The Michelle Wie hype disappears even before Sony meltdown? Aloha, Hawaii

Well done Chris, you genius.

You are a man of great intellect and understanding.

You understand how the hype around Wie has built up.

You know that she hasn't won anything much since 2003, and you understand that there are far better female players out there.

You also understand that Paula Creamer is better than Michelle Wie and will always be better than Michelle Wie.

It is nice for Michelle to open some doors to the pga for women, but we know that Paula will be the one to walk through those doors.

Well done Chris Baldwin for your inciteful column.

On another blog, I predicted that Chris Baldwin would print his article on Thursday night, if it seemed that a cut was beyond reach.

The content, is pretty predictable and much of it could have been cut and pasted from his previous articles.

Chris, you really read some words of wisdom, that one of your biggest fans Under Par wrote:

**************************
Golf is a sport where your scores vary greatly from say to day. This is attributable to two things: firstly, the great number of variables on a glf course and, secondly and more significantly, the fact that even a couple of rounds of golf do NOT constitute a scientific sample, making what's known as "sample variance" a great factor.
***************************

I think Wie should be afforded the playing of her 2nd round, and her performance judged at that stage.

Ronnie,

"Inciteful" . . . that's an interesting way to put it. If that's not a mistake, very clever indeed.

Chris,

I like your column and agree with you. But from one "inciteful" columnist to another, quotation marks always go outside of periods.

Chris Baldwin,

Your fans consist of:
- Ronnie
- Under Par
- Alex

Are you very proud?
Keep in mind that you like to insult Wie's fan base.

This must be wonderful day for you, Chris. Can't wait another minute, huh?

As usual pathetic. Neccessary evil of free internet, aren't you?

I forgot to mention, Chris, but you mentioned that Wie was smart to sign her contract when she did. I have often thought that Wie timed things just right, and in a very calculated fashion. They played the Wie stock just right: they judged perfectly when the wave would crest and cashed in before Wie was exposed for the all-sizzle-and-no-steak player she is. What a con.

Here is something that the anti-Wie brigade should ponder?

- Is Wie's 79 a dreadful 1st round?
- How dreadful is it?
- Should she be scoring better since this is her 4th attempts at a pga event?

Here is an interesting fact.
- In Tiger's 5th pga event, he opened with an 80.

Facts are hard to dispute.

Norman, here is my advice to you and to all remaining Wie fan(atic)s: Give up. Throw in the towel.Surrender. Do it now, soon, before it's too late. It won't hurt that much, the French have been doing it for years. In case you didn't notice, your sweetheart is tied for DEAD LAST! That's LAST, baby! And she isn't ahead of a single "Q" school grad. She's not out of it yet, though. If she breaks the course record and nobody else breaks par, she might, I say MIGHT, make the cut. BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH----.

Well...I did predict that she would not make the cut, but Mr. Baldy, you know as well as I do, that the Michelle story will be around for years. No offense to you, Par, Alex or Ronnie, but people will always have an interest in Michelle...if not why would you be writing this blog?

On another note:

She performed horribly, and I do agree that she's not ready to play on the PGA, but if you also think about Tiger and how he did in his first few starts...

Who knows? Maybe with a few years, Mi-hyun Kim will gain 100 yards and become the new queen of the LPGA!

Or maybe Paula will get a sex-change and start shooting some hormone-enhancment pills so she can compete on the men's tour...I mean she does look like one anyway!

Or maybe Pressel will lose some weight...actually A LOT of WEIGHT and become the next Natalie Gulbis!

Or maybe Michelle will burn out faster than you can say Se Ri Pak.

My point is that you never know what the future will bring. Case in point: Mr. Woods himself.

Patrick,

Actually, what has transpired in Woods' case was predicted from the get-go.

Really? When he entered his 4th PGA tournament (missing the cut) he was predicted to arguably be the greatest golfer to ever live

Michelle Wie din't want to worry about any bad luck on Friday the 13th. Now she doesn't have to worry.

In the past the networks showed every freaking shot by her. This year ESPN decided to not even broadcast her round. That shows interest is waning.

Blazer-
Just look at this website, obviously interest isn't waning on Michelle Wie.
The majority of the articles and posts are about her...

