Chris Baldwin - Latest Comments on Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] in response to: Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:18:59 +0000

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?

trip [Visitor] in response to: Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

trip [Visitor] — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:27:53 +0000

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.

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] in response to: Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:17:24 +0000

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.

Justin [Visitor] in response to: Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

Justin [Visitor] — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:06:37 +0000

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.

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] in response to: Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:35:45 +0000

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.

Justin [Visitor] in response to: Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

Justin [Visitor] — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:15:02 +0000

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%.

John [Visitor] in response to: Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

John [Visitor] — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:58:50 +0000

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.

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] in response to: Maury Povich & Connie Chung argue Michelle Wie

Jim COULTHARD [Visitor] — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:47:37 +0000

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?