LPGA Commish Carolyn Bivens gets it
Michelle Wie’s playing in her first LPGA event as a full-fledged professional this weekend, the Samsung World Championship. This is a tough inaugural tourney, since the field includes only 20 players, the very best the LGPA has to offer.
How is the LPGA handling Wie’s new status? Apparently, newly instated LPGA Tour Commissioner Carolyn Bivens, concerned with possible antipathy against Wie, met with players last week after Wie?s big announcement.
Bivens requested players put aside whatever resentments they might have and focus on the big picture. Said Meg Mallon, ?Carolyn told us we can all form whatever opinion you want for the moment. But this girl is going to be good for you.?
Cristie Kerr added, ?People just want to turn on the TV and watch, and that’s good for the rest of us. She’s just got this aura around her that makes people want to pay attention.?
Ms. Bivens seems to get it. Unlike, say, Nancy Lopez, she?s ready to put a stop to all the nonsense and focus on what?s good for everyone, including the massive exposure that Michelle Wie will bring to women?s golf.
But you won?t read about any of this on the LPGA?s Web site. Except for one link, their front page is devoid of any mention of Wie.
No, Michelle Wie is not yet a member of the LPGA Tour. But she?s not a member of the PGA Tour either, and they have not one, but three stories about her on their front page.
Ah well, I?m sure that will change with time. Meanwhile, maybe we can have Ms. Bivens talk to Chris Baldwin and ask him to put aside his petty resentments. On second thought, that would never work. Take away petty, and what does he have left?
Here’s when/where to catch the Samsung World Championship:
Oct. 13 5-7 p.m. (TGC)
Oct. 14 3-5 p.m. (TGC)
Oct. 15 1-2 p.m. (NBC), 2-4 p.m. (TGC)
Oct. 16 1-4 p.m. (NBC)
Wie will play against the best female golfers in the world this weekend.
|« Michelle Wie disqualified? Welcome to the pros||Michelle Wie goes pro, women's golf gets shot in the arm »|
Indeed Nancy could learn a thing or two from her.
As for Baldwin, I can already hear his reply: Baldwin without pettiness is like Wie without hype. Funny thing is, Wie without hype looks like a multi-millionaire fantastic 16 year old golfer at this point. The hype is all in the past, the playing time is here, and she has capitalized on everyone's interest to date. I love to see it.
On the other hand, Baldwin without pettiness would be a hack writer with little to say of interest (unless you live in Las Vegas and care what happens in their city council meetings, I suppose).
Looking forward to his ridiculous comments if Wie "fails" this weekend and doesn't win - or his silence if she DOES win. And glad you finally told him where to get off. I applaud your staying clear of his barbs and taunts, but he went a little over the top last week. He needed to be slapped, and since his wife/girlfriend/mother (last most likely looking at that picture) isn't doing the job, at least you gave him a verbal slap. Go back to the high road now, Jennifer. Leave him in the mud.
He ain't worth it...
I can't help but laugh at the notion that some of these players have resentmenst toward MW. Resentments for what? I think they need to be reminded they are very lucky to be able to play golf for a living.
I think the only people justified to be resentful of MW are the regular weekend golfer and fans in general who work dead-end jobs and gets paid almost nothing.
I sure have no resentment. I just wants to watch a good golf tournament. Michelle W. can certainly deliver it.
You go girl!
I know Tiger faced some pretty significant resentment when he joined the PGA because of all endorsements and attention he got, but the fact that Carolyn Bivens had to have a meeting with the LPGA players to keep them from showing animosity towards Michelle is pretty sad.
That "meeting" has circulated to the media and I hate that it perpetuates the awful stereotype that women are catty, and can't stand when other women do well.
For their sakes, I hope LPGA players maintain their class and dignity and welcome Michelle Wie. She can only do great things for their tour.
They asked Michelle in her pre-tournament (the longest in history) about getting a best-buddy and mentor like Tiger did with Mark O'Meara. But she said she didn't need one, her parents are her best friends.