She was a topic on all of ESPN's talk shows today. ESPN didn't broadcast her round because they started 6:30 pm and her round was already over. If you actually watched the ESPN broadcast you would know that they showed highlights (as few as there were) of Wie's round today.
They also talked about her throughout the almost 3 hour broadcast. Not only that --the commercials advertising the Sony Open, and the golf pages of SI.com and ESPN.com are featuring her prominently.

Alex said
And she isn't ahead of a single "Q" school grad.
**********************************
Oh rats Alex, don't you hate it when somebody comes along and blows the perfect post? Jimmy Walker snuck in at the 11th hour and snagged opening day 144th all to himself...but he got his card by finishing #1 on the Nationwide Tour in 2004 so maybe you can still get some "Q" School mileage.

ESPN just ran the highlights or lowlights from the Sony depending on your perspective. They did not tease Michelle Wie as is normally the custom and they buried the highlights in the 20th minute of the show. I don't think this shows interest is waning If anything they were protecting Michelle, if she had played well, anything near par they would have led the show with her. I was actually impressed with Michelle today, she obviously had a tough day, but she managed to pull things together(relatively speaking) on her second nine and was able to hold her head high when it was obvious to all that she had no business being out there today. She was quoted as saying in her post round press conference that she, "couldn't beleive she played so bad", and that she, "just wanted some chocolate" We all get ahead of ourselves either praising her or bashing her. That quote should serve to remind all of us that she is just a young girl with a load of talent who is out there doing her best against far superior competition. Patrick good to hear from you, but under par is right, no one questioned Tiger's future success because of his 6 consecutive Amateur titles(3 US Juniors and 3US amateurs) it was widely believed that he could become one of the greatest of all time. This is a luxury that Michelle Wie does not have, for all her talent we still are not sure has that killer instinct and subsequent ability to win. I am suprised nobody has raised the mental aspects of her woeful putting. Surely with the best coaches and teachers it can't be technique. Home course knowledge would eliminate any unfamiliarity with the greens. When are we going to question her mental toughness?

Stone said
When are we going to question her mental toughness?
*********************************
I think you may be confusing confidence and toughness. You develop confidence by succeeding. You develop toughness by getting knocked down and getting back up again (Reference Army Bootcamp among other sources). Michelle's second nine was toughness...she could have blown it clear out to the low 90's without half trying...but she didn't. Her confidence however could very definitely use a boost long about now. And a couple of good stiff choclate bars probably won't hurt either.

Patrick,

Yes, I understand that since you're very young, you may not remember the hype surrounding Woods about twelve years ago. I can assure you, however, it was intense. He was anointed as the man who was going to be the best of all time long before he ever had any professional success. This was largely because his exploits in the amateur ranks quickly became legendary.

In fact, if you want to know, he was over-hyped as well. So much so, that even he, as great as he is, hasn't quite been able to live up to the hype.

Jerrod,

Unlike last year they did not broadcast her round much less her every shot. That's a red flag that interest is waning in this media generated phenomenon.

During the broadcast the announcers "apologized" and "alibied" for her poor showing.

If you're a Wie fan then you should get used to that.

Patrick,

By stating Tiger hasn't lived up to any level of hype shows me your lack of sports knowledge. He's the most influential sports figure since Muhammad Ali.

You lost me there too Under Par. Arguably, no athlete in history's lived up to the hype as well as Tiger Woods.

He was hyped almost as much as the Winless Wie Wonder. The difference is he did things to deserve it and skyrocketed past even his incredible hype. That's how good Tiger is.

I NEVER stated that he hasn't lived up to the hype, Blazer. I was simply asking if he was hyped up to be the greatest golfer ever lived (possibly?) at the time when he was on his 4th PGA start as Michelle currently is...

I said:
***********
Really? When he entered his 4th PGA tournament (missing the cut) he was predicted to arguably be the greatest golfer to ever live?
***********

No where in that post did I deny his fulfillment of expectations. I was simply asking if he was hyped up to be what he is now...get your facts straight blazer, then you can start accusing others with your faulty logic.

