Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

Michelle Wie is a legend in her own mind and anything about her is depressing. She should try and be a class act like Anika. Alas she is just an ass.

Bangkok Al is Dr. Wie in a bald-head wig and fake moustache. He's trying to defuse the whole incendiary issue by gently criticizing his daughter. For his next act, BJ will emulate Tarik Kan, Paula Creamer's boyfriend. Stay tuned.

"Comment from: RonMon [Visitor] · http://travelgolf.com/blogs/ron.mon
Bangkok Al is Dr. Wie in a bald-head wig and fake moustache. He's trying to defuse the whole incendiary issue by gently criticizing his daughter. For his next act, BJ will emulate Tarik Kan, Paula Creamer's boyfriend. Stay tuned."

I guess you haven't been paying attention Ron. Tarik Kan blogs under the nick "Ronnie" in this forum.

Ha, Ha. That's rich, uno. We share the same name, but not the same views. That's so funny, he blogs under the nick "Ronnie." I never thought of him that way. That's killer.

I hear Michelle's people are asking the LPGA for an extra exemption so she can enter the SBS in Hawaii. What do you all think about that?

I thought rules were rules.

Jimmy Mcceans...how can you call anyone you do not personally know, an ass? That was very immature...and I thought I was immature...

I used to cheer for Michelle Wie a couple of years back, but this thing about playing the men is getting old. If she enjoys learning from the men, she should do what Annika did: befriend Tiger Woods, or other pga player that she admires; and then practice with him. It is amazing that Annika only played one PGA event,started practicing the short game with Tiger and got so much better after that; yet Michelle has not improved much if any. This means she is just wasting her time playing men's events.

hc2.....sez.."Michelle has not improved much if any. This means she is just wasting her time playing in men's events."

Are you sure she has not improved much, if any? How about her 68 in the 2nd round at Sony, where she beat all but 11 golfers in the 144-person field? (143 MEN). She even TIED 2 of the PGA's young guns, Sean O'Hair and Jason Gore at +7 for 2 rounds.You ARE a good deal off in your "No improvement" comment! Just watch her this year doing great on the LPGA tour.

Boola Boss said
'Are you sure she has not improved much, if any? ';
Remember that she shot 68 two years ago and still did not make the cut. Same score same results. Ultimately it comes down to winning and putting. She does not know how to win; and she does not know how to putt. I think her focus in gaining distance is going to backfire because she will lose whatever touch she had around the greens. As far as putting,that has been ignored by everybody including her instructors.
In comparing short games, within 130 years in, Paula Creamer is superior. In putting Morgan Pressell rules. That is why Michelle won't win in 2006. JMHO.

The stats show she has improved every year on the LPGA tour, but not in the men's events.

She had a really great 2005 on the LPGA tour by anyone's standard and she only participated in eight events.

Three second place finishes and one third place finish ain't so bad for a 15 year old with three of them being "Majors" on the LPGA tour.

What in the hell is the LPGA management smoking? Her 2005 record alone should be enough to give her exempt status and then she could forget about the men's events.

HEY LPGA GIVE HER AN ACADEMIC EXEMPTION TO PLAY ON THE TOUR!!!

The LPGA has a whole lot of teenage members now that could use a college education, if they instituted an academic exemption for players. (I guess they just want a bunch of under educated millionaires instead.)

It could be something simple, like if the player is a full-time student they must maintain a 3.0 average and finished in the top 125 in the order in the previous year to play in events on the current tour.

Well this proves the old line, "we support education" is a bunch of crap coming from the LPGA.

I do not understand the comments above that say Michelle's statistics have not improved over the last four years in PGA Tournaments against the men. If you actually take the time to look up the statistics at http://www.pgatour.com you will find a pattern of steady consistent growth across the four years.
While individual stats do fluctuate from year to year, the total picture shows a golfer maturing and developing a more stable overall game.

hc2 "...She does not know how to win; and she does not know how to putt."
*******
What statistic did you use to draw this conclusion? Michelle currently has a 2006 PGA Tournament putting average of 1.762. That would put her at number 56 (out 184) on the current Putting Average List. If only 55 current touring pros putt better than she does, then I would say that she DOES know how to putt, she has just not yet achieved top-tier status in that part of her game.

