« A day in the life of the golfing momTiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, who needs em? Mercedes Championships still good TV »


Comment from: Kristen [Visitor]
I don't mind Vijay's clarified comment. It's honest. He wouldn't play because he knew she was capable of winning. He was afraid. Okay, so why isn't he afraid of losing to a man? He's got plenty of experience with that. We (perhaps starting with Wie) just need to get them all more used to the idea.

It's something many men fear - the idea of losing to a woman at anything, particularly something physical. I think it's all based on playground mentality and the fear of being called a sissy. Poor Vijay - don't worry, I sincerely doubt the other "boys" on your particular playground will pull down your pants, point and laugh.
01/11/06 @ 10:00
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
Jennifer and Kristen are we talking about the same Vijay Singh? 3 time major winner Vijay Singh, the Vijay Singh with over 50 worldwide career victories, former PGA tour money leader, and player of the year Vijay Singh, the Vijay Singh who is the 2nd ranked golfer in the world. I'm just making sure we are talking about the same guy before I comment on whether or not he is scared to play with women. Vijay looked pretty terrified last year at the Sony Open, while Michelle was missing the cut by 7 strokes, he was trembling his way to a another victory. Women all over the world should, like the rest of us be hailing the achievements of Annika and Michelle, but the thought that Vijay was somehow ducking Annika is criminally insane, as is the thought that he or any of the top male golfers would fear Michelle Wie. Michelle is a great talent, but she will never be on the level of Vijay Singh and to even mention them in the same sentence is unfair to both of them.
01/11/06 @ 12:38
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

To say that Sorenscam was capable of winning when she wasn't even capable of making the cut is idiotic in the extreme.

By the way, I notice that my first post was deleted. Is it that the little feminist doesn't like dissent?
01/11/06 @ 14:06
Comment from: David [Visitor]
When male pros object to women playing in their events, other female golf fans always miss the point, including Kristen and Jennifer.

Personally, I cannot see Annika ever playing in another PGA Tour event (that's because she's Ladies World No. 1, and she can't stand being the worst player in any golf tournament). We all know Michelle will, but I don't think she'll EVER win a PGA Tour event. I know some would consider that to be a bold claim, but let's face it, men are better than women at every sport.

Returning to my point, the reason male pros, including Singh, object to ladies playing in PGA Tour events is simply because they believe women should play women, and men should play men. Why should women have the right to enter PGA Tour events, when men are not allowed to enter LPGA Tour events (I know what I said above, but still, the moral here is easy to understand)? People like Singh just get sick of females entering PGA Tour events because they're stopping a male pro from playing; and also because even Annika Sorenstam would be the worst player in any PGA Tour event.

After all I've just said, though, I would rather enjoy watching Vijay getting beaten by a 16 year-old girl.

01/11/06 @ 14:37
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
You obviously haven't read many of these blogs. If you had, you would know that I have proved conclusively that the argument of men should play with men, and women should play with women, is a completely flawed one.

The pga tour is for the best players in the world. Period. Just because the women and the seniors have their own tours, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to participate also in the best tour.

As regards Annika being the worst player in ANY mens event that she would enter.

If Annika were to enter EVERY pga tournament this season, she would not be the worst player in ANY of those events. Saying she would shows a complete ignorance.
01/11/06 @ 15:15
Comment from: James COULTHARD [Visitor]
I think Hawaii will welcome Vijay. Unlike Allenby who was pointedly unwilling to wish Michelle Wie well in such a fashion, Vijay has acted like a perfect gentleman. I do predict that Michelle will finish ahead of Vijay, chronologically speaking, but I am quite sure Vijay will have no problem with that. Vijay won't mind still playing a view more holes after Michelle has finished her tournament.

Actually I think Vijay rather likes Michelle--since she has been doing to Annika what Annika did to Vijay. In 2003 Vijay was an afterthought in a tournament where he was the defending champion--now Annika is often an afterthought in tournaments even though she is clearly the number one player on the LPGA. The better Michelle does this week, the less people will care about Annika when Michelle and Annika meet in tournaments later this year.

I'm sure some top male golfers are afraid of doing worse than Michelle, if they should happen to have a particualry bad tournament when Michelle does particularly well. But as more top golfers join the club of pros who have finished lower than Michelle, there will be less embarassment.

I think Michelle Wie may very well reach a level where she will have a fighting chance to win a PGA tournament if everything falls her way.
01/11/06 @ 15:26
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Of course Wie will never win a PGA Tour event.


Try to exercise a little sophistication. LOL -- you haven't "proved conclusively" that the argument that people should compete within their own sex is completely flawed. After all, do you even know why those taking that position are doing so? Perhaps they're coming from a traditionalist's perspective and just believe that it does violence to the natural order to allow such things. And maybe it does; maybe God has deemed that it's so.

