« Michelle Wie disqualified? Welcome to the prosMichelle Wie goes pro, women's golf gets shot in the arm »


Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Fair play to Carolyn Bivens.

Indeed Nancy could learn a thing or two from her.
10/12/05 @ 13:05
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
Awesome work by Bivens. She does indeed get it. David Stern has set the model for all sports commissioners - it doesn't matter what you think of the players, promote the product and everyone will profit. Smart move by Bivens.

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...
10/12/05 @ 13:29
Comment from: Noel [Visitor]
LPGA players needed to be remided that MW is good for them? They must have rocks in their heads.

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!

10/12/05 @ 14:05
Comment from: Cheryl [Visitor]

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.
10/12/05 @ 22:59
Comment from: Boola Boss [Visitor]
Bivens did her part. Now it's up to the LPGA players to do theirs. They don't have to be best buddies with Michelle, just be polite to her and say a few kind words and then go about your business.

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.
10/13/05 @ 02:07
Comment from: Robert [Visitor]
Here is a question: What would be a good start as a professional? Paula's start her rookie year, 2005, was phenomenal. Her first 9 tournaments were

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?
10/14/05 @ 17:21
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
A number of points make your reasoning flawed

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.
10/15/05 @ 08:12
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Robert-- Paula's one advantage is the win (a real advantage). In every other point you mention Michelle's 2005 (7 events so far) is FAR superior

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!!!
10/15/05 @ 09:37
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Why are we comparing Michelle and Paula? Is it just because of Chris Baldwin? Both golfers have had outstanding seasons. Which you like better will depend upon how much importance you place on wins as opposed to high finishes--and what weight you attach to Michelle's play against men. And, of course, there is the issue of age. But the whole comparison really has very little to do with Paula Creamer. It is based on the notion that Michelle Wie is a loser who cannot win. This viewpoint is not worthy of an answer--but I think 10 million in ewndorsements is quite an eloquent answer and we need add nothing to it.
10/15/05 @ 22:33
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Jim, the endorsement money is betting "on the come" and certainly no guarantee of success. Agreed, Wie's potential is sky-high. But you might recall that Kelli Kuehne got a big endorsement deal (not $10 mill tho) after putting together an awesome stretch of play as an amateur. She has won just 1 LPGA event to date.

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.

10/17/05 @ 12:39
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I don't think she will join when she is 18, because it would mean she would only be able to play 2 pga events per year.
I think she will play both tours on exemptions for a while and take other exemptions around the world.
10/19/05 @ 17:28
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Metoo twice mentioned "the win" in reference to Creamer's record this year. Excuse me, but that should read "3 wins, 2 of which came on the LPGA Tour".

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.
10/20/05 @ 10:53
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Creamer has had 2 lgpa wins.
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?
10/20/05 @ 15:16
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Wie did not win anything all year, amateur or pro. Creamer wins 3 times against professionals. And you think Wie had a better year.

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.
10/21/05 @ 14:41
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
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.

Touranments played:
22 Creamer
8 Wie

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.

Cuts Missed:
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.
10/22/05 @ 18:30
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Norman, I understand what you are saying but I think the Ice Creamer will get better next season. She will be playing more often than Michelle and be more used to the tour.

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.
10/23/05 @ 12:10
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Tiger has been a little less consistent this year because he had 4 finishes 40th or below, including 2 missed cuts. Last year he had just one finish below 24th. So I suppose you think he had a better year last year. WRONG!!

WINS are what REALLY matter, not average position. What do they do when they get in position???? So far, Wie gags.
10/24/05 @ 07:32
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks, as I said somewhere else I'm glad you didn't bother trying to answer the Creamer has more of everything argument. More wins, more losses, more cuts made, more cuts missed, more top 10's, more finishes outside the top 10 etc. Creamer has MORE of every stat because she has played more tournaments.

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 ....
10/24/05 @ 16:17
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
In contention???? She was tied for the lead!!! And was choking on the first tee Sunday. I have no doubt that pressure had something to do with Creamer's poor last round too, which I've said before. No champion ever escapes the painful lessons from losing. However, in addition to losing a couple of tournaments which Creamer was in position to win, she also won 4 times. That's FOUR. Wie hasn't done that YET. It is very likely that she will someday, perhaps even soon. But she is FAR from a finished product.
10/25/05 @ 09:12
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Yes she was in contention. Tied for the lead, one off, or two off the lead are all IN CONTENTION.

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.
10/25/05 @ 16:21
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
But Nicklaus ALSO HAD WINS!! Tell me again, I forgot, how many wins does Wie have?????

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.
10/25/05 @ 17:15
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
So Creamer and Wie choked.

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.
10/26/05 @ 18:33
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
You keep talking about the imagined future, Norman. I'm talking about actual results. Wie being TIED FOR THE LEAD is far, far from an "outside chance" to win. And she choked coming down the last few holes at John Deere where making the cut would've been a "win" for her. So far she has gagged - big time - when the pressure has gotten intense. That is just the cold, hard fact of the matter.
10/27/05 @ 07:51
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Here is some hard facts Shanks:

- 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.
10/27/05 @ 13:23
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
You keep talking about proven winners and when they lose. Wie is NOT in the same class yet.
10/27/05 @ 15:07
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Horray, we agree on something. Michelle is not in the same class.

