Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie
Still think the Michelle Wie no-win craze isn’t out of control?
“My wife and I differ with this,'’ Povich said. “My wife’s so happy that she’s out there competing against the men. And I think, just in terms of golf, that winning is very important.
“I don’t care whether you win in little league or whether you win in the Major Leagues, winning is important because you learn how to win. I would like to see her play in tournaments that she knows she can win.”
Who knew that Maury Povich was a genius? Now that’s forward thinking! (By the way, Bangkok Al neither Maury nor I are buying your way late lame attempt to set yourself up as a Wie critic. Please. Even the Wie Warriors can sniff a fake.)
For more of this kind of Povich banter stay tuned to TravelGolf.com’s celebrity Q & A series. You’ll find the first in a new run up this today - former Super Bowl MVP turned golfer Marcus Allen.
For the Povich-Chung squabble and Carson Daly getting asked the question who would you rather date: Paula Creamer, Michelle Wie or Morgan Pressel?, this is your place.
For the sane among you, there will also be Justin Timberlake and Rush Limbaugh in future weeks.
|« Caleo Resort's Baleen an overrated fish restaurant in Scottsdale||Phil Mickelson is God in Phoenix/Scottsdale for the FBR Open »|
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.
I thought rules were rules.
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.
'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.
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.
While individual stats do fluctuate from year to year, the total picture shows a golfer maturing and developing a more stable overall game.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 Conversion Percentage:
Par Three Birdie Leaders
Par Four Birdie Leaders
Par Five Birdie Leaders
Par Breakers (% of time a player is under par for a hole):
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
Comments are closed for this post.