What I'm trying to do here, Norman, is expand your thinking a little bit and help you to understand that there may be more aspects to an issue than the obvious ones. You assume this hinges solely on ability -- maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Perhaps it's more nuanced than you think.
01/11/06 @ 15:35
Comment from: David [Visitor]
Norman, James and 'Under Par', nice comments. Maybe I went a little far again (can't be bothered to argue further on this one, as there's so many ways to view it and no correct answer :)

Under Par agrees with me that Michelle will never win a PGA Tour event. But why does Michelle hold hopes of winning the U.S. Open (men's)?

01/11/06 @ 16:30
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
NO ONE ever watches Vijay. NO ONE ever says, Oh good, Vijay is playing. To heck with Phil and Eldrick. I'm watching the Ouijii from Fiji. In the end, though, all us men-folk look at his muscular six feet four inches of golfing power and say, he's the Sheriff. EVERYONE will be watching Michelle Wie, unless, of course, they are there to see Kevin Hayashi and Henrik Bjornstad. Fortunately, that pair will be with Michelle on daze one and two. Talk about lucky!
01/11/06 @ 16:57
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Let's also remember, J to the Ma to the Rio, that Vijay's gripe with Annika was not that she was XX, but that she did not deserve the invitation.
01/11/06 @ 17:00
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Wie entertains hopes of winning the men's US Open because she has been brainwashed by a pinhead professor father and a twisted feminist culture.
01/11/06 @ 17:08
Comment from: GoldenEagle [Visitor]
I really dont understand where all this hatred for VJ is coming from? He isnt pulling guns on teens or getting busted for drugs or DUIs. He isnt doing steroids. He is the only guy in the Tiger Era to get to number 1. He is a devout family man who donates a ton to charity and doesnt call a news conference to announce that. He works hard and is always up there on sunday.

I am not saying that everyone should jump on his bangwagon ...but there seems to be no reason to hate this guy so much. Where does all this hatred come from? What did he do to deserve this?
01/11/06 @ 18:20
Comment from: Kristen [Visitor]
Stone: According to the original post, Vijay's the one who said he didn't want her to make the cut because he didn't want a woman to beat him. He knows he can win. If he didn't think she could, why say that? (Take note, Under Par - I don't think Vijay is an extreme idiot.) And if you don't want to call that fear, would you prefer discomfort?

I wouldn't have any problem with male pros objecting to women playing in their events if only they had some events. If they want some events only men can play in, perhaps they should start a Men's Professional Golf Association.

It seems that all the people saying Wie will never win a PGA tour event are really saying a woman can't win, and Wie is just the figurehead. Never say never.

At least Wie isn't trying to do something silly like get equal pay for equal work. That would be absurd. Just ask the sponsors.

01/11/06 @ 18:44
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Please. I am a Wie fan and I have no particular affinity for Vijay either way. But to think that Vijay or any other PGA champions will be afraid to defend the title against Wie or any other women in a PGA tournament is really silly. The only woman who may develope her game to make a PGA cut is Wie, and while I hope Wie will be a viable PGA competitor in the future, she is still a work in progress and her prospects are uncertain.
01/11/06 @ 19:01
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I meant Mercedes champion Appleby not Allenby. Oh and just for fun, my predictions. Vijay 1 and Michelle a tie for 47.
01/11/06 @ 19:06
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
What an incredible crew of misogynists! It's somehow radical and feminist to think that the PGA tour should be for the very best golfers, regardless of age, race OR gender! Now, before alan or Under Par or anyone else gets all fidgety, I am not trying to say Wie is clearly one of the best golfers, regardless of gender, and that's why she should play on the PGA tour. She is playing there now because she draws viewers and patrons and generates dollars.

But to say that she doesn't belong on the tour because she is female is such a backwards, nineteenth century idea that I wonder what other interesting "values" you hold to be self evident. Why allow non-white people to play on the PGA tour - shouldn't they go play on some tour of their own? Why allow Europeans to play on the PGA tour, shouldn't they all be playing on the European tour? As for God's natural ordering, now you are becoming legitimately creepy Under Par. I am a very religious person, and I fail to see how you can invoke God in this argument. Doing so indicates you are stretching for rationale beyond logic that can't be countered. Similar invocations have allowed slavery and genocide to be considered appropriate institutions.

Belief that women are inferior, period, or that they should have less access than men simply due to their gender, is an outdated concept. Men are more athletic and better golfers on average, no doubt. But there have been, there are, and there will continue to be exceptional women who excel to a level that allows them to be competitive with men at the highest levels of any endeavour. They are few and far between, though there is definitely reason to believe there will be more in the future than we see today. Ye Gods, man, get with the last millenium's progress as the new millenium commences! You skipped a grade or two along the way.

On the subject of Vijay, he opened himself to the criticism being levelled at him with his misguided remarks about Annika. Just as members of the LPGA shouldn't complain about Wie, who is bringing more money and attention to the tour than any other player in history, Vijay shouldn't have complained about Annika, as she brought more attention to the Colonial that year than it would ever get otherwise.

Finally, this concept of taking another player's (man's) spot in the field is the most ludicrous of all. SPONSOR EXEMPTIONS! They don't go to a starving would be pro very often. They go to locals or other notables that will drive revenue, or to the Sponsor's own hand picked individuals that do something else to help their business.