Also...have you ever heard of Lance Armstrong? Maybe even Jack Nicklaus? I'm sure you must agree that he's just as much as an influence as Tiger is today...he IS the record holder of Majors...With you stating that Tiger is the most influencial athlete since Ali also exhibits your narrow intellect as a sports-fan. There are numerous athletes that have created a historic influence in their own sport, and for you to state that Tiger is the greatest of them all is a bit fallacious. Enough on you...when you get you facts straight, come and talk to me.

-----------------


Under Par, was he over-hyped as well? I had no clue...did Tiger have the same buzz back then as Michelle is having now? I would think so, but how could anyone predict Tiger of becoming one of the greats of the game when he missed all of his PGA cuts? (Also, the amateur records are INCREDIBLE achievements, but what happened to amateurs like Jay Sigel (men's amateur '82-'83) and Harvie Ward Jr. (men's amateur ('55-'56) I mean...Tiger's 3 in a row was a great feat, but lots of amateur champions have faded away, just like the people I mentioned above...

Stone said:
Patrick good to hear from you, but under par is right, no one questioned Tiger's future success because of his 6 consecutive Amateur titles(3 US Juniors and 3US amateurs)
********************************

Stone, you have mis-stated so many facts it is difficult to keep count.
Try not to worry though, Under Par is worse.

- You say that nobody questioned Tiger because of his 6 amatuer titles.

Here is the REAL FACTS:
* For Tiger's 1st pga tour attempt, he had won 1 US amateur JUNIOR title.
* For Tiger's 2nd, 3rd and 4th pga tour attempts, he had won 2 amateur JUNIOR titles at that stage.

Stone, Under Par, and others have tried to claim, that Tiger was getting these sponspors exemptions to the pga tour, because he was a 6 time amateur title.
The reality is, that all he had, up to the point of completing his 4th pga tour apperance, was two JUNIOR amateur championships. He had no adult amateur titles at that stage.

Hopefully I have cleared up this mis-information okay.

Patrick---move on to another topic, please, your youth is showing. Go back and watch the footage of Tiger back then. Tiger won 6 in a row (3 juniors, followed by 3 men's amateurs)and he did it in every concievable fashion, coming from behind, dominating from the get go and he did it with style breaking out his now trademark fist pump. Yes, people knew, even when he missed his first cuts, they, we, everybody knew he was the one. There is no way for me to overstate this, it was not just his record setting amateur perfromances it was him, it was his confidence, his single minded determination even when missing cuts he had IT. You can't define IT you just know and Michelle doesn't have IT, not right now, she doesn't have the killer instinct, the cut throat crush your competition attitude like all the greats have had. She may get IT one day, but she didn't have it in the amateurs, she doesn't have it on the PGA Tour and she hasn't shown it yet on the LPGA by winning. You can continue to compare Michelle to Tiger, but the clock is ticking.

Norman---I am refering of course to when he was 20 and coming off his final men's amateur, people certainly knew then. Even when he was missing the cut in his fourth try people still knew that he would be special, more importantly he knew. Does Michelle truly have that confidence, does she know? Do we know? We can argue who knew when all day long. I've grown weary of it. Tiger's record speaks for itself now and so does Michelle's. Tiger's says I am one of the greatest winner's at every level of all time in my sport. Michelle's says I have not shown the ability to win yet, but hey Tiger didn't make any cuts either at my age. You are free to keep using the comparison until Michelle reaches 20 and then you are going to look awfully foolish. Norman, she played poorly yesterday, get over it, big deal she will be back, but we skeptics have every right to question her confidence, career path and results. Maybe you should take Asia Guy's stance and give up on her golf game and focus on her academic achievements, to date they have been more impressive. All you do is spout stats, do you have any opinions of your own, you know like human ones that are not formed by raw numbers. You surely remember the Tiger hype, are you seriously going to argue that people did not know he was the real deal. Are you going to hold on to this Tiger comparison till the bitter end when surely your eyes tell you that Michelle is not Tiger, she is not even Tiger Lite or the female version of Tiger. When are you going to think for yourself and put away the numbers and just go with the feeling you have in your gut. You know you are doubting her right now, all the talk of progression in her game, all her new shots, all the hype.. all the inevitable letdown.

