Michelle Wie's putting at Nabisco Championship her April Fool's joke
Michelle Wie held a great chance to really put the pressure on Lorena Ochoa, who let’s face it, has shown all the steely nerve of Jean Van de Velde in her career. All Wie had to do was make a putt.
Instead on the 18th green at Mission Hills in greater Palm Springs, Wie pushed another birdie try just off line. It wasn’t an easy putt. It was one you have to make if you plan to win.
Which, as everyone knows, isn’t in the Winless Wonder’s vocabulary.
When Wie missed that putt and Ochoa converted a tough two putt from the fringe for a par to maintain her three shot lead heading into today’s final round, they flashed a nifty graphic on TV. It showed Wie’s putts per round: 31, 32, 31.
Rush Limbaugh couldn’t have said it better himself.
Talk about your April Fool’s performances. I enjoyed Tim McDonald and K. Wolfrum’s funny holy prank holiday stories. But nothing topped Michelle Wie’s putting and the Wie Warriors denial over her chances of actually winning.
No matter though. Why are we talking about putting? Did you see those dangly earrings Wie wore on Saturday? I dare say, they were downright, “sparkly”.
| « Detroit Free Press mocks Rush Limbaugh on Michelle Wie; Next the bore Al Franken | Mandalay Bay the most disappointing Las Vegas casino hotel stay » |
135 comments
Look. No one is saying that Michelle Wie is better than Annika. But right now, she's sitting at number 2 on the leaderboard, and Annika and Paula are out of contention. This tournament isn't over, this season is not over, Michelle Wie's career is not over, this year is not over, yet you're pronouncing her a winless wonder. You express so much childish spitefulness in your writing that frankly I doubt there's nothing she can do that would satisfy you.
Like I said in another entry, it appears that you have lost all perspective when it comes to Michelle Wie, and it's disgusting as well as disturbing.
"Ochoa chokes as fading field hands wavering Wie an undeserved victory."
If anything, she's underrated.
When Creamer starts getting praise far beyond her achievements, it will be time to point out an off round.
Oh, I guess you were worried that Wie will actually win and you won't have any material to write to fill your 'quota'...
Paula is hyped as much as anybody for winning two nonmajor tournaments. Endorsements; photo shoots, followings in Japan as well as in the US, etc. Paula could just as easily be the next Beth Bauer (former Rookie of the Year) who struggled afterwards, and is now off the tour.
The only thing he did of note at 16 was reach puberty (maybe).
Well, Chris seems to blow his own horn quite loudly--and hyped you are with your own machine.
Michelle Wie, probably, has no idea who you are. At least she knew that Rush Limbaugh is that guy on the radio. Ouch, that must have hurt Chris.
Maybe this is a cry for help and Chris maybe just maybe wants to be invited to play golf with Wie.
This is akin to a child wanting to be included in a birthday party but no one wanted to invite him. Was Chris always the last guy to be picked for a pick up baseball team? An FBI profiler can have a heyday with this guy. Any profilers out there?
If Baldwin isn't being funny, then, it's a bit scary how his mind works.
I doubt Creamer's rookie year was the best ever, or even nearly so. But no 19 year old girl in her second year of professional golf has ever been considered World No. 2.
Oh, and I still don't think Michelle Wie is the second best woman golfer in the world. Not even close.
Creamer no. 4, Gulbis no. 10, Pressel no. 18; in my books with top Koreans taking slots in between: meena lee, soo yung kang. Gulbis and sweon hwa lee are kicking ass this year so both may be top 5,and 6 by the end of the year. Se Ri Pak, Grace Park, Karrie Webb, Beth Daniel, Meg Mallon, Rosie Jones no longer figure in the top 20 in my view. What you did five years ago just doesn't count no matter how great those glory years were.
In fact, I don't think you need to dwell on the fact that Paula Creamer had an awful round. But the fact that you didn't, and that instead you chose to single out Michelle Wie for ridicule for not making a birdie putt on the last hole, it shows how your hatred has run away with you.