As for playing in tournaments via qualification, like the Publinx - if you are good enough to qualify, then you are NOT taking another "deserving" player's spot. They only deserve it if they are good enough to beat you. Wie was good enough to play into that tournament, and at only 15 years of age.
01/11/06 @ 19:19
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
You indeed have a "different view".

The kind of pga that I would like to have the ability to qualify for, is one where the best players in the world compete.
It should not discriminate against black people or Australian people, or women, or chemists, or any other particular group of people.
If you are good enough, you should be able to play. Otherwise the pga is devalued.
01/11/06 @ 19:28
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Annika , creamer or any other women does not have a chance in blue moon to make a cut in a PGA tournament. They would be lucky to avoid finishing last. They don't have the distance, the backspin and various iron shots. 510 yard par 4 in PGA tournaments would be a par 5 in LPGA. Two or three of long par 4 in PGA would automatically add 2-3 to their scores.
01/11/06 @ 19:30
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Ron Mon said:
re. Vijay :: In the end, though, all us men-folk look at his muscular six feet four inches of golfing power

Vijay is 6 foot 2 at most.
More golfer's height exagerations.
Tiger is 6 foot by the way.
Ernie Els is 6 foot 3.
End of height lesson.
01/11/06 @ 19:31
Norman, i'm agree with you !!!
Kings regards,
01/11/06 @ 19:40
Comment from: stone [Visitor]
Norman you are starting to creep me out a little with your obssesion with men's heights.
01/11/06 @ 21:16
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Thank you for demonstrating that you're completely out of touch with reality. I am woman, hear me be stupid.

As I have said, I don't rule out the possibility that Wie might be able to make the cut, owing to the fact that golf is a game where the gap between the sexes is relatively narrow. However, other sports are far different.

Thus, your contention that there are some women who can compete with men at the highest level of any endeavor is preposterous. Where are the women who have done so in running? Show me. In fact, the women's world record for the mile is 4:13 and change -- the BOYS' American High School record is 3:52.

You exhibit great ignorance when you make statements like that.
01/11/06 @ 22:02
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email

I stood next to the Fijian Telephone Poll in 2003, and he towered over my 5'9" frame by a good half-foot. Unlike high school hoops, where 5'6" kids are listed at 5'9", Vijay works a reverse intimidation, listing himself as shorter than he really is. If he wore Mickelson's spikes, he'd be Manute Bol. Norman, be glad he's only obsessed with height. Candace, you're verbose. Under Par, you are the most entertaining respondent ever. I won't EVER take you on, since you'd kick my colonial arse straight up.
01/11/06 @ 22:18
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

You're a good sport.
01/11/06 @ 23:08
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
Yes, Ron, I am too verbose. I don't comment often, but when I do I definitely run on too long. Always been a problem for me.

And it gives offensive pseudo-intellectuals such as Under Par a window to hide their bigotry by parsing my too-long post and picking something to say "See, you don't know what you are talking about!"

Sorry, Mr. Clinton, er, Under Par. I didn't define my terms closely enough. I didn't hail men's advantages over women enough. Meantime, defend your own statements. BJ Wie is a "pinhead professor", we live in a "twisted feminist culture", women competing on the PGA "does violence to the natural order...God has deemed it so."

But I am the one out of touch with reality. To quote you once again "maybe it's more nuanced than you think." I think not. I think there is very little nuance to you or your position. No point in discussing anything with you given such a biased perspective. Sorry you lost your natural home, now that the Taliban has been run out of Afghanistan. It was your kind of society there when they were in power.
01/12/06 @ 00:01
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]

I agree completely that Wie has not shown she can qualify and play at the PGA level. The exemptions she receives, however, should not be a sore spot for anyone for the reasons I mentioned. She brings dollars to the table for everyone.

Under Par and his patriarchal societal views thinks that even if qualified she shouldn't be allowed to play. Unqualified men get exemptions to PGA tour events via sponsor exemptions all the time. Wie should be eligible for those, and she should be eligible for tour card qualification through her play as well.
01/12/06 @ 00:04
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

As G.K. Chesterton once said, "There really are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it."

We all have our biases; the only question is whether we're biased in favor of a lie or the truth. I know my biases, do you know yours?

By the way, you should like Clinton, for he was a true feminist man. And I didn't parse your words, rather, I analyzed a contention you made and refuted it with facts.

Go bake some cookies now.
01/12/06 @ 01:27
Comment from: Patrick [Visitor]
Wow under...I know you as a very understanding and thoughtful responder/debater, especially when posting to my replies, but that cookies thing? unnecessary...
01/12/06 @ 03:14
Comment from: David [Visitor]
I've always viewed the PGA Tour as a men's tour. Okay, there is nothing on paper stating that women cannot play, but if it weren't a men's tour, lots of women would be playing on it.

But even the top women players - take the very best, Annika - recognise that they are simply not good enough to compete on the PGA Tour. People here like to harp on about how the PGA Tour is for the world's best players, but what people don't seem to realise is.. Annika Sorenstam is //not// one of the world's best golfers - she's just the best female golfer.