"I think I played an amazing round today. The wind just kept coming up right after I hit my shots. I mean, I hit them perfectly, and then huge gusts of wind came from nowhere. So, shots that might have gone right into the hole, got blown into the sand. But overall, I played a flawless match."

Stone,
Opinions are opinions, we all have them, but facts are things which are indisputable.

You have expressed opinions time and again, but when it comes to the crunch and you have tried to back up your opinions with facts, you have always come up short.

Your argument failed, when you said Tiger deserved his sponsors exemptions because his amateur success. I proved that he had virtually no success, and all his success was at a junior level, when he was getting these exemptions.

This is where the argument is. Does she deserve her exemptions? The arguement is not that she will be a better player than Tiger and start winning mens major championships and stuff. I think this is where you are losing the point. You think that I am saying she is better than Tiger and will stay better than Tiger. That is not the point I am making at all. The point I am making is that she deserves her sponsors exemptions to the pga tour every bit as much as Tiger Woods did. Sure she had a bad round, but Tiger had a worse round, in his exemptions. He shot an 80 in the opening round of his fifth attempt.

You seem to be calling for Michelle to be stopped enter events because she hit a 79.
When Tiger entered his fifth attempt, he opened with an 80. Should they have stopped him entering more pga events. Remember he didn't even have any amatuer mens titles at that stage. So you can't use his proven track record as an amateur, because he hadn't got it at that stage.


As regards trying to pull Michelle's first round into some kind of catastrophy, it wasn't. It was one day. Everybody has them.
Some top class pga tour golfers still have them. Refief Goosen to name one.
I can tell you for absolute certain, that my belief in Michelle, has not wained one bit. I have played golf, and watched golf for too long to be put off by one round of golf. I still believe totally that Michelle is the real deal. She won't have success waiting for her at every turn, but I believe she has the determination to get through.

For example, after the round yesterday, maybe you would have expected her to sneek off for a bit of a cry. What did she actually do? She headed out to the range and went through a few bucket fulls of golf balls with her swing coach. That says to me that she has it.

Patrick,

Apologies if I misunderstood your post.

That said, Tiger is a sportsman who transcends his game much like Ali, though to a lesser extent.

I'm not saying he's better than Jack, but it's clear to me he's bigger than Jack ever was.

well said Norman. Just a couple of points of clarification. I have never said that she does not deserve sponser's exemptions as I recognize that these exemptions are as much about marketing and revenue as they are about golf. Also I have never discouraged her from playing against the men, I have just asserted my opinion that right now and for the forseeable future she is outclassed and may be doing damage to her confidence by continuing to pursue this endeavor. I wish Michelle the best of luck in today's round and going forward in the future, I just tend to judge her a little bit more critically then you do. I just want to know when it will be acceptable to question Michelle's results and her career path and arc. I was impressed she held her composure unlike when she broke down after being disqualified in her first LPGA tournament, she was for the record trying very hard to keep her voice steady at her post round press conference. I could not agree more with the fact that we can not judge her based on one round of golf, but as her attempts at making the cut continue to sail by the boards eventually one must look at them as a pattern.

Patrick wrote:
"That said, Tiger is a sportsman who transcends his game much like Ali, though to a lesser extent. I'm not saying he's better than Jack, but it's clear to me he's bigger than Jack ever was."

======================

Hmmm. Couldn't have said it better myself. :-)

Thanks Stone,
To try to answer some of your questions, it is my opinion that she should continue to play the Sony Open. It is her home course and many golfers receive exemptions to their own home courses.

I do not believe that she should accept many exemptions to pga events. If she takes one more pga exemption this year, I think that would be plenty. I am of the opinion that she should try to improve her game more, and only then take it to the pga more. Sure she should try to qualify for the US Open, but not too many exemptions.

I don't agree that she is outclassed, we will just have to disagree there.


As regards looking at her missed cuts as a pattern, there are 2 types of missed cuts:
1. Sony 04 & John Deere, that is where she is competitive and at least close to the cut.
2. Sony 05 an 06, that is where she plays badly, period.