By your own admission, you judge athletes and their current accomplishments harshly or kindly according to how their past accomplishments match up to their hype. This is nothing to be proud of--it's just a way for you to pretend that you are being objective while you bash Wie for her performance and avoid criticizing Creamer for a worse one. So Creamer gets a pass for her half-dozen bogeys and Wie gets bashed for missing a birdie putt. Yes, criticism of hype/marketing is valid on its own merits, but it does not need to be a factor in how you judge her accomplishments this weekend, where you make missing a birdie putt into a sign of disgrace and of a permanent loser. It's clearly made you lose focus.
You sound like a vicious lunatic who starts frothing at the mouth when Michelle Wie's name is mentioned. Maybe you don't realize how malicious you sound in these entries. If you can't stand Wie, don't discuss her. Write a sympathetic entry about how Paula Creamer's round got out of control. Write one about how Annika's dream of the grand slam will have to wait another year. Given the young talent, can she ever do it? Maybe you can be objective when writing about that. You clearly can't when writing about Wie.
But deliberate or not, what kind of mind wastes time writing such stupidly childish stuff? When thoughts like his, enter his mind, and then he chooses to write about it in a public forum, that is very pathetic. It's also very scary.
It's not very funny but I can almost hear his manical laugh as he reads all the responses. It's one way to get attention, but Michelle Wie's security detail should be concerned and how many grown men are out there with such "foaming at the mouth" hatred for a 16 year old professional athlete?
It's pathetic. And shame on this site for giving such a loser a forum in which to air his views. This is a guy that has recently pronounced publicly that Creamer will always be better than Wie. She's currently 12 strokes behind Wie going into the final round.
What happened to accountability in journalism?
This is the National Enquirer of golf blogs.
So, what I'm trying to say is IGNORE him. Don't respond with any kind of comments. That is what Mr. Baldwin deserves.
It stands at:
Ochoa -10
Wie -8
Webb -5.
Poor Chris Baldwin is probably suffering terribly. In his story above he has insulted Ochoa, as well as Wie. If one of them wins, he will have been proved wrong.
Why does he write such ridiculous stories.
Just as someone who knows a little bit of how golf works, maybe I could give you a lesson in statistics.
You claimed that Michelle's putting stats were poor at 31, 32, 31 for the first 3 rounds.
However you are missing a very important point.
She hit all 18 greens in regulation in round 1. On day 2, she hit the first 14 greens in regulation and the 15th was the first one she missed during the tournament. This effectively means that for each of her putts on GIR, she had a long approach shots. This means that she more likely had longer putts.
In contrast, when someone misses the green regularly, they are often just off the green and are able to hit a shot that should be much closer to the hole. This leads to easier putts and better putting stats.
Therefore if you have a very high GIR, it makes it more difficult to have lower putting stats.
You are welcome for the lesson.
If she had Webb's luck, she could be a major winner at this stage.
Wait...who predicted this ... that's right.
Read it and weep Wie Warriors. I also notice how none of you actually adressed her putting woes. Attack the messenger again.
The Winless Wonder rolls on!
Incidently, she 2-0 against both Creamer and Pressel this year, and 1-0 against Annika.
She's still 0 for 34 as a pro now I believe. Though I'll have to check that stat to be certain.
If LeBron James played in the NBA at 14, he's being called a pro.
She's been a pro and one with a long record of not being able to win. And it grows on.
No one's calling her a loser. Just that she's completely overhyped and holds no clue about winning. And this isn't tennis or even matchplay. There's no head to head.
She's still 0 for 34 as a pro now I believe. Though I'll have to check that stat to be certain.]
That is not quite right, Chris! She is NOT a winner, therefore, she IS a LOSER !!!
And when Paula Creamer goes on an 0 for 33 stretch in her career, I'll start writing about it. Don't hold your breath.
girl Creamer finished in 24th place!
Where did Michelle finish again --oh yeah 21 spots better ! Where was that great amateur Pressel? -Finished 8 spots worse than Michelle.
You're an idiot--Michelle Wie has only competed in 3 LPGA events as a pro--all finishes in the Top 4.