It's the same in every sport I can think of - men outperform women immensely (a very mediocre male pro could beat Annika, in the case of golf). An extremely talented woman sprinter (take the Olympic Women's 100m Champion) wouldn't try and join a men's 100m race, because she'd be left in the starting blocks. In the 10 or so seconds it would take the winner to complete the race, all spectators would see how much more superior men are than women at running. Women can get away with being thrashed in golf because it lasts more than 10 seconds. People often pardon Wie for having 'another good week, with a few costly mistakes,' neglecting the fact that she, without a lot of luck and the wind in the right direction (literally), generally isn't capable of making the cut. Even less actually competing for the title.

01/12/06 @ 05:02
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
David makes some very valid points. But in the case of Michelle Wie, she is trying to compete against the best golfers in the world at age 16. Cetainly no teenager of any gender has done what she is doing. That she is female only adds to the interest.

The question is, how much better will she become? And if she does get much better, THEN how will she stack up to the men? We could be watching the female golfing equivalent of Mozart. Or Salieri. Only time will tell.
01/12/06 @ 08:40
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Unnecessary? Yes, but certainly fun and rhetorically effective. However, not too many things are necessary.

Posting to this golf board certainly isn't necessary -- neither is playing golf, for that matter. Moreover, what is not only unnecessary but also impolite and destructive is to exercise sloppy analyses and make patently untrue comments during debates. As someone once said in an article, "The worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse." First and foremost we owe each other not niceties, but truthfulness.

Patrick, you may not understand this; in fact, you may not even believe me. But modern women like the one in question are used to hen-pecking men, and since most men have been trained to be saps they get away with it. It does NOT work with me.

Feminism has poisoned the modern woman to a point where she perpetually feels compelled to combat a "patriarchy" that she imagines exists. It exists in Arab countries, but that's about it.

Lastly, I have only great women in my life, but this is because I can smell a feminist shrew a mile away and wouldn't give one the right time of day.
01/12/06 @ 09:07
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par, Just when things started to get good, I got the news that a client of our firm in the beautiful of Tampa is urgently in need of our services, and that I am the chosen one to leave at 4:25 this afternoon. I'll be returning Monday evening. I received a new Dell laptop for Christmas which I'll take along for a test run. First Alan, then June, now the Candy Girl. Man, what a crew! I hope that this doesn't sound like treason, but I am now hoping that Michelle does make the cut at the Sony, and for two basic reasons. The Wie fan(atic)s are thoroughly convinced the she is the greatest discovery since the invention of the wheel. She is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Norman in particular is so impressed with her prowess that he heaos praise upon her, using such glowing adjectives as "thrilling", "outstanding", "great", etc. All this without her ever making a cut in several attempts in men's events, or ever winning a US women's amateur, let alone a LPGA event. Just think of the hyperbole that will spew from the Wie camp if and when she does make a cut. Florence Nightingale, Mother Theresa, and Madame Curie will be stricken from the Wie history books. They'll be demanding a twice-lifesize statue of Michelle at the Golf Hall of Fame in St. Augustine. The Wie bloggers on this board will go absolutely bonkers. On the other hand, if she doesn't make the cut, Norm and the others will just have to return to page one of the excuse book. No fun in that. The other reason is that, in a momentary lapse of good judgment, I put some credence in our resident tout, Asia--Guy, and placed a $50 bet on Michelle to make the cut. I did this questionable thing through an online wagering site based in Costa Rica. I did get what I consider an overlay at 5 to 2 as opposed to 2 to 1 at other sites. For June, Alan, and other residents of Brixton, 5 to 2 extrapolates to 2.5 to 1.
01/12/06 @ 09:36
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

I spent a lot of time in Tampa last winter. Now, going soft on Wie . . .
01/12/06 @ 10:20
Comment from: David [Visitor]
>> Cetainly no teenager of any gender has done what she is doing.

Well, Tiger was as good at 16, but he missed all the cuts as well.
01/12/06 @ 12:00
Comment from: Sooner Mike [Visitor]
Whether or not Wie can make the cut or win the whole thing is academic mumbo-jumbo. I have no qualms with Wie entering an invitational - she brings in crowds, which is good for golf. But in events that are normally populated by people (note that I didn't say "men") who have earned an spot via Q school or a minor tournament, it is asinine to bump those people to shoehorn in Wie, who has never won any qualifer tourney associated with the PGA.

I'm all for fielding the best golfers of any color, creed or sex, but let's base that field on a set of qualifications that are the same for everyone, and not because it's a novelty to watch Wie nearly make the cut - again. If Wie wants to play with the big boys, why can't she play her way onto the tour like the men - instead of assuming she should get to come just because she happens to be one of the better female golfers?
01/12/06 @ 12:30
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Sooner Mike,Your post makes nothing but good sense, but therein lies the rub. Although your words may not seem incendiary to a normal person, the Wie fan(atic)s on this board will view you and your post with scorn that is usually reserved for child molesters.
01/12/06 @ 13:04
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
Not at all, Alex. Wie is given sponsor exemptions, and those can be given to anyone. I agree completely with Sooner Mike, as do most of the people you label Wie Fanatics. If she can qualify, she should play on the PGA tour full time. She has not shown the ability to qualify or even compete week in and week out against the men. If she is not good enough to qualify for a tour card, then she won't and shouldn't play on the PGA tour full time. The argument, such as it is, revolves around Under Par and others who claim it's inappropriate for women to play on the PGA tour, period.