Since a number of other aspects of her game do not measure up as well, she is probably wise to focus on developing them rather than trying for a major improvement in putting at this particular stage of her development.

"Comment from: John [Visitor]
I do not understand the comments above that say Michelle's statistics have not improved over the last four years in PGA Tournaments against the men."

John, clean the reading glasses man and read what I said again. I was writing about her LPGA stats.

I wrote; "The stats show she has improved every year on the LPGA tour, but not in the men's events."

One-Putt

Perhaps your glasses are dirty as well? I was not challenging your statement about her LPGA stats, I was challenging the last half of your sentence that says "...but not in the men's events."

In fact her statistical performance in the Men's events has improved each year, just as have her stats in the LPGA events.

One-Putt and John

In terms of how much she missed the PGA Sony cut, Wie did better in 2004 than she did in 2006. But if we were to just look at the Kraft Nabisco on the LPGA side, Wie finished higher in 2003(9th)than she did in 2005(14th). But we know that Wie was better on the LPGA in 2005 than she was in 2003 because we have other tournaments we can look at. We don't have much extra data on the PGA side.

What I saw at the 2006 Sony, was a player who dug herself a big hole--but was able to string together 4 birdies in 5 holes and make up 4 shots of her decifit. That was something she could never have done before. And in the 2nd roound she AVERAGED 299.8 yds on her drives.

At the John Deere she was ahead of the cut with a stroke to spare late in the 2nd round--but it looked like she was playing the best she possibly could. At the 2006 SONY she looked much closer to being able to compete even when everything wasn't going her way.

Missing a cut is missing a cut any way you slice it John.

John:'What statistic did you use to draw this conclusion? '
---
Putting statistics would not be reliable because she could have a 'good average' when in fact she is missing close birdie chances. So, instead of relying for such statistic, I base it in just watching her over the past five years, including last year. She has improved her approach shots that now she may hit it closer to the flag; yet from what I have seen when it comes to converting I don't see her making her share. I don't know if they have statistics on putts within 10 feet, and what percentage she has made but I am sure it is very low. In essence she is not taking advantage of her distance, and her ability to hit it close to the flag.

Who else has mentioned about her weakness in putting? Ernie Els,and even Leadbetter. Just go back to how many short putts (under 3 feet for par; and under 10 feet for birdies. she continually misses: 2005 WOmen's open fourth round; final round in 2003 Kraft Nabisco when in final group; 2006 Sony open first round; double bogey at 2005 John Deere to fail the cut due to three putting. This does not include countless other rounds where she constantly has the chance to convert birdie chances within 10 feet but does not. Golf according to Bobby Jones is simple, 'get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes.' It's been five years since Lehman and the PGA guys admired Michelle's swing; so I don't get the point on working on shotmaking and distance when her weakness is pretty obvious she is not deadly inside 120 years; nor within 10 feet. That ultimately is the key to winning: feel and artistry to convert putts. If you go back to Tiger when he won the US Men's amateur for the second time he already could stuff it when within 120 yards, and could convert the birdies as well. So many other girls down the pipe already have these skills aside from Pressell and Creamer. Rookie Julieta Granada, and the current us junior #1 ranked Mina Harigae of Monterey, Calif; plus so many other young South Koreans like last year's US Junior champ In Keung Kim. They all have a more complete package in their game than Michelle. Sadly, Michelle is all about 'Drive for Show' right now.

hc2 reference your comment: "If you go back to Tiger when he won the US Men's amateur for the second time he already could stuff it when within 120 yards, and could convert the birdies as well."