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.
10/27/05 @ 15:30
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Nooooormaaaaan, in case you haven't noticed yet, Paula Creamer is a proven winner. Wie is not in that class yet.
10/28/05 @ 07:53
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Sportswriter Mike Lupica has written an excellent article about Wie in Travel + Leisure. Check it out.
10/28/05 @ 13:49
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
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.
10/28/05 @ 13:59
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
A great man once said "The bar against all knowledge is contempt prior to investigation."

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.
10/31/05 @ 09:35
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
Shanks, relax.
times will tell us.
wait and see.
stay in peace.
11/01/05 @ 08:08
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Where is this article Shanks?

I can't find a Travel + Leisure section.
11/01/05 @ 12:58
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]

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.
11/01/05 @ 14:04
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
The article seems fair enough. The only thing is, it doesn't really say anything. It just says, she may or may not make it big. I could have come to that conclusion on my own.
11/01/05 @ 16:09
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Then you are not one of the Wie-Warriors. There are others who post in here that would see a fair article like that one only as unfair criticism (if you can believe that).
11/02/05 @ 07:55
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I decided to read the article too and was pleasantly surprised, that it didn't actually attack Michelle in any way. It was a fair article, but as Rodney said, it didn't say much.

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.
11/02/05 @ 11:15
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
Shanks, Wie did not win but
obviously she had a better year than Creamer.
I hope Wie and Creamer do their best
next year.
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.

Good day!

11/03/05 @ 00:35
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Actually, I really marvel at Michelle Wie and what she is doing at the tender age of 16. Her potential is astronomical. But unlike others who post here, I look at her & her record realistically. The fact is that Creamer had a better year in 2005 and Wie's still got some developing to do.
11/03/05 @ 08:53
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Half right. Wie still has some developing to do for sure.
.... 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.
11/03/05 @ 15:35
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
Norman, It is true.
Women's golf is getting very interesting to me.
Thanks to Wie and Creamer.
I have to say more thanks to Wie.

11/03/05 @ 21:35
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Ooh, Justice, that last remark "more thanks to Wie", will have steam coming out of Shanks ears.

Do you not know Creamer is untouchable
11/04/05 @ 10:03
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
No doubt that Wie is bringing more focus and fans to Womens golf. I couldn't agree more. She's blessed with incredible amounts of talent and potential. Great story. Still doesn't change the fact that Creamer & others had a better year in 2005.
11/04/05 @ 13:04
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
One question Shanks, I think I'm beginning to understand where you are coming from.
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.
11/04/05 @ 14:11
Comment from: j [Visitor]
Shanks, it's not a story.
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?
11/05/05 @ 00:25
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Here is how the greatest golfers in the world view winning vs. 2nd place:

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.
11/07/05 @ 08:25
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
If you are talking about the greatest golfer in the world, being Tiger Woods, then he has repeatedly praised MW at every opportunity and says she is miles ahead of where is was at that age.

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.
11/07/05 @ 16:17
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Granted, consistently good play will earn a card for the following year. But one 2nd place finish will not, by over $100,000 according to your numbers. So how was that an exaggeration?

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.

11/08/05 @ 08:07
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Sorry for appearing to be the stat master around here but:

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.
11/08/05 @ 13:19
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Rodney, I totally agree they are terrific golfers but you're a little anal about this formula business.

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.
11/09/05 @ 08:58
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Paula had a better year if you take her whole year into account, and say what are her achievements, and then say what are Michelle's achievements?

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.
11/09/05 @ 12:08
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Unfortunately, we can't take a portion of a year, and we can't extrapolate a year. We can only grade on what they actually did in a given year.

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.

11/09/05 @ 13:02
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Rodney, it is indeed true, that if you are to go on a wins basis, or even a HOW MANY ACHIEVEMENTS, be they wins or high finishes or whatever, then you need to base it on both of them playing a full year.

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.
11/09/05 @ 14:06
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
As a full member of the LPGA, Michelle could play in only 2 events that directly compete with LPGA events. On weeks where there is no LPGA tournament there would not be a limit. But it would still place fairly seere limits on her if she wished to play against the men.

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.
11/11/05 @ 16:25
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
Well said, Jim.
11/12/05 @ 21:25
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
I don't think Wie compares herself to anybody.
11/14/05 @ 07:44
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
As far as I know, Wie just says she wants to be the best in the world.

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"?
11/14/05 @ 16:24
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman et al, this was in an article on Padraig Harington onthegolfchannel.com. It's what I've been saying here for quite a while.

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."
11/16/05 @ 09:21
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks here is a quote from Tiger Woods:

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.
11/17/05 @ 14:22
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
Do Ryder Cup captains really judge players based only on wins? Would a captain pick a man with 2 wins and no other top finishes over a guy with one win and 6 second place finishes? I wouldn't.

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.
11/17/05 @ 22:59
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
You guys are killing me. Of course 2nd place is a good week. But COMPARED to winning, it isn't in the same ballpark. High finishes aren't discounted, rather winning (especially multiple wins) elevates a player to another strata. Sorry you don't get that.
11/18/05 @ 08:14
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks, James was making a point about the value of being the best in a tournament outside Annika.

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.
11/18/05 @ 14:14

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
Gaylord Golf Packages
Dates: February 15, 2018 - September 30, 2018
Stay 2 nights and enjoy three rounds of golf at The Natural!
Price range: $292