Wie gets sponsor exemptions because she drives revenue. But those exemptions give us all a chance to see if her game, still at a formative stage at age 16 obviously, is progressing towards a sufficient level to compete for a tour card. So far, the answer has clearly been that it has not. But Wie's game is not static - no golfer's game is static. Whether she can compete now, or next year, or never, it's interesting to watch and see.

Unless you are Under Par, in which case nature is being violated by Wie's presence on a men's golf course. I'll take my shoes off and go back to the kitchen and my cookies now.
01/12/06 @ 13:36
Comment from: David [Visitor]
Michelle reckons she's going to play full-time on both the PGA and LPGA Tours when she's older. (You kind of have to snigger at that.) Well, if she, in five years time, is still missing PGA Tour cuts everytime but insists year after year on turning up to PGA Tour events, I'm gonna throw a paddy fit.
01/12/06 @ 14:18
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

You say I don't think women should be on a golf course. I don't think they should even be on a golf board.
01/12/06 @ 16:24
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under par, the new Dell 6000 inspiron seems to be working fine. As I said on another thread, I never thought I could be so happy while losing a Grant. Michelle Wie, from the penthouse to the outhouse in the opening round. But she's not out of it completely. It's still theoretically possibly for Mchelle to make the cut. All that she has to do tomorrow is break the course record and have everyone else shoot over par. Norman,70-68,really? It is to laugh!
01/12/06 @ 18:26
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par,As I prepare to disembark, Miss wie is at nine over par and dead last in the field with a few players yet to start.I think I'll hit the first gin mill I can find and celebrate. Remember that Helen Reddy masterpiece of the 70's:"I am woman, hear me roar.?" Let's paraphrae that:"I am male, hear me crow."
01/12/06 @ 18:59
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Hey come on guys. I'm feeling left out. Certainly I deserve as much ridicule for my prediction as Norman. I just hope all of this is in good fun and nobody is actually happy that Michelle Wie struggled today. Please let us know if it is in good fun or not--I hope you will not consider us paranoid if sometimes we wonder whether it is not. Best wishes to Wie for tomorrow.
01/12/06 @ 18:59
Comment from: John D [Visitor]
He! He! He! +9 +9 +9
01/12/06 @ 19:08
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Thank Goodness I didn't bet any money on Wie to make the cut. She would be hard pressed to make the score up tomorrow. She really should work on her putting.
01/12/06 @ 19:08
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Once again, maybe Under Par's wise words are appropriate:

Golf is a sport where your scores vary greatly from say to day. This is attributable to two things: firstly, the great number of variables on a glf course and, secondly and more significantly, the fact that even a couple of rounds of golf do NOT constitute a scientific sample, making what's known as "sample variance" a great factor.


It's nice to have somebody who can bring such thought provoking comments to a discussion.
01/12/06 @ 19:19
Comment from: Arnie [Visitor]
Annika win the Colonial? Michelle make the cut? Stop it, you're killin' me!

The women who sit around thinking men are deathly afraid of losing to women really must have inferiority complexes. If a woman can beat me at something, anything, more power to her. I wouldn't feel any less of myself because she was a woman. A competitor is a competitor, regardless of their sex.

But the point remains, no woman will ever be able to compete with the top men in the world in ANY physical sport. Not baseball, football, basketball, soccer, tennis, GOLF, or anything where strength and endurance are critical. It's not a knock on women, it's simple biology. The best of the best men in the world at these physical sports are so far up in the stratosphere that even an amazing female talent, one who is better than 99% of the males in the world, won't be able to truly compete with that top 1%. Not only that, they won't even come close. Men's Olympic Baseball Team against Women's Olympic Softball Team? Roger Federer against Venus Williams? Top World Cup Soccer Team against the U.S. Women's Soccer Team? Spurs against the Comets? The U.S Women's Olympic Hockey team, arguably a close second best women's team in the world, couldn't beat some random US high school boys team last week.

And why are these considered chauvinistic statements? It may surprise you seriously insecure women to know that comments like I just made are not made out of an insecurity or a fear that a woman will beat me. It's simple physical biology.

I would love to see Wie go to Q School and try to make the PGA Tour. I'd pull for her a lot more than I do now. But I'd still be realistic about her chances. One day she will sneak by and make a cut in lesser tournament in perfect conditions. Yeah!
01/12/06 @ 19:32
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Arnie said:
But the point remains, no woman will ever be able to compete with the top men in the world in ANY physical sport. Not baseball, football, basketball, soccer, tennis, GOLF, or anything where strength and endurance are critical.