You know the youngest winner of an LPGA major is a little bit over 20 years old?
Michelle is 16 years old--I know you're not that bright but that's a whole 4 years younger.
Its ridiculous to count against her pro events she competed at when she was 13-which incidentally is your age mentally.
You're into facts. You have a clue. How may times did Annika lose before she won her first LPGA title? How many 16, 17 or 18 year olds have won LPGA titles, let alone majors? Who else in the entire history of golf has a record that compares with Wie at her age. Can you produce a head to head comparison of Wie with any other player (ever in the history of the world) that supports any of your claims? If not shut up.
.....Michelle Wie has only competed in 3 LPGA events as a pro--all finishes in the Top 4.
....Its ridiculous to count against her pro events she competed at when she was 13-which incidentally is your age mentally.
You are absolutely right. So with only 3 LPGA events, she should not qualify to be ranked with players who have completed 13 + events.
And in spite of her putting woes, she still had a round better than her 2nd and 3rd rounds. That's hardly choking.
Sigh. Whatever. Obviously this is a waste of time.
There is an article by Adelson of ESPN who put a positive note to Wie's finish today, "Wie does it her way-again". His article actually offers insightful information and not like Baldwin's useless ranting of the same ol' Wie-bashing. This Baldwin's stuff is getting really old.
*****
Comment from: rob [Visitor]
hey bald(win), Looks like your fav LPGA golfer, Creamer, is having a meltdown. Maybe you can carry a pink pillow for her to cry in. LOL 5 over in the front nine. NIce moving day! LOL
Dumb b$%^^ wnats to challenge annika.
*****
Now. Have any of the Wie skeptics insulted Ms. Michelle the same way?
As much as Baldwin has criticized Wie, he's never sunk to the level shown by the poster.
Yet that's the kind of class shown all too often by the Wie Warriors.
-George
Oh Liam, btw, she didn't skull her wedge dumba**. Learn your facts than post. Idiot.
Just goes to show how golf can be a devastatingly heart-breaking game.
If there's an analogous situation, the Wie final round is similar to what happened with Morgan Pressel and Birdie Kim in the U.S. Women's Open, 2005. Pressel, Creamer, Wie, and others left the door open by not playing a good final 18.
Yes, there were miracle eagles down the stretch. But Wie and Ochoa have no one to blame but themselves because they failed to slam the door shut.
Gulbis at least had five birdies and no bogeys after the first hole. Michelle had the lead in a tie and by herself on the back 9, but still couldn't find a way to win.
Props to Karrie Webb. She figured out a way to win in electrifying fashion both in regulation and in the playoff. And it looks as if non-American players are doing much better in 2006 than our home-grown USA talent.
Finally, for those who are still looking for that first LPGA win, it's another weekend of shoulda, coulda, woulda.
-George
PAULA'S 79 WAS THE APRIL FOOLS JOKE OF THE TOURNAMENT. Oh, and by the way, YOUR FAVORITE PRO (PAULA) DID WORSE THAN AMATEUR ANGELA PARK...what do you say to that?
PAULA'S TOURNAMENT WAS THE APRIL FOOLS OF THE YEAR.
You should be a speech writer for Howard Dean, you really know how to stir up a hornet nest. lol
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Lorena tried basically the same shot with her putter during the play-off and ended you even further from the hole. What makes you think it would have been so easy with a putter? She gave it her best and missed, I don't see why you attach so much significance to it
*****
Maybe because Wie's club selection and her execution cost her the tournament?
** even calling it arrogant. Tone it down. **
Why? Wie was what, 30-40 feet away? If she putts from that lie, it's hard to see how she can't put it a lot closer than the chip. Wie should have been almost certain to get down in two from there and then head to the playoff.
Michelle traded a high-probability two-putt for a dicey chip shot. 20-20 hindsight, to be sure, but you picks your clubs and you takes your chances, so to speak. Obviously it was the wrong club, the wrong execution, or both.
-George
When you are 16 and shoot two under in a LPGA Major final round, it ain't a bad day.
