mainstream sport, can you? Not that I'm a fan of Sorenstam, I'm not. But fair is fair.

Ronnie,

The only thing you'll be basking in is knowledge of your profound ignorance.
2006-01-07 @ 18:20
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par, several Wie fan(atic)s have used as proof of Wie's preeminence the words of Phil, Ernie, and Jim F. Their words are proof of just this: Despite the fondest wishes of the feminist Gestapo, chivalry is not dead.
2006-01-07 @ 18:52
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
There appears to be a strong pro-white bias in Female AP Athlete of the Year. Since Wilma Rudolph in 1960-1961 , there have been 9 multiple winners of the award, all white: Mickey Wright, Kathy Whitworth, Billie Jean King, Chris Evert(4 times), Tracey Austin, Nancy Lopez, Martina Navratalova, Monica Seles, and now Annika(3 times). Jennifer Capriati(2001) won as many times as Marion Jones(2000) and Serena Williams(2002). Venus Williams has never won.

In those 44 years athletes from the largely white sports of tennis and golf have won 17 times and 11 times. By contrast there have been only 5 track and field winners, and only 2 basketball players--sports with a lot of black players.
2006-01-07 @ 19:29
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Under Par.

Correct me if you think I am wrong.

Stuart Appleby pre tournament interview at the Mercedes.

We had Annika out at Colonial which was very deserved. There was a girl that was the best player in jthe world who stressed more than once that she wanted to see how she could play against the boys. I guess she earned the right to do that. [My comment: The last sentence is a coded way of telling us the first two sentences were PC nonsense that he does not believe--damning her with faint praise, so to speak.]

He continued: Michelle I guess is the opposite, absolutely hugh amount of potential, but has not earned the status...

Would you agree with what Appleby actually said, that Annika earned the right and Michelle Wie did not--or would you agree with what I read between the lines saying that neither one did? Or perhaps would you have some other view? It seemed to me that Appleby was being much more careful PC-wise talking about Annika than he was talking about Wie.
2006-01-07 @ 20:18
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Stop talking like a PC dolt and playing the race card. Maybe there's a strong golf and tennis bias in the AP.

All joking aside, that is to be expected because those have been the highest profile female sports during the whoe period you mentioned. What can compare? The WNBA was instituted just recently. There is no high profile women's baseball or football league. Use some common sense.
2006-01-07 @ 20:23
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
There were two winners from college basketball. I think there is more basketball, college and pro than Golf.
2006-01-07 @ 22:34
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Just to get one thing straight.
diarrhoea is the correct spelling.
I hate arrogant, big talking, bigheaded, chesty, cocky, crapper, gall, ham, hot shot, hot stuff, immodest, know-it-all, loudmouth, narcissistic, overweening, phony, puffed up, self-important, smart-alecky, snooty, stuck up, swollen-headed, vain, vainglorious, windbags
Alan M
2006-01-08 @ 06:17
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Attention all posters! Know ye by these presents that Alan is back! And he's mad as hell and he's not taking it any more! He's kicking butt and taking names! Notice how he poured a veritable Niagara of vitriol on his tormentor. I'll tell you folks, you just can't learn that kind of English composition at Harvard, Duke, or Stanford. Or even in the UK at Oxford or Cambridge. Oh no, Alan honed his rapier-like wit on the hard-scrabble, mean streets of the East End. Welcome back, Alan! Long live the King! By the way,"diarrhoea" is the correct spelling if one is using the Geoffrey Chaucer Dictionary of Olde English, written circa 1400 A.D. The preferred spelling for the last 600 years has been "diarrhea". Your spelling some posts back was "dihhorrea".
2006-01-08 @ 12:06
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
Chaps
I think you missed the point.
Alan M
2006-01-08 @ 19:05
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
I am curious about you guys.
Do you actually work for a living? I notice the numbers of posts you make throughout the day at various times. I guess you are both retired.
Alan M
2006-01-08 @ 19:25
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alan,

I'm financially independent enough so that I don't have to work at the moment, praise Jesus. Nevertheless, I do my writing because that is my calling. So, I'm not idle.
2006-01-08 @ 20:50
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Comment from: alan [Visitor]

I hate arrogant, big talking, bigheaded, chesty, cocky, crapper, gall, ham, hot shot, hot stuff, immodest, know-it-all, loudmouth, narcissistic, overweening, phony, puffed up, self-important, smart-alecky, snooty, stuck up, swollen-headed, vain, vainglorious, windbags **

I'm sorry you hate yourself, Alan.

-George
2006-01-09 @ 19:35
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
I have just read 10 articles on the net about MW. None of them could be considered hype. Some were a little negative.
Alan M
2006-01-11 @ 12:16
Comment from: Lee Rogers [Visitor]
Are you sure 57775 about this?!?
2006-09-14 @ 20:24

Comments are closed for this post.

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

Dates: January 5, 2014 - December 20, 2014
TEE FOR TWO package includes a golf front suite for 5 nights at this country club resort overlooking the Wailea Blue Course, will suit couples or twosomes to a tee and play two rounds of golf at each of the famous Wailea golf courses including the Wailea Blue, Wailea Gold and Wailea Emerald courses for a total of six rounds of golf and 5-day Compact Car Rental.
Price range: $2280