Arnie your statement would be completely correct if you just removed the word GOLF.
For golf, strength helps. Endurance is not an issue. Strength helps but it is not critical. In any case, even though Wie has not done well, the parts of her game that have let her down have absolutely nothing to do with strength.

Standing over her 3 foot putts, she didn't need extra strength to bash that ball into the hole.

Anyway, glad to give you the lesson.
01/12/06 @ 19:45
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Travel safely, my e-friend. I see that the Wiemen are willing to show their pusses on the board. Well, as I said on the other board, I suppose they're used to being egregiously wrong.

I made a bet with someone on the AOL boards that Wie would miss the cut. It was only for $25 -- I like the chap and didn't want to see him get hurt too badly.
01/12/06 @ 19:57
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]

You have basically given the explanation for why many people are so excited about Michelle Wie. What she is trying to do seems so unprecidented, and today's round notwithstanding, she seems like she very well may be successful.
01/12/06 @ 20:12
Comment from: Ronnie [Visitor]
Michelle Wie is the only one at the moment, who is trying it out against the men, but Paula Creamer is just taking a different approach.

Paula would rather concentrate on being the best woman first before she takes on and beats the men of the pga. Paula Creamer, is able to get the job done.
01/12/06 @ 20:35
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

You've got to start taking those little pills the nice people in the white outfits give you. You'll never ascend to normalcy if you keep on just pretending to swallow.

By the way, there is another woman who has been trying to compete with the men. Her name is Elizabeth Beisegal -- I think she's about 80th on the money list on the LPGA Tour.
01/12/06 @ 20:59
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
The WIe Warriors are more than happy to welcome comments by Ronnie about Paual Creamer at a time like this.
01/12/06 @ 21:36
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]

**Standing over her 3 foot putts, she didn't need extra strength to bash that ball into the hole.**
True.. but maybe she needed that strength and endurance to push that drive out the extra 20yds or balst that approach out of the rough onto the green. That last 2 footer isn't the issue, it's all the other yards of turf from tee to green.
While Under Par and Alex might disturb some reader's here with their posts, you can't argue facts. Fact is Wie is a money making side show, albeit a very talented female golfer... but still a sideshow on the PGA, where she just doesn't have all the tools to play to the same level as the world's best.
01/12/06 @ 22:19
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Wie is working on her strength, but right now she has trouble with deep rough and needs to get the ball in the fairway more than the men do. Windy conditions that make it so much easier to miss the fairway will probably hurt her more than the men. But even now she might be able to do well against the men in good weather,
01/12/06 @ 22:37
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]

Did you see her swing guru on the golf channel? The esteemed Mr. Leadbetter went on about how she had the all shots that none of the other women have.. she can work the ball left or right, spin it, control her shots etc. Yet here she is on her HOME course, knows the greens, all the trouble spots, what angle of approach to take, heck she probably has played this course from the tips plenty. All this and she shoots 9 over?
What she lacks is not only distance and control off the tee, but distance and control with all her clubs.
She is probably 2 or 3 clubs behind most men in the field. She is trying to hit to a green with a 5 iron, while the pros she is playing alongside are hiting an 8 or 9.
It's been said here oodles of times, by people more eloquent than myself, she just doesn't have the game at the same level as the men do.
She has proven that she can compete well within the confines of the LPGA, but she doesn't have the game to play against the PGA tour players.
Unfortunately for people like Candace, she confuses the idea that anyone who states that, must be sexist. Herbie the Love Bug isn't real..... a nicely painted and well tuned VW Beatle will not be able to compete effectively against anything running the NASCAR circuit.
Ok, that's not to say that females equate to VW bugs, but the analogy is accurate. Then again VW's do have nice headlights, a generously curved rearend and things to hang onto when the ride gets bumpy... but I digress. :-)
Ms. Wie is an extremely talented young lady, but at this point her game isn't up to par agaist the elite male golfers and she is being used as a money-making, publicity vehicle which doesn't end up enhancing the sport.
01/12/06 @ 23:49
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
I don't know, Cranky, is she really not enhancing the sport? How many years have you, or just about any of us, cared who won the Sony Open? That's why she gets the sponsor exemptions.

As for calling anyone stating that Michelle lacks enough game a sexist - I guess I am sexist! I said in one of my replies that she clearly does not have the game to be a regular on the PGA tour. Maybe she will one day, but she doesn't have it now. And that was before today's +9 performance. The sexism comes from the likes of Under Par saying that women shouldn't be allowed to compete with men simply because they are female. I do not support a different level of qualification for women to be given a PGA tour card - I support women being allowed to earn a card the same way men do. No woman has shown the ability to do that yet, but the opportunity should be there for them to try. Fortunately, it is available, as Under Par does not run the PGA or the USGA.