If she had many of category 2, I would hope that she would just take a step back, and give it some time and try to improve her game before going back to it.
If she had many of category 1, it would depend, if she lost it, like the John Deere, and Casio, or if she nearly made it, like the Sony 04.

Obviously losing it is not good for confidence, but I am afraid I don't have the answer of what to do. From personal experience I would say, just stick with it.

First of all, I never said that Woods' exemptions were always based on his six big amateur wins. What I said was that he was hyped like no one I had ever seen before. And, Patrick, you can believe me on this because I lived through it.

Chris,

When I said that Woods hasn't lived up to the hype, I was being precise. As is always the case with these things, many of the people hyping Woods were mainstream media types who knew nothing about golf. Consequently, they would sometimes talk as if he was going to ascend to a point where he'd win every tournament in sight. Why, I remember what happened after Woods' first Masters win. When he competed in subsequent tournaments and didn't prevail, I heard some people actually wonder how it could be.

NO ONE could live up to the kind of hype that surrounded him. When they assign you demi-god status, merely measuring up to the standards of the greatest of all time doesn't pass muster.

Lastly, Patrick, Woods has transcended sport in a way Nicklaus never did. It's a different time now; there's more focus on sports and the world is "smaller." There's also the fact that he is a half-black man in a "white" sport, which makes him a novelty and adds to his cachet. If you want to understand that factor, just think of the kind of press a dominant white heavyweight boxing champion would get, then add a PCness element to it.

Under Par,
Klitchko has been a dominant white world champion, but I don't think he is getting that much press.

If he were American he would though, because as you said of the unusual factor.

Norman,

I don't know who Klitchko is, but if he were the World Champion I'm sure I would have heard of him. I was speaking of a white guy who became World Champion.

Vitaly Klitschko recently retired as WBC Heavyweight champion of the world and there is actually another white heavyweight champion named Nicolay Valuev who is the new WBA champ an interesting note he is 7' and 330 pounds, talk about your Ivan Drago clone.

Stone said:
******************
Patrick---move on to another topic, please, your youth is showing. Go back and watch the footage of Tiger back then. Tiger won 6 in a row (3 juniors, followed by 3 men's amateurs)and he did it in every concievable fashion, coming from behind, dominating from the get go and he did it with style breaking out his now trademark fist pump.
********************

I have seen his 3 amateur wins on the Golf Channel, thank you very much, and I do not question the significance of those three wins. (i said: (Also, [his] amateur records are INCREDIBLE achievements, but what happened to amateurs like Jay Sigel (men's amateur '82-'83) ?) I was simply asking a question, because there have been many great multiple amateur winners (those two above won it consecutively) that have faded away, how could anyone ever predict any golfer to become the greatest golfer to ever live? I was 4 at the time of his first amateur (mens) victory so I did not know the extent of the hype, so I asked a question to Par which he answered very elegantly. I apologize if my "stuckness" on a topic you have no desire to read about has interupted your vast train of thoughts. (Maybe you could have ignored my post?) I have lost some faith in you as an active commenter on this site, because you have attacked multiple posts by multiple readers with no logical sense. I simply wanted to know the extent of Tiger's hype...I'm sorry if my inhability to accquire knowledge about the world of golf at age four (when Tiger was 18) has angered you.

[Let me point you into a new direction regaurding the physical and mental state of being "stuck."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553277472/103-0233998-0642202?v=glance&n=283155

There are some great passages in there that explain quality as a result of being "stuck." I recommend this great piece of literature for all...]

__________________


ON ANOTHER NOTE:

Today's weather is going to be very tough, very windy and it has been raining on and off (the rain was pouring about 5 minutes ago, but it has halted for a moment). I predict Michelle to shoot another round over par...maybe 75-76-ish.

Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
** Chris Baldwin,

Your fans consist of:
- Ronnie
- Under Par
- Alex

Are you very proud?
Keep in mind that you like to insult Wie's fan base.
**

Norman. Regarding Ronnie. Do you REALLY believe Ronnie is being serious?