So, hc2, if I understand you correctly you are referring to Tiger's performance in the year 1995 when he won the second of his phenomenal three in a row Men's Amateur Championships at age 19? Is that correct?

Let me agree with you that was an unparalleled achievement, no one else has three in a row.

However comparing his performance that year making birdies in PGA Tournaments to Michelle's performance in the Sony this year, which I believe you are at least implicitly asking me to do, I find the following with respect to making birdies and breaking par:

Birdie Average:
Tiger 3.15
Michelle 4.00

Birdie Conversion Percentage:
Tiger 28.8
Michelle 38.1

Par Three Birdie Leaders
Tiger 2.2
Michelle 12.5

Par Four Birdie Leaders
Tiger 13.9
Michelle 20.8

Par Five Birdie Leaders
Tiger 45.2
Michelle 50.0

Par Breakers (% of time a player is under par for a hole):
Tiger 17.2
Michelle 22.2

Conclusion? In 1995 (when he was only 19 for crying out loud) he was not an overly impressive putter in the context of PGA Tournaments. He got over that.

So why did Michelle do so badly at the Sony? Because she dug herself a hole on day one by making bad decisions and getting then getting rattled.

She started round two the same way, and then brought it back very impressively. How? By getting her driving average up to 300 yards and using a very impressive short game to set up makeable putts. You can see the latter in the Shot-Link statistics which someone else (I believe it was Jim Coulthard) has quoted in another blog.


Them's the facts.

John said: 'However comparing his performance that year making birdies in PGA Tournaments to Michelle's performance in the Sony this year..'
---
I don't think two rounds of golf at this year's Sony for Michelle is sufficient to make final conclusions on Michelle's stats being better or worse than someone else's. One thing I noticed is that whenever Michelle doesn't do well in a round a excuse is given like 'had a bad day', 'bad luck', 'bad decisions, getting rattled.' Instead one should ask 'why did she get rattled? What bad decisions did she make? How can she improve next time?' Winners don't make generalized excuses. They learn from their mistakes by pinpointing their weaknesses (either course management, knowing how to get up and down through trouble, short game); then working on those weaknesses and moving on. This making excuses habit is dangerously becoming a trend by her and her backers.

hc2

I think we can assume that Team Wie has every shot Michelle Wie took down on video and every effort is being made to learn everything possible. Are you really suggesting that this is not being done?

Jim said:'I think we can assume that Team Wie has every shot Michelle Wie took down on video.'
-
That is the main problem I have is that videos don't tell the whole story of one's game. Obsession with 'angles, body positions, and statistics' don't really show the entire picture. Some things that I see are being overlooked and are hard to show through video or statistics:
- how does the player perform in the back nine of the final round when leading; or when close to leading?
- can she convert 'clutch' putts when really needed' (final round at women's open) and not when nothing is on the line like 2nd round of 2006 Sony.)
-when leading, can she take it a step above, and run away with it (not look back). Think: separate from the field under pressure and winning by a dozen shots: Ai Miyazato running away with it during Q school.
-How does she respond in situations where she is the favorite and is expected to win?
- Can she score well (scramble) even though the swing is not going well that day?
Things like these she would have better chance of developing by playing women of her own caliber, or slightly lower caliber. Instead of playing the men, I would rather see her play the Korean, European and Japanese women's tours; or the Futures tour than the men's events. She will have a chance to confront these pressure situations (which teach winning artistry) rather than 'as long as she doesn't finish last in the men's event, she must be ok' approach.

(-: Congratulations hc2 :-)
You have done an admirable job of keeping your cool and stating your case in a compelling fashion with out resorting to name-calling and catch phrases. I salute you, well done. I do not necessarily agree with the all positions you take but I willing concede their merit.

Golf (and life) is indeed more than just the bare statistics, it is how well you stand the test of the moment accumulated over all the moments you face.