Talk about pressure and I didn't notice any tears.
I am confident that she will win this year and no one will criticize her any more or ... well, you never know.
Rank Player Wins
T1 Annika Sorenstam 10
T2 Paula Creamer 2
T2 Cristie Kerr 2
T4 Soo-Yun Kang 1
T4 Stacy Prammanasudh 1
T4 Jennifer Rosales 1
T4 Meena Lee 1
T4 Heather Young 1
T4 Carin Koch 1
T4 Hee-Won Han 1
T4 Pat Hurst 1
T4 Birdie Kim 1
T4 Jeong Jang 1
T4 Lorena Ochoa 1
T4 Marisa Baena 1
T4 Nicole Perrot 1
T4 Christina Kim 1
T4 Jimin Kang 1
T4 Wendy Ward 1
FACT based on this ranking system:
Soo-Yun Kang, Stacy Prammanasudh, Jennifer Rosales, Mina Lee, Heather Young, Carin Koch, Hee-Won Han , Pat Hurst, Birdie Kim, Jeong Jang, Lorena Ochoa, Marisa Baena, Nicole Perrot, Christina Kim, Jimin Kang and Wendy Ward are much better players and will be always better than Michelle Wie, Natalie Gulbis, Karrie Webb and any other players who didn't win.
Click the above link to read an interesting article written by Adelson.
In my opinion, Wie should stop playing golf and study now that she has enough money to live off the rest of her life.
I'm not going to degrade players who are at this level. Internet fans on both sides of this silly debate should probably shut up and work on their game before they run their mouths...
But, she did have the fewest bogeys with six. That can only come from her course management skills maturing before our eyes. She's fast becoming one of the most feared players with her many high finishes.
Annika seems to wilt nowadays whenever Michelle's in the tournament. Michelle is up 3 to 1 in their last four meetings.
Liam-- are you nuts?
Ochoa showed heart?? She choked away
another lead! If anything she was trying to save face.
Why are you judging Wie's entire future career in her 3rd LPGA event as a pro?
Yeah she made the wrong decision on the final hole but that happens.
Did you even see how Creamer, Pressel and even Annika played the past few days. Bad decisions galore! Do you think they're "stupid" too ?
No one's calling her a loser. Just that she's completely overhyped and holds no clue about winning. And this isn't tennis or even matchplay. There's no head to head.
******************************
Actually, as I posted before, your own favourite golfer Paula Creamer believes in head to heads.
Paula says that Annika beat her once, and that she beat Annika once so far this season.
That was before the Nabisco, so I guess Annika is up 2-1 so far.
Wie versus Creamer. 2-0 Wie.
Wie versus Sorenstam. 1-0 Wie.
Wie versus Pressel. 2-0 Wie.
Wie versus Kerr. 2-0 Wie.
No, actually it's 0 for 33. That's the number of pro tournaments Wie's played in without a win. For every one she was essentially a pro in everything but name.
*****************************
Hold on. So you actually think she was a pro in everything but name, when she was 12 years old.
Sorry Chris, she has been a pro for 3 womens tournament.
She has a dq, 3rd and 3rd.
Pretty good start to her pro career.
I was impressed by all of their play. It was a great tournament and a great ending, why can't you leave it at that.
Did you see here chip? Did it look like an easy up amnd down putt to you?
You understated what she did in her 3 pro LPGA events. A 4th that became a DQ--and then two 3rds(yes) but two 3rds that were each just one stroke off the lead. She was never that close as an amateur.
Liam crying like a baby over people calling names yet calls Michelle Wie
stupid and arrogant LOL!
Comment from: Kay [Visitor]
Your comments on Michele Wie are getting old. The kid is 16 years old and shows remarkable composure. Some players need a bit more experience and time to grow into a win.
*****
Thank you, Kay, for being the only Wie Warrior who appears sane, because you agree with the Wie skeptics that Wie does not yet know how to win.
Then again, there's this strange comment from Kay:
*****
If she did win, where's her motivation to continue.