Norman, you can't really be such a so mind-bogglingly dumb that you are unable to see that Ronnie is deliberately over-praising Creamer in a fashion to mock Chris Baldwin. (who foolishly once opined that Paula Creamer would forever be better than Michelle Wie, even though that kind of prediction that would span a career of potentially 20-30 years for both women can never be made with certainty)

Then again, Norman, you demonstrated a few weeks ago how thick-headed you are because you didn't even know the proper uses of the word "bested". If you forgot that one, I can repost your comments, which were silly even for you.

Plus, you are a Wie Warrior to boot. And this particular club does require that its members exhibit a certain level of blindness and lunacy to remain in good standing.

Don't worry, though. Keep posting you empty-headed inanities, Norman, and someday you'll be as much of a big shot in the Wie Warriors club as June, Coulthard and Alan.

One warning, Norman: You will have to work hard to join the TinFoil Trio and make it a Quack Quartet. But I KNOW you can do it!

-George

** Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

In fact, if you want to know, [Woods] was over-hyped as well. So much so, that even he, as great as he is, hasn't quite been able to live up to the hype. **

[Boggles]

Umm ... Being the first to be the defending champ for all modern majors?

Having a type of grand slam named after him?

Being comfortably ahead of Jack's remarkable pace for career majors?

Tiger hasn't lived up to the hype? Riiiiiight.

And you were doing so well up until then, U.P. But it all came crashing down on you with that last comment. Deservedly so, too.

-George

George,
How dare you refer to me as mocking Chris Baldwin. I have looked at most of Chris Baldwin's blogs, and been impressed for the most part.

Sure, he comes down a bit hard on Wie, but you can hardly blame him.
Yes she has some talent, but come on she is seriously overhyped.

This season Paula Creamer has won 4 events. How many has Wie won? Zero, that's how many.

So George, wake up and recognise the reality. Creamer is better than Wie, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with predicting that she will be for years to come.

I have laid out a plan for Creamer, and it is quite a modest one. Maybe when she takes over as women's number 1 in 2007, you may start to get with it.

George,

You failed to grasp my point. I'm not going to rehash what I said, so if you want to try to understand it you'll have to scroll up.

As far as a "slam" being named after Woods goes, you've got to be kidding me. That's a result of the hype! Woods nuts (they're like Wiemen) invented that term because they were intent upon crediting Woods with a slam even though he didn't win one. It was unbelievable that he won four majors back-to-back, but a slam it wasn't. I'm not going to participate in the dumbing down of tradition simply because some idol worshippers want to exalt the object of their fawning.

** Comment from: Ronnie [Visitor]
George,
How dare you refer to me as mocking Chris Baldwin. **

Ronnie, my British and/or Canadian friend,
I dare to do so ...

... because it's true.

-George

from under par
** I'm not going to rehash what I said, so if you want to try to understand it you'll have to scroll up. **

[shrug]

** As far as a "slam" being named after Woods goes, you've got to be kidding me. That's a result of the hype! **

If anybody else wins four in a row over two seasons, then maybe it would be over-hyped.

** Woods nuts **

Oh yeah, because Tiger has done SO LITTLE to merit admiration!
Tiger's Troops may be nutty, but it's hardly because he's never shown the ability to stage a late charge, blow the field away, win with a miraculous put, etc, etc. That's never happened!


** (they're like Wiemen) **

again, you were doing so well up to here.

Really, there's no comparison. The Wie Warriors base their adulation on their projections of what Michelle could, should and would have done, and what she will do or should do.

Tiger's Troops, at least, even if they might be nutty, at least have those 10 majors and amazingly consistent dominance by Tiger Woods to hang their hats on.

Even Paula's Platoons have an argument to be enthusiastic about her. Paula Creamer did win four times as a rookie and led the U.S. team to the Solheim Cup.

Creamer has accomplishments, Tiger has amazing feats, and Michelle Wie has potential.

** invented that term because they were intent upon crediting Woods with a slam even though he didn't win one. It was unbelievable that he won four majors back-to-back, but a slam it wasn't. **

Here's the real key. Four majors won in a row. And he's ahead of Jack's pace.

** I'm not going to participate in the dumbing down of tradition simply because some idol worshippers want to exalt the object of their fawning. **

You're missed the point, but no need to scroll.

