There are all kinds of people making a living on wie. Bald wins a piece by bashing her.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

YAWN.....................................

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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
*****

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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".

IN 2006...WIESY WILL MAKE THEM ALL QUIESY!

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.

NorCal Golfer--

I was referring to something written about Michelle Wie -why would I even think about posting that article about Paula Creamer ?

Baldwin--

Michelle's in the new ESPN The Magazine too--in case you want to bitch about that for your next blog.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And it doesn't mean they should, although that is modern dogma.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!)

lol...i spelt "goal" wrong as gole...sorry that just irritated me...

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.

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)

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...

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

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.

.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.