2/26/05 SBS Open at Turtle Bay T-40 5,012.00
3/6/05 MasterCard Classic T-6 37,289.00
3/20/05 Safeway International T-26 12,276.00
3/27/05 Kraft Nabisco Championship T-19 21,692.00
4/16/05 LPGA Takefuji Classic T-3 65,596.00
4/24/05 Corona Morelia Championship T-16 11,986.00
5/8/05 Michelob Ultra Open at Kingsmill T-34 14,960.00
5/16/05 Chick-Fil-A Charity Champ CUT 0.00
5/22/05 Sybase Classic Win 187,500.00
If Michelle can match that in her first 9 tournaments as a professional (at this year's Samsung, her 6 exemptions next
year, and the US and British Opens) it would certainly not be hypocritical to say that she too had a good year. How about being charitable and saying that, since the Samsung does not have a cut, that is the same as missing the cut at the Chick-Fil-A (Would she be invited to play at the Chick-Fil-A? Probably not?). That would be an average finish of 17th with 1 win, 2 other top 10s, and total earnings of over $356,000 in 9 LPGA events. Who thinks that Michelle can match that or do better?
1. Michelle will be playing in bigger tournaments so the prize money will be more so it is easier for her to win more money.
2. The competition is tougher which makes Michelle less likely to have top finishes, than in Creamers "ordinary" LPGA events.
3. Creamers events were one after the other. Michelle's will be broken up by school and appearances in men's events etc.
4. You really need to wait til Michelle's rookie year on the LPGA if you want to do this accurately. As well as having similar times between tournaments, she will also probably be around the same age as Creamer was when she participated in the events mentioned above.
5. Just for good measure, I think if you apply your logic to Michelle's last 9 events Michelle has done better already than Creamer.
1. She would have made TWICE as much money in eight events
2. her average finish is SEVENTH (and she currently stands T2 in her eighth tourney)
3. She has 4 top 5's (including 2 in majors.
And as Norman said.. het strength of field will much higher...compunded by the fact she will not string tournaments together will add to the difficulty of her achievement.
So yeah.. I think Michelle will do better than that. I think her performance in eight events is better than the 9 of Paula's you mention including the win!!!
The comparison of Wie & Creamer started when the Wie fanatics were saying she has had the best year next to Annika. Based purely on results from 2005, Creamer definitely has had a better year. And to be truthful, so has Cristie Kerr, Jeong Jang and perhaps some others who managed to win. Nobody gets any medals for consistently good play if they can't bring home the bacon too.
I think she will play both tours on exemptions for a while and take other exemptions around the world.
For the sake of argument let's exclude the win in Japan. Now, how in the world can anyone say that the number 2 money winner who won twice has had a worse year than a player who did not win at all? The only player to have a better year than Creamer was Annika. Only the Wie-fanatics can conjure up some new way of grading results that would say anything different.
As regards the 3rd win. Just suppose Michelle wins a similar tournament. I will hope, but be very surprised, if you recognise that as the same.
*Paula is the number 2 money winner.
THAT IS TRUE. Now, can you answer me, how is Michelle suppost to have earned more money as an amatuer who didn't get any money. Also even if she had been professional, how was she supposed to win more money in 8 tournaments versus twenty-something.
So that answers your question Shanks. Michelle had a better year in the tournaments she was in. Do you think she should have had a better year in the tournaments that she wasn't in?
I'll just let that hang in the air for a while for all to see. Incredible.
No question that the JLPGA win wasn't quite as good as a LPGA win, but don't dismiss it so cavalierly. Creamer won it holding off a charge by young Japanese star Ai Myazato in her home country in front of a very definitely pro-Myazato gallery. Should Wie win over there, of course it will definitely count for something. She hasn't won anything in over 2 years. She needs to learn how to handle the emotions of the situation. Only difference is that the gallery following Wie - especially in Asia - will not be pulling for someone else.
Wie did not win anything all year, amateur or pro. Creamer wins 3 times against professionals. And you think Wie had a better year.
Shanks, Wie didn't have an "all year", in the same way as Creamer. Creamer played a full season.
Wie had not as many tournaments.
Lets compare their full seasons in detail:
Creamer = 2. Wie = 0.
Top 3 finishes:
Creamer = 7. Wie = 4.
Top 15 finishes:
Creamer = 11. Wie = 6.
Top 20 finishes:
Creamer = 15. Wie = 6.