Here is the point -- again

There is no fawning.

Tiger's Troops have a bonafide winner to cheer.

Paula's Platoons have a winner to cheer.

Wie's Warriors have potential to dream about.

-George

George,

I'm very close to accusing you of being purposely obtuse. I never said that Woods having won four in a row was hype; I said that creating a new designation for the accomplishment was the result of hype.

Yes, Woods is a bona fide winner, and there is no question in my mind that he's the best of all time in terms of overall level of play. However, that has nothing to do with what golf tradition has always dictated constitutes a "Slam." It is when you win all four major championships during a calendar year. Winning them in a different manner is certainly a great accomplishment, but it's not a "Slam" according to tradition.

Of course, we're not talking about immutable moral principles here such as "Thou shalt do no murder." Man determines what such traditions are and we can certainly change them if we wish. However, you should be smart enough to know that what drives this particular alteration of tradition is a desire to exalt a fair-haired boy. By the way, I'd say that regardless of who had won four in a row.

Patrick said:
I predict Michelle to shoot another round over par...maybe 75-76-ish.
************************************
Congratulations for being able to make an honest (and pretty close to consensus)prediction stated in an unequivocably measureable manner.

Unfortunately Michelle disappointed all her detractors by bouncing back to tie for 12th best round of the day with a 68.

So one day she looks like rag mop flailing at a dust bunny and the next she looks like just another one of the guys perfectly at home and having fun. Geeze you'd think she was a teenager or something.

Just for some reminder. last year 17 year old Brian Harman played in MCI heritage classic. He was one year older than wie and #1 junior in the country. This course was also home course for him. He shot 81-76 15 over par while beating only one player, David Gossett who was playing even worse than David Duval. He also 4 putted TWICE.
According to wie detractors, This kid should have no future at pga tour.

Chris, you keep missing the point. This is a sixteen year old girl who finished ahead of how many men in a PGA event? What does that say about those men? Why don't you rag on them? Should they just give up and quit? You have severe psychological problems.

Toss one race out... as in horses... muddy track, or whatever... Then you have
Vijay Singh 1-under
Michelle Wie 2-under :)

Secretariat lost 5 big ones!

Woods gained most of his fans AFTER he had turned pro and won the 1997 Masters. If Tiger is/was overhyped, then everyone in the history of sports has been overhyped.

My point is, all the Tiger hype was based on brilliant victories and solid play; while the Wie hype is based on the fact that she's 16, female, capable of playing in PGA Tour events and SOMETIMES narrowly missing cuts, and of course that illustrious $10m.

If Tiger was undeserving of hype, Michelle IS undeserving of hype. In fact, the Wie hype is probably unjustified full-stop.

David

Under Par said:
As far as a "slam" being named after Woods goes, you've got to be kidding me. That's a result of the hype! Woods nuts invented that term because they were intent upon crediting Woods with a slam even though he didn't win one. It was unbelievable that he won four majors back-to-back, but a slam it wasn't.
*********************

EXACTLY.
I detest when people try to call it a grand slam. It simply is not.

The same thing happened with Serena Williams in tennis, and she called it a Serena slam. What a big ego. Unfortunately for Serena, it was not a slam.

Norman. It wasn't serena. I believe she was Nabratilova. In Tennis there is no dispute about meaning of grand slam because it was achieved before, so nobody took her claim seriously.

Jay,

Yes, it was Navratilova. By the way, as I've mentioned before, I'm a tennis pro who used to play the satellite circuit.

The very significant different between the Woods and Nav situations is that Woods had the class to not try and dumb down tradition himself. The lesbo, on the other hand, was so interested in exalting herself that she lobbied (figuratively speaking) to have her accomplishment labeled a "Grand Slam."

Jack Weldon, As long as you want to introduce horse racing into this thread, I have a somewhat different analogy. You know those little blurbs in the Racing Form that are written next to each horse's name to describe their performance in that race? Like "won breezing","won ridden out","broke badly, eased", etc.? Michelle's blurb about her performance in the Sony would read: "Out-classed, never a factor."