*****
Umm, to do it again? Think Phil Mickelson was satisfied when he had only won the Masters?
*****
Let her be a kid and learn to win.
*****
Michelle Wie chose to be a professional golfer. She chose to move out of the realm of just being "a kid". But I agree with you that Michelle does not know how to win, at least as of today.
-George
The reason everyone knows her name is because she's actually WON SOMETHING. Please don't confuse victories with hype and effective marketing - Paula's first endorsement deal was lame as hell. She literally made her first million on the golf course. Michelle Wie made her first TEN million sat in a press conference wearing a cute pink shirt with a cheesy smile on her face.
If anybody is overhyped, it is Michelle. Paula is definitely underhyped, as Michelle is often absurdly recognised as a better player. Hell, I'd have to say that Pressel is as good as Wie, if not better.
Michelle again showed that she's pretty useless under pressure as she temporarily took the lead in the Kraft-Nabisco, only to give the title away soon after.
A stupid comment by hc2 if ever there has been a stupid comment on these blogs. She doesn't win every time, has occasional bad rounds just like every other pro. But off the tour!? Struggling!? What idiocy to suggest such a thing. She's ahead of her ROY pace and currently 12th on the money list. That hardly smacks of struggling to remain on the tour. You, hc2, and all you other Wie-nuts who insist on bashing Paula Creamer at every opportunity, are worse that the so-called Wie-bashers. And ultimately, to date, what counts, is:
Wins:
Creamer 4
Wie 0
More stupidity. A DQ isn't top 4 to anyone but a Wie-warrior.
1. Why do Michelle Wie fans bash Paula Creamer when Baldwin mocks Wie? Baldwin looks dumb when he ridicules Wie, but the Wie fanatics promptly go overboard with their attacks and make Baldwin look almost rational. Ripping on Creamer doesn't make Wie look better. It actually accentuates the fact that Wie hasn't closed the deal yet and Creamer has.
2. Why is Baldwin so fixated on Wie? She is obviously super-talented, but missing the maturity and guidance she needs to win. I almost consider her a Peyton Manning type, capable of great great things, but in clutch situations, she'll do ONE thing wrong that will cost her the title. In reality, she played well enough to win... until 18, when she did the ONE thing she couldn't afford to do. Up and down gives her a chance, all she had to do was lag a putt or chip. OK, it's not easy, but it's something she's probably done a thousand times when it wasn't the last hole in a major. If nerves are the problem, a delicate chip isn't the smart play.
3. Why is Wie still going to try the men's tour? It's publicity stunts like this (where she's just trying to make the cut and not even trying to pretend that she expects to compete for the title) that give Wie-bashers like Baldwin ammunition. If she focused her efforts on 1) LPGA tour and 2) School, nobody would have reason to mock her, since she's obviously talented enough. But when she takes the place of a more worthy PGA member, she announces that she's basically a shill, just a marketing tool for the sponsors and not a serious golfer.
4. Why don't Wie-fans acknowledge that if she's playing in Pro tournaments (whether or not she's an announced "pro" is irrelevant), she should be held to the same standards as the other pros, namely she should be expected to contend. When confronted with the "never won" label, they cry "But she's only 16!" Listen, if she's been playing with the pros in Pro tournaments 30-something times, and getting $10M in endorsements, it's not unreasonable to expect just ONE victory. The same hype around Anna Kournikova got her mocked (she still hasn't won a singles title), so Wie-fans need to recognize that her age is irrelevant. Apparently, she's old enough to cash checks, and with those checks comes expectations.
If there is an Anna Kournikova on the LPGA, complete with swimsuit calendar, her name is Natalie Gulbis. Natalie is 0 for 112 as a pro on the LPGA. She tied Michelle Wie yesterday. But she is getting praise for consistent top 5 finishes this year, while a 16 year old high school student is being critized for the same thing.
What is your definition of contend? In her two LPGA events this year, Michelle Wie has twice finished just one stroke behind the winner. That sounds like contending to me.