Tiger's strength is now (and I suspect was even back in '95) the ability to sink the one that counted. Michelle's current weakness has been her failure to sink the one that counted. I believe that she can overcome this, but no one knows for sure that she will.

It all depends on how the next few years play out.

hc2

How does Wie respond when she is expected to win? Later this month there is a very good chance that Michelle Wie will be the favorite in the Hawaiian LPGA events--particularly the Fields Open. Let us see how she performs.

I don't expect Annika to be in the field in the Hawaiian events. She didn't play in Hawaii last year. Without Annika I think Michelle would be a clear favorite. As far as it being extremely difficult to win on the LPGA, the LPGA has nowhere near the depth that the PGA has. You talk about Tiger. He doesn't dominate the PGA the way Annika does the LPGA precisely because the depth in the PGA is so much greater.

"Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I don't expect Annika to be in the field in the Hawaiian events. She didn't play in Hawaii last year. Without Annika I think Michelle would be a clear favorite. As far as it being extremely difficult to win on the LPGA, the LPGA has nowhere near the depth that the PGA has. You talk about Tiger. He doesn't dominate the PGA the way Annika does the LPGA precisely because the depth in the PGA is so much greater."

Annika does not like the ocean winds in Hawaii it gives her fits.

I was surprised to see Paula Creamer logged in for the 2006 SBS. The winds were gusting 25 to 40 mph on the North Shore in 2005 and she finished in 40th place.

Paula Creamer's name was prominently mentioned(bu Chris Baldwin, for example) after she won the 2005 Evian. Since that time she has ZERO LPGA wins. She has played well and has a number of high finishes--but no wins.

Jim you make it sound like she hasn't won since, oh I don't know, let's say 2003 at an overated amateur event. Now that would really be a long win drought. The Evian Masters was in June, while you are right that she did not win in her final 9 LPGA appearences of the season she did have 4 top-tens and a steak of 3 straight 2nd place finishes, oh yeah and she won twice since the Evian in Japan. So your point is what exactly? That she was a bust with four world wide wins? That she somehow forgot how to win over the last half of the season? ZERO WINS may only be used to describe the career of one young pheonom and her name isn't Paula.

In her final 9 LPGA events Paula Creamer had 3 seconds plus another top 10. In a total of 8 LPGA events in 2005 Michelle Wie had 3 seconds and a third. Sounds similar. You make it sound like Paula Creamer's 3 straight seconds are something commendable for a full time profesional. Why aren't Michelle Wie's 3 seconds and a third considered commendable for an amateur?

And you make it sound like there is something wrong with only winning twice on the LPGA tour, and twice more worldwide. Michelle's results are terrfic for an amateur or pro percentage of top tens is staggering for anyone, but she has not yet won and with all her talent and game, she should have by now. So it's a bit disingenous to take shots at the Rookie of the Year and a proven winner on tour when the horse you're backing has never broken her maiden. Save the inevitable age argument, Wie fans always want it both ways, she has more game than any women in history, she's better than Paula right now, blah, blah, blah, but when confronted with her lack of wins all we here is how young she is and how she doesn't play full-time and she has SAT's to study for, etc...I think we will learn a lot about Michelle this year, she must prove that she can win and she must prove herself against the most talented crop of young players the LPGA has ever seen.

2 wins in 25 events for Paula when Annika won 10 times in 20 events. Funny I would have said the player who won 10 times in 20 event was the proven winner. Why should anyone even care about a player who wins 8% of the time when another player wins 50% of the time?

Jackson, re: I think we will learn a lot about Michelle this year, she must prove that she can win...
************************************
Why?

Who is it that says she has to prove anything to anyone this year? Nike and Sony may have purchased the right to require her to prove something to them at some indefinite point in the future, but I have seen no evidence of their demanding anything immediately. She hasn't been trumpeted to the world as "I'm here" by either company. They just note that they have made what they think is a good long term investment.

We all have our opinions and set standards in our minds about what we would like to see her accomplish. But they are just that, figments of our imaginations.