Mark Nessmith,

Patrick wrote:
"That said, Tiger is a sportsman who transcends his game much like Ali, though to a lesser extent. I'm not saying he's better than Jack, but it's clear to me he's bigger than Jack ever was."

======================

Hmmm. Couldn't have said it better myself. :-)

Actually Mark it was me who wrote that. I guess this is either a case of "great minds think alike" or "fools never differ" :-)

Jay and Under Par,

When Serena Williams won the French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, in one year and then Australian Open, at the start of the next year, she was asked about it, and she said she liked to call it the Serena slam. I don't doubt you that a similar thing happened with Navatilova, but did she never actually win a complete grand slam?

No, Navratilova never did, but she was fairly petulant (my perception) in her insistence that her accomplishment be labeled a "Grand Slam."

Under Par, Since it looks like these Wie threads are thankfully dying a natural death, I'll give you my final comments on the phenomenon of Michelle mania. I usually get my internet jollies from the kook, left-wing political sites, what with their tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. But some of the posts on this board rival any I've seen on the Daily Kos. To the Wie-nuts, nothing but total agreement with their adulation of Michelle is tolerable. Wie is their Messiah, their religion. And the prophet of this religion is Norman. In Norman's world, the fundamental physiological differences between men and women do not apply where Michelle is concerned. To Norman, Michelle's 7-over par missed cut in the 2006 Sony is a sign of vast improvement over her 1-under par missed cut in the 2004 Sony. Jim C is not far behind Norman in his adoration of Michelle. He firmly believes that her missed cut at the 2004 Sony was far more significant than any accomplishment of the pros who made it through the "Q" school. Now that she has a three-peat of missed cuts at the Sony it should be Hall of Fame time for Wie. Under Par, as we both have said, Michelle has tremendous natural ability and the potential to be outstanding on the LPGA tour. But that is not enough for the Wie-nuts. Well, I'm sorry guys, but that is as far as I'm willing to go. To close, Norman, in your customary condescending fashion you often chide other posters when disagreeing with their positions by stating that you have offered "proof" and "facts" to support your bizarre claims. Norman, the only thing you prove with your convoluted, crackpot assumptions is that too much bangers and mash can cause permanent brain damage. Adios, Alex

Under Par said:
No, Navratilova never did, but she was fairly petulant (my perception) in her insistence that her accomplishment be labeled a "Grand Slam."
**************************

Let Navratilova call her's a career grand slam, which is all it is.
She must be really jealous of Steffi. I am right in saying that Steffi won the slam twice, amn't I?

Alex,
I have tried my best to explain how Michelle's 68 this time was much better than her 68 of 2 years ago.

Since you cannot understand, I'm guessing you don't know much about golf. It is the way this score was achieved that makes it so good, but maybe you can't understand that.

I'm glad Alex has seen the light. Hall of Fame for Michelle Wie--and that suggestion comes from a former Wie critic.

Norman

I would say her 68 this year was much different from her 68 two years ago--her 68 then was spectacular, but this one gives indications that she is a better player who might well be able to shoot such rounds on a routine basis.

Give Serena Williams this much. The traditional tennis grand slam always did begin with the French and end with the Australian. If we accept the change we need to accept the idea that there was a year with only 3 Majors.

Norman,

Graf won the Slam once. However, she won the four majors in a row on one other occasion, just not within the same calendar year.

Norman:
** EXACTLY.
I detest when people try to call it a grand slam. It simply is not. **

Sort of like when you Wie Warriors try to say it's a better performance when one misses the cut with a worse performance than previous attempts. Or when you twist yourself into knots when you try to say that not winning is better than winning.

"It simply is not" winning when one doesn't win.
"It simply is not" making the cut when one doesn't make the cut.

I know you and your fellow Wie High Priest Coulthard detest such convultion.

-George

George,
Nobody said her score was better than the previous time.
We simply said her 2nd round of this year was better than her 2nd round of 2 years earlier.

We have come to this conclusion, because of the manner in which it was achieved. Obviously you know very little about golf, if you don't recognise that this 68 was a better round, than the last one.

I don't think anyone on this board has said that not winning is better than winning. However we also recognise that placing 2nd is not the same as placing 22nd, but you probably don't understand that do you?