I guess the World Rankings can speak for themselves. Whether you disagree or agree with the process, it's a fair, official assessment of the world's best women golfers. I guess this week's rankings speak volumes. After it's inaugural week at number 3, Michelle has managed to moved up to the number 2 spot and closened the gap from 9 average points to 7:
1. Annika Sorenstam 17.60
2. Michelle Wie 11.97
No matter how much you doubt the Rolex World Rankings, it's official.
Michelle Wie is not overhyped. If she were 25, yeah, sure. But she is 16 years old. Look at what she has done. No other pro on the LPGA can say they even came close to what she has done on the LPGA at her age.
The fact that you keep harping that Wie has not won any of the pro events she has played in when she was 13, 14, 15, and 16 is beyond belief. NO ONE has won at that age.
You have a mental disorder. You need to see a doctor, Chris. It's evident to anyone who reads your bizarre rantings.
T-13th Morgan Pressel at +1 overall
T-15th Angela Park at +2 overall
T-24th Paula Creamer at +5 overall
T-29th Ai Miyazato at +6 overall
T-62nd In-Bee Park at +16 overall
T-68th Sydnee Michaels at +20 overall
T-3rd Michelle Wie at -8 overall
Michelle is actually out of the current rankings, but more importantly any rankings system that would put a player at #2 in the world with 0 wins on her resume is one which should not and will not be taken seriously.***
I guess you are ignorant of the latest ROLEX rankings Liam, Ann is correct.
Consistency of play and the level of an event is what gets you ranked high on the Rolex rankings, not wins.
The LPGA had a hand in developing the rankings with ROLEX.
Check out Paula's major event performance for 2005/06 against Michell's and you will see where she picked up points. The 2005 US Open was Michelle's only bad major event where she finished 23rd in the field.
If you're so confident in Wie's incompetance, why did you back-peddle from this reader's bet? (As mentioned by Mark Nessmith on 9/29/05):
"Chris, here's a wager. I bet you $1000 Michelle Wie wins on the LPGA tour at an earlier age than Paula Creamer did," Mr. Nugent writes. "If you take me up, then at least you put your money where your mouth is. If you don't, that tells us what your true beliefs really are."
The Rolex World Rankings uses a calculating system that IS endorsed by many tours, more importantly, INCLUDING the LPGA. Since the LPGA does endorse the rankings, it remains OFFICIAL, whether you like it or not that Michelle Wie is the one of the best female golfers in the world now. Unless Michelle drops drastically from the rankings (because of poor play, NOT because of limited events), then I'll be the first to agree with you that Michelle is overhyped. But seeing that she is placed within the Top 5 with a comfortable point average, I don't see myself agreeing with you or Chris anytime soon-- or ever, for that matter.
I remember watching coverage of the Kraft Nabisco as the commentators spoke about how upset some felt about Michelle being so high on the Rankings. Then, they showed data again that she deserved to be there. Of all the big names on the list, Annika is the only one to have a better record than Michelle when playing in the same events.
I'm seriously beginning to question your fixation with a 16 year-old girl. It's rather sketchy, if I say so myself.
I guess the World Rankings can speak for themselves. Whether you disagree or agree with the process, it's a fair, official assessment of the world's best women golfers. I guess this week's rankings speak volumes. After it's inaugural week at number 3, Michelle has managed to moved up to the number 2 spot and closened the gap from 9 average points to 7:
1. Annika Sorenstam 17.60
2. Michelle Wie 11.97
No matter how much you doubt the Rolex World Rankings, it's official.]
Why doesn't Rolex look at only the PRO performances? If they only considered 13 PRO perfomances, WIE wouldn't even qualify. Just a SHickenCHit way to get a pseudo-pro into the rankings.
Points seem roughly proportional to earnings, but it looks like the top places are rwarded a bit more generously with points than with dollars.
"I've got inside source on why Baldy Chris Baldwin bashes a 16 year old golf prodigy Michelle Wie so much. The reason is that Chris's father was killed in the Korean War. And his mother ended up marrying a American born Korean businessman. Now you know why he constantly bashes Wie in his blog".
--------------------------------------
This Blog is getting out of hand.