Now Shanks this is really important. Look at all the above good stats. Creamer leads in all of them. Now look at these stats:
Finishes outside the top 20:
Creamer = 7. Wie = 1.
Finishes outside the top 15:
Creamer = 11. Wie = 1.
Creamer = 1. Wie = 0.
In the above two stats, Creamer fairs the worse. Why is this? It is because she has played MORE events.
NOW HERE IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. Shanks I really really hope this will be where you make the real breakthrough. Read carefully:
Creamer has more wins.
Creamer has more top 3's.
Creamer has more top 10's.
Creamer has more top 15's.
Creamer has finished outside the top 15 more times.
Creamer has finished outside the top 20 more times.
Creamer has missed more cuts.
Hopefully it is easy to understand what I am saying. Creamer has MORE good things. Wins, top 3's etc. She has more bad things: lower finishes, missed cuts.
Creamer has more of everything BECAUSE SHE HAS PLAYED MORE TOURNAMENTS.
Therefore to say that she has had a better year, based on any stat of total wins, top 3's etc. over the season, having played treble the tournaments is ridiculous.
Hopefully this will be where the penny drops for Shanks.
Therefore she will probably will about 5 events or so and will challenge Annika at the top of the money list.
The 5 will include at least 1 major.
WINS are what REALLY matter, not average position. What do they do when they get in position???? So far, Wie gags.
Glad you didn't make more of a fool of yourself by even attempting to wriggle your way out of that one.
Shanks, Tiger has won two majors and finished 2nd and 4th in the others. This MAJOR performance is brilliant. It's EVEN BETTER than Michelle Wie's performance in majors. Majors are the most important of all and that is why Tiger has had a better year this year.
If he had just won a couple of run of the mill pga tournaments and then a couple of 2nd rate tournaments in Japan (like Creamer), then last year would have been better.
As regards gagging. You have only been able to name one tournament where she was in contention to win. The US womens open. There she was in contention with about 15 other players. Gagging is more like Van de Velde at the British Open a couple of years ago. Michelle was in a position with an outside chance (at best) of winning.
Michelle had a bad round start to finish. Like all players, you have a bad round from time to time. Try to remember lots of players had bad rounds that day, including a certain Paula Creamer .... oh no, another one of your arguments ruined .... if Michelle gagged then so did Creamer .... but then again isn't Creamer a great champion, winner, with tonnes of intestinal fortitude ....
If she was "choking" off the tee, in other tournaments she has had good rounds Sunday but not lost the tournament on a Thursday or Friday through having a good round then.
Sometimes you just have a bad round on Sundays, you are just reading too much into it.
As regards not the finished product. At least we agree on something. She has many things she needs to improve, her putting being a pretty good example. Luckily for her her nerve seems to be one of the very strongest parts of her game, as she has proved time and time again.
If everything on Sundays is based on nerve, then Creamer is Up and Down like a yo yo. Basically she can handle the pressure one week, then another week she loses this ability!!!! That is not the case, Creamer is very strong mentally but like everyone else, all she can do is get in contention, she can't win them all after that.
Jack Nicklaus has FAR MORE positions 2 to 5, then he has wins in majors. In fact he has more 2nd places, than 1st places. No matter how much intestinal fortitude you have, the nature of stroke play golf means that no matter how strong you are you will "lose" (your word) much more than you win.
Michelle has not had enough chances to win to decide if she has nerve yet. She was in contention with a FULL round to play in ONE tournament.
In her other high finishes she was never really in a position to charge for the line. So we need to wait and see until she has many more chances to even hazzard a guess as to whether she is good at finishing.
EVERY time someone starts the final round of a Major professional tournament with the lead and shoots an 82, they gagged. Choked. Spit the bit. Took the knot. Whatever. But they did not just "have an off day". You are seriously deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
My point is Nicklaus had wins and losses. Much more losses than wins.
Michelle has had one OUTSIDE CHANCE to win, and not won. There were at least 15 in contention which means even if you play well, someone else is bound to have a good round.
You have to give Michelle more chances, before you make a judgement as to whether she is able to close out a tournament.