Anyway, clearly this will not be the year Wie makes the cut. Maybe she never will, who knows. Still compelling golf, which is why we are talking about her and not Vijay or Sabbatini, even though she is in dead last place.
01/13/06 @ 00:27
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Is her repeated attempts to qualify enhancing the SPORT??? I think not. It might be enhancing her pocketbook, her sponsors coffer's, the PGA's revenues, but that is entirely a different thing than enhancing the SPORT..... unless golf is all about generating revenue? If thats the criteria to enhance a sport let's get all the male golfers scantily clad girls for caddies and hire chippendales to caddie for the gals on the LPGA.
That kind of thinking, in my eyes, is more damaging than anything you might deem as sexist. So as long as she generates interest and revenue, she should be used to satisfy that potential? That's akin to running a sideshow... let's extract all we can, even if the interest we generate lies more in one of freakish curiosity.
Why not channel all that potential into beating her peers... Annika, Paula, Lorena et al (you can even include Morgan if you want)and once she has matured, give a PGA event a shot? She's tried enough now.
WKW penned a similar blog tonite, perhaps this comment falls more into that vein, but stop with this PGA entry stuff already. She's 16 and wonderfully talented, but let her exhibit,strengthen and hone that talent in a more appropriate venue.
But hey... you say tomato... I say quel tomat!
01/13/06 @ 00:58
Comment from: Cheryl [Visitor]

Michelle Wie is only allowed 8 LPGA events a year since she is not an LPGA tour member, and she has played the 8 tournaments she is allowed.

So she is focusing her talents on beating women, and playing alongside women.

However, if she wants to challenge herself and play alongside men from time to time - more power to her, its a free country and it can only help her game in the long run.
01/13/06 @ 06:07
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]

Ok.. she was allowed entry into only 8 LPGA events as an amateur. How many amateur events did she compete in during 2005?

If she is "focusing her talents on beating women" - errrr I hope you didn't mean to imply she's a woman beater!- I applaud that, in fact you and I agree wholeheartedly.

She's tried 3 times at the Sony now, the John Deere, the PR trip to Japan for the Casio Open and others have chronicled all her exploits here, ad infinitum. Sorry.. she just doesn't have the parts. So while you contend this is to "challenge herself and play alongside men from time to time", I and many others see it as a slick marketing ploy put into action time after time. Perhaps that sponsor's exemption could have been used to invite Tori Taniguchi, the 2005 Casio winner or Kim Jong Duck, who came in second. They and about 70 other golfers finished well ahead of Ms. Wie, but it all comes down to the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
She's a prodigy and a talent, that's NOT my contention, but they are using her most strictly to make $$$$$, plain and simple.
So while you and I agree "it's a free country".... that doesn't diminish the opinion that she is being used, and not neccesarily to the best advantage for her skill and the betterment of golf. I don't agree that "it can only help her game in the long run." Didn't know you had cornerd the market on crsytal balls, oh sooth Cheryl, or I would have asked you what Lotto numbers to pick today.
01/13/06 @ 07:57
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
0cranky1 said:
**Standing over her 3 foot putts, she didn't need extra strength to bash that ball into the hole.**
True.. but maybe she needed that strength and endurance to push that drive out the extra 20yds or balst that approach out of the rough onto the green. That last 2 footer isn't the issue, it's all the other yards of turf from tee to green.

Your chances of beating me in terms of stats are very small.
There were 144 players in the field.

Her driving accuracy was 14th best in the field. That means she was mostly playing from the fairway, not the deep rough you discussed.

On the other hand, she took 32 putts. Her putting was the 106th best in the field. That is where most of her problem lied.

Also around the greens her touch wasn't great on the short game, which is due to feel as opposed to strength.
01/13/06 @ 10:03
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Excluding par 3s, on 14 holes Wie made 8 fairways and missed the fairway 6 times. Most players did worse--but missed fairways probably cost Wie a lot more. She made 2 out of 6 sand saves so being in the sand a lot cost her--I do not know how many were related to missed fairways.
01/13/06 @ 11:43
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim, I know one of her shots out of sand went into sand at the other side of the green. Bunker to bunker. It didn't look pretty.

Jim, I was keeping track of Wie on Tourcast, which gives you an overhead view of the course through each shot.

To be honest, on many holes, she outdrove her oppponents and was in the centre of the fairway, with her two playing partners behind her in rough, yet she still seemed to finish the hole worse than them.
Also, for some holes, she hit the rough, and was about 30-40 yards behind her partners, and then she would actually hit a much better 2nd shot into the green than either of them, from their perfect fairway position, and them being much closer to the hole, with much better lie, and able to use a shorter club.

Therefore, to say that that it was the rough that affected her bad score in the first round is inaccurate in my opinion.

I found that she hit several innacurate shots from great fairway positions, that is what really cost her, that and her putting, and don't forget her short game.