Regardless of the veracity of the source no one should be publicly attacked in this despicable manner. Unless you bashes a 16 year old girl for a living.
1 Sorenstam 68.04
2 Creamer 69.34
Wie is not included in the main list because the Sagarin ratings require 10 events in the last year. However, the ratings for players with less than 10 events are shown separately for informational purposes. Wie is listed with 6 events at 68.05, almost tied with Sorenstam! Rolex ratings aren't alone in showing Wie with a high rating.
Comment from: Liam [Visitor]
Or have the Wie Warriors convienently forgotten her win total.
*****
The answer, of course, is yes.
I have spoken.
as for Liam. what kind of name is that? is it pronounced LAME?
who cares what you guys think? blah, blah, blah, b.s.
your gal Paula had weekend rounds of 79 & 74. She totally stunk up the course, I mean she was blowing chunks all over herself and you have to nit pick on Wie's putting?
You must realize that. That decision is neither stupid nor arrogant, because she did what she felt more comfortable doing.
Think about it, she must've thought about that putt on 15 where she completely missed the whole by a mile...thus her decision on opting for the sand wedge.
Don't call that arrogant or stpuid...because she based that decision on her previous "long" putts.
I have to agree with Fred on this one. All of you Wie critics keep criticizing her for not winning yet. She's 16. NO ONE, man or woman, has ever won a pro tournament at 16. How well did Tiger Woods do in a major at 16? IIRC, he didn't make the cut, let along contending.
Everyone said how amazing it was for Tiger to win his first major after turing pro. No one has mentioned how many majors or pro tournaments he has competed in before turning pro. BTW, Tiger won his first PGA tournament at 21. Wie has 5 years to best Tiger's record. BTW, Tiger signed for 4 times of endorsement money when he turned pro and had a lot more hype than Michelle does.
Now, How did Michelle not show "heart" on the final whole? She went all out on that chip and tried to make it for the win. That actually shows much more heart than you would realize. And on that final birdie putt, she putted that stroke with the intentions on it going in (and it looked like it did) just lipping out to the right. How can you say that, that does not show heart?
Are you saying that Webb's miracle shot showed "heart?" I'm thinking that it showed luck and fate. Michelle player her "heart" out this round, and did not let it "slip" away. Hell she scored -2 for the day. That shows that Michelle had a TON of heart in trying to win this championship.
Talk about toning it down you say? Well from all your other posts, you have produced nothing benefitial to this discussion. Making ridiculous claims on whether one player showed "heart" and whatnot. Don't make me gag.
I would have said that Michelle made a mistake on the eagle chip, but I realized that it was Michelle's decision ultimately, and that she opted for the sand wedge in which she thought she could produce better results than her putter. (you've obviously stated how her putting is lacking)...You need to realize that it's up to the player. If i was in that situation, I would have used my putter, but for michelle, she knows that her short game is that much better than her putting.
http://jud.letterrip.com/waj-archives/2006/04/i_am_a_michelle.html
Maybe Wie should concentrate on school for 5 more years, then worry about a profession !
If you didn't, then you are just jealous of her for all the money she is getting.
You should not demand Wie to win or criticize her for not being able to win if you didn't spent a dime for her.
You should criticize someone only if the person does an illegal thing or hurts other's feeling or has bad influence over other kids.
You should not criticize someone just because you are jealous of the person.
Why do you think Nike and Sony put up that much money on a winless wonder instead of proven winners like Annika or Paula or Julie?
What kinds of false marketing did Michelle or BJ do in order to have those contracts?
Wie's marketing was the most honest marketing of all - practicing hard and competing with the best golfers in the world and finishing high.
Tiger basically did the same marketing by winning all amateur titles. Wie just chose a different route.
If you are a boss, who would you hire - a candidate with potential or another with less potential?
Which company would you invest in - a company with great potential to grow or another with less potential to grow?
Wie's sponsors will ditch Wie even before you think she is a marketing hype when they find out she is a marketing hype.