- one year ago in the PGA tour championship. TIGER WOODS led with Jay Hass. They had a 4 SHOT LEAD, over Retief Goosen. Tiger had such a bad round that he ended up LOSING BY 4 SHOTS to Retief Goosen.
Is Tiger a choker? No he is not.
Did Tiger play bad? Yes he did.
- Next turn it to Retief and he had a terrible round at the US Open this year when he led going into the final day.
- In both of the above cases, Tiger and Retief had a great chance to win, there was not many in contention. In Michelle's case, there were a whole heap of players in contention.
- Tiger Woods and Retief Goosen are players of tremendous class. Both have shown that it is possible to have bad rounds at critical times. That does not make them chokers. It is easy to pick examples of ANY player and say he/she had a bad round at a critical time.
- As regards the John Deere, Michelle did remarkably well. You saying, "making the cut is like a win" is just a joke, and I know as soon as she does make a cut you will change your story.
That is why I am saying, these guys are FAR BETTER than Michelle and they have bad final rounds. Michelle has had ONE bad final round. Retief has had many more.
You keep saying that Michelle is destined for failure due to ONE bad final round. Should you not give her a few more chances before you write her off?
If anyone rated Tiger Woods so cruelly based on his first 8 performances on the PGA tour, they would've told him to give up golf.
You neglect to note how many times Paula has played in order to win a couple of tournaments. It's easier to be a proven winner in 22 events, than in 8.
As regards some sportswriter, I haven't even looked at it but I'm guessing it's probably a typical Michelle Wie bashing session. It must be if you like it.
A nationally respected sportswriter wrote an article looking at Wie from both sides. Only the true Warriors would be afraid to look at it. Good, Norman, stay in the dark.
times will tell us.
wait and see.
stay in peace.
I can't find a Travel + Leisure section.
It's a VERY fair article. Nice to see you have the cajones to check it out, unlike some others who shall go unmentioned.
Note to Justice - those are my very words in other posts regarding the future of these bright young stars. But regards the year 2005, Creamer had a better year, no contest. No other female golfer ON THE PLANET won more times than Creamer, excluding Annika of course. Wie did not win at all.
Shanks, if I was one of the people here that you would think would see unfair criticism in that, I didn't come across any.
obviously she had a better year than Creamer.
I hope Wie and Creamer do their best
They are still very young and are doing well.
They are fantastic.
Anyway, what do you want from Wie now?
Oh, her winning!
I guess you are a real wie's fan.
.... so does Creamer, I hope she does, for her sake, she needs to improve, just to avoid going backwards. I truly believe women's golf in the next few years is really going to move forward rapidly, with the young guns closing in on Annika.
Women's golf is getting very interesting to me.
Thanks to Wie and Creamer.
I have to say more thanks to Wie.
Do you not know Creamer is untouchable
In your opinion is the following statement true:
Jennifer Rosales, Annika Sorenstam, Wendy Ward, Carin Koch, Stacy Prammanasudh, Cristie Kerr, Paula Creamer, Jimin Kang, Lorena Ochoa, Birdie Kim, Marisa Baena, Heather Bowie, Meena Lee, Jeong Jang, Soo-Yun Kang, Pat Hurst, Hee-Won Han, Nicole Perrot, Jee Young Lee,
all had better years than Michelle.
For anyone confused, they all won in 2005.
it's a real.
you should not forget
that wie is 16 year old.
why do you have to argue about the winning???
what you are saying is same as
you think birdie kim is better than creamer and annika because she won the usa open.
or you are doing it because of wie gets more money than creamer?
If you win a single PGA Tour Event, you get at least a 2-year exemption into future Tour events.
If you come in 2nd place, you get to play the following week, period.
PGA Tour win = 2 year exemption, that is true.
It also doesn't take many 2nd places to get you in the top 125 money list and with automatic exemption for the following year.
If someone is consistantly a high finisher they have no worries about losing their tour card eg. if Luke Donald plays like he did this year, with no wins, for the next 10 years, he still won't lose his tour card.
To illustrate lets look at the Sony Open, not the biggest tournament:
1st place: $864,000
2nd place: $518,400
To finish in the top 125 and get your card for the next season, you needed to earn $626,736 in 2005. Therefore one 2nd place finish and you have practically earned your card for next season. So to say, all you get is to come back next week, is a bit of an exageration.