The only persons who can legally or ethically demand anything of Michelle Wie at the moment share the same last name that she does...her parents.

In the midst of our rantings the rest of us should occasionally remind ourselves of that.

Why should anyone care about a player who wins 0% of the time. Stay on point here Jim, nobody was talking about Annika. You were trying in vain to defend the winless wonder, all Jackson did was mention that Paula has at least won something on the LPGA and ALPGA level, something Michelle has not. 8% looks pretty paltry when stacked up to 50%, but it looks a hell of a lot better than 0%.

Imagine we are talking about a Major League baseball team. 2 wins and 23 losses looks pretty paltry compared to 10 wins and 10 losses--but I have to disagree on the next point. 2 wins and 23 losses is not a hell of a lot better than 0 wins and 8 losses. I would rather see my favorite team with an 0-8 start as opposed to a 2-23 start.

This is not baseball Jim. Golf does not have a 162 tournament schedule, one which even the worst teams win over 33% of their games. Wie is not guarenteed to win anything, even on the LPGA tour winning is difficult, especially with Annika out there, therfore Paula's 2 wins are significant not only historically, but mentally. How can you argue that 0 wins are better then 2 wins. How many LPGA events has Michelle Wie entered, 26 and she has exactly 0 wins, include her attempts to make the cut at Nationwide, Asian and PGA tour events and she's up to 34 and still 0 wins, 0 cuts made on the men's side. Now I'm not suggesting that she should win at the men's events, but the point is that 0 wins is a whole lot of nothing, and should begin to concern the Wie camp. Paula has shown to herself and to the world that she can win twice on tour and twice more in Japan, she was the unanimous rookie of the year and she became the youngest LPGA tour winner in history and yet you want to focus on her percentage of wins and compare her to somebody who has never won. Jim only over the internet would you argue your point, because no self-respecting person would have the gall to show his face while making such ridiculous claims. Paula Creamer could play in 1,000 more tournamnets and never win and you know what she would still have a higher win percentage than Wie.

By the way, if you want to count tournaments played as an amateur Paula Creamer is 2 wins and 33 losses. It is only as a pro that Paula Creamer is 2-23--and as a pro Michelle Wie is only 0-1. Michelle Wie could bring her pro winning percentage up to 0.500 with a win later this month. I can guarantee you that Paula Creamer will never have a career winning percentage that high.

How confident are you that after Paula Creamer plays in her next 1000 tournaments and loses all of them that Michelle Wie will still be winless? I would be willing to bet that Michelle Wie will win at least 3 tournaments before Paula Creamer can play even another 500 tournaments, let alone 1000.

Jim--Michelle is great, but so is Paula and until Michelle wins which I think will be soon you can not compare winning percentages. Also way to go out on a limb with the 500 tournaments bet. So you think Michelle will win 3 tournaments in the next 20 years, wow, that would make her the biggest bust in history. You can gloat and rub it in Justin's face when Wie wins, but until then you sound like a out of touch with reality Wie apologist.

TRP

I was only responding to Justin who assumed that Paula Creamer could play in 1000 tournaments during which time Michelle Wie wouldn't win any--or perhaps only one or two.


Last year Paula Creamer was great for an 18-19 year old rookie on the LPGA. Michelle Wie was absolutely spectacular for a 15 year old amateur attending high school full time. But if we drop these conditions it was Annika who was great in LPGA events.

You said thatr Michelle Wie would be the biggest bust in history if she won only 3 times--so presumeably the same thing applies to Paula Creamer unless she is able to win again on the LPGA--which she has been unable to do in 9 tries since Baldwin wrote his Piece afyter the Evian. So if Paula Creamer is great, it is only because of her potential. 2 LPGA wins in a career is not enough to bestow the mantle of greatness. If Michelle Wie wins 3 times before she turns 19 eclipsing Paula Creamer's mark of 2 wins--will that be enough for her critics to concede that she is great?