You should very careful about calling someone of a marketing hype. When you say this, you are either criticizing "Marketing" in general and it makes you a communist in return or you are accusing someone of practicing illegal or deceptive marketing.
So before you call Wie a marketing hype, why don't you provide us with evidence which supports Wie actually did illegal or deceptive marketing. Otherwise, you will make a fool of yourself.
That would have given Wie haters one less opportunity to bash Wie if Rolex agreed with John D. So I think it is a good thing for Wie bashers that Rolex did "a SHickenChit way" so that now Wie haters can bash her for being placed on the 2nd position according to Rolex ranking.
So Wie haters, you should thank Rolex for giving you the opportunity to bash Wie, instead of criticizing Rolex.
But she hasn't done it yet. And until she does, she's like Alex Smith or Darko Milicic; a talented young multi-millionaire with boatloads of potential who hasn't won a damn thing. And that's ok too...
Now let us change our question and ask how good Michelle Wie is. Good enough to finish 1 stroke out of a playoff in each of her two tournaments this year on the LPGA. As far as winning on the LPGA is concerned she is more than two years younger than Paula Creamer when Paula had her first win. She will have a run of tournaments in June and July. Let's see how she does then.
PATRICK You would have putted from there--but you would have been trying to get down in three. Try to get the ball on the green close enough to two putt.
I'm not sure what "half-breed" is supposed to refer to, but both of Wie's parents are Korean.
This site sucks.
I am glad you brought that up. Remember who initiated the endorsement deals with Anna. It was the companies. I'll bet you didn't spend a dime for Anna either.
When you invest in something, you know that there is always a risk that goes with it. So you cannot criticize the companies for taking the risk and Anna for accepting the offer unless you are a stock holder of one of the companies and you had lost your money because the company made that endorsement deal with Anna.
ToddCommish said "But Wie-fanatics are blinded by the POTENTIAL and belittle the accomplishments of the Creamers and Pressels of the world before Wie has actually earned the throne"
Todd, you got to understand why some of Wie Warriors are bringing up Paula and kind of belittle her. It's a way to show Chris how ridiculous it is to belittle and bash Wie. Chris once claimed that "Paula Creamer better than Michelle Wie now, will ALWAYS be better than Wie." If you can't believe it, check this out.
In Capitalism, almost everything you do is marketing - going to school, getting good GPA, dressing up for interview, writing a resume, etc. So if Michelle Wie is a marketing hype then we are all marketing hypes.
I understand many people criticize Wie because she got $10 million deal without winning a game, therefore she doesn’t deserve the money and publicity, and it is a shame that she hasn’t won a game yet. It sounds logical off hand but let me explain how ridiculous and childish it is.
Let's say, you and your friend's got graduated fresh from college and apply to the same company. Your GPA was higher than his/hers. You thought that you had better chance of getting the job. But it turned out that your friend was the one got hired after having gone through several interviews with the company executives. It turned out that his friend had attributes and qualifications other than GPA that the company was looking for. Instead of congratulating him, you criticized him for getting hired with lower GPA than yours. You even called him a liar. Now you see how ridiculous and childish it sounds.
Furthermore, it’s not like they spent your tax money on the deal. If the Federal government paid $10 million to Wie, then you have a right to say a word on whether Wie deserve to receive the money or not. Otherwise, you are not in a position to judge whether Wie deserve $10 million.
It all comes down to pure jealousy if you call Wie a marketing hype or Bubble unless you are a communist or a stock holder when someone call Wie a marketing hype or winless wonder.
Once again, everyone has a right to express their opinion but you better watch out what you are getting into and back up your claim if you don’t embarrass yourself.
"... if you don't want to embarrass yourself."
Sorry about the mistake.
Here's your apology!
I'm SO SORRY that you're such an f***ing dumba**.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-4/1168157/Michelle.Wie.going.postal.gif
Michelle Wie will be on 60 minutes tomorrow -
April 9th.
What's the over/under on Baldwin nitpicking something about Michelle Wie right after the interview?
Heck-he's probably writing it now...
Comments are closed for this post.


Recent comments