What this says to me is that winning is judged by the greatest golfers in the world to be AT LEAST twice as difficult as finishing 2nd.
If Paula's 1st = Two of Michelle's 2nd places then ....
Their remaining results are as follows:
2nd, 3, 12, 14, 23 and dq.
Here is Creamer in the same events:
2nd, 3, 15, 19, 19, 26, 40.
I reckon Michelle is still ahead, but boy is it close!
They are both great golfers, lets leave it at that.
My contention is this: If someone plays well all year AND wins, they had a better year than somebody who just played well. And most of the golfing community agrees with that.
If you look on it that way, you will say 2 LPGA wins for Paula, + 2 other wins + lots of high finishes.
For Michelle, you will just say lots of high finishes.
My contention is just that you need to cut Michelle a bit of slack because playing in only 8 (most difficult) events is a serious disadvantage.
And next year, any comparison will be equally difficult because apparently Wie will play in 20 or so events but only 7-8 of them will be against an LPGA field.
Now, THOSE could be some intersting discussions.
As Shanks said, Michelle will only play another 8 lpga events next season, so it will be still be hard to judge what exactly her performance is in comparison to others.
To make it more difficult, she will play lots of events with men probably, so Chris Baldwin will be adding all of them up, and saying "oh another NON-WIN", even though they will be against fields of much higher quality than the lpga.
For example who expects her to win the Casio World Open in Japan in a couple of weeks time? Not me!
This jumping back and forth from different types of courses and greens cut for lpga versus pga, will make it very difficult for her to get any consistancy, but in my opinion will help her overall career.
Another thing, I don't know if she will ever join the lpga, so how can we compare her to Creamer then.
The lpga has a rule that would only allow her play 2 non-lpga events in a season, if she were a full member. I think this rule would stop her joining at any time.
I predict that in a couple of years the lpga will change this rule to try to entice her to join, either that or they will increase the number of exemptions that she is allowed to accept.
As far as comparing Michelle Wie and Paula Creamer--why should we compare them. Neither one is interested in comparing herself with the other. Paula compares herself to Annika and Michelle compares herself to Tiger.
She says Tiger, Annika and Ernie Els are the ones she looks up to.
I think she likes Ernie best, the other two are like obligatory for anybody to mention or they will be asked "why not Tiger and Annika"?
The Irishman was asked if he would rather have two victories and no other chances to win, or one victory and six second-place finishes.
Give him the titles.
"Runner-up is only for cash," he said. "I'm looking for wins, and nothing else. That's what you get judged on."
Two seconds in my last two weeks; they are good weeks, and I've made a lot of progress."
With the amount of time these guys spend talking, it is easy to pick up quotes to support any argument.
There was also a quote from Colin Montgomerie where he said, "I want to win this week, BECAUSE there is lots of world ranking points and lots of ryder cup points for winning".
ie that would suggest he only wants to win just for points alone. We know better but it's easy to find quotes to support anything.
But let's go back to Paula versus Michelle--and introduce a new variation. 18 year old Paula versus 19 year old Paula. Paula ia now competing in her 8th LPGA Tournament as a 19 year old. Her 19 year old numbers sound a lot like Michelle's numbers for the year. No wins but 3 seconds in 7 going on 8 Tournaments. I am sure that Paula is happier with her 2 wins as an 18 year old--but she may have actually played better golf at 19. Twice in 17 Tournaments she was better than anyone not named Annika as an 18 year old(the two she won). As a 19 year old she has done that twice in just 7 Tournaments, finishing second to an Annika who was in both tournaments with her A game going.
He was making this point, because when Annika is playing her best, the others are just playing for 2nd place anyway.
- Let's say for next season, Annika plays her best in nearly every tournament and Paula finishes 2nd behind Annika in nearly every tournemant.
- Then if Christie Kerr were to win 3 tournaments where Annika didn't play very well, would that give Christie Kerr the edge over Paula.
- No it would not, you would have to take the factor into account that Paula beat the field minus minus Annika so many times.
- With the current state of the womens game, with one player so far clear of the others, a 2nd place to Annika (when on form) has to count for more than a typical 2nd place.