Basically everything, except for her play from the rough. LOL.
01/13/06 @ 12:15
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
That kind of makes the point doesn't it, Jim? You claim she bested the field in missed fairways - "Most players did worse--but missed fairways probably cost Wie a lot more.", yet her score ballooned. That tends to support what I said earlier.
NORMAN claims it was all those nasty putts she made or missed as the case my be, and yes her average was 2 per GIR. He also says "Your chances of beating me in terms of stats are very small.", so I ask him if she possessed all this excellent shot making skill as claimed by David Leadb, and you promote from the stats you quote, why the +9? Look at her other stat Normie-boy... she was 45' from the pin on average. Of course she's gonna 2 putt her way around the course, she was never able to stick it on and close, for a chance at birdie like she did on #3 where she left herself an easy 3 footer. You can't take one stat and try to base your whole argument on it. She is not the best putter, so for her to succeed she has to not only putt well, but be in position on the green to get that putt to drop. Pretty hard for a so-so putter who is often coming into the green with a longer club in her hands and can't get the ball to stay. That's one reason why I feel she competes very well against the ladies... the shortened course gives her the chance to get more approaches to stay in a makeable range... a neccessity for a so-so putter to score well. Yeah she had sand trouble too, but part of that could be because she was unable to control her longer irons coming into greens. She ranked in the bottom tier of the field for Putts per round, putts per GIR, Driving distance and Greens in Reg. Only 2 putting stats there, but boy if you can't drive far enough to have a good chance to hold a green with your approach shot, or be able to get there in regulation, it stands to reason you might be 45 ' from the pins and 2 putting everything.
It's ok though Normie-boy... she does do well when playing the gals what with the shorter courses, shorter rough, more generous fairways and easier pin placements. Hopefully she takes her game there and we get to see how well she can do on a level playing filed... not one stacked against her.
01/13/06 @ 12:45
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
My earlier post said "What she lacks is not only distance and control off the tee, but distance and control with all her clubs", so it is more than the one dimensional strength issue. See the word CONTROL and you'll see why as you said "she outdrove her oppponents and was in the centre of the fairway, with her two playing partners behind her in rough, yet she still seemed to finish the hole worse than them."
So from a prefferable lie she couldn't stick it beside the pins, yet those guys she was playing with ended up with fewer putts and were closer to the pin on average, all from a poorer playing position. Yer logic is gettin kinda fuzzy there.... hmmmmm
01/13/06 @ 12:58
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman seems to be positing the thesis that it's advantageous to play from the rough. Well, then things bode well for my golf game.
01/13/06 @ 13:29
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
It is a pity that you weren't able to understand, but I will try to explain in simpler terms.

During Michelle's round she:
- from advantageous positions in fairways, where she was able to hit with a shorter club, she hit bad shots and missed greens.
- from the rough, and with much further distance, playing from a more difficult lie, with more club needed, she played alot of good shots to about 14-20 feet from the hole.

What is the point?
- The point is. You were saying that she was severely disadvantaged from the rough and because she had longer approach shots. She was not. She was able physically for those shots.

So why did she play poorly when given better chances from the fairway and with shorter clubs?
- Because she was playing poorly. She had bad form, the reasons why that would happen are plenty. The point though is, that she had the physical ability to do well, whether in the rough, and even when her driving was shorter.

- The fact is though, that she did not perform well on the day. The other fact is that, that was not caused by a lack of physical strength. It was caused by poor play, plain and simple, easy to understand. Hopefully you get it.
01/13/06 @ 13:57
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Boy oh boy Normie... Never did I say "severely disadvantaged", but that seems to be the way you fashion your arguments. OK... so now the wunderkind does not have the skill to compete since you clearly said "Because she was playing poorly. She had bad form etc".
Wow bad form, can't putt, rates in the bottom of the field of 144 players in Driving Distance (122), GIR (T107), Putts /Rnd(T125), Putts /GIR(T108).
My comments have clearly stated that her strength and control both have to improve to compete effectively. Whether that shot is from the rough, bunker or fairway, she is at a disadvantage if she can't place the ball in an effective spot on the green.
Using the shot from the rough, or her approach shots played with a longer club as an example of the disadvantage she faces, is just that... an example to support some of the ideas posted by myself and others here.
I believe her "bad form" as you called it is a wonderful example of her "lack of control" as I have mentioned... it's just that I have further clarified and justified my positions with examples, not just rhetoric.
Look back at how she faired at say the Evian Masters... as I recall her putting stats were tremendously better.... 12 birdies in the last 2 rounds and many of them short putts. Could that have anything to do with her improved GIR and proximity to the pin? It wasn't because she was draining these monster 45 footers. Good putting stats are tremendously influenced by great control on approach shots, GIR etc.
The permutations are fairly complex, so you might have a hard time fathoming some of the concepts there Norman, but the strength and control issues will always be a factor when she competes against the best male golfers on the planet, let alone a weaker field in say .. Japan.
Oh no.. that wasn't putting, or shot making, or control or strength, or mental endurance, it was the wind, the speed of the greens, the wait coming up to play the last few holes. Sounds somewhat familiar?
01/13/06 @ 15:18
Comment from: Arnie [Visitor]
Norman, you're a goof. I agree that throwing golf in my list is a stretch, but that's not because strength isn't important, it's because I was talking about sports, and let's face it, golf is not a sport. It's a game. A great game.

Now back to your ignorant post. Strength isn't required to win on the PGA tour? So the fact that all the top players are bombers these days and distance beats accuracy, doesn't matter? And hitting out of heavy rough or sand doesn't take strength and coordination? Norm, do you actually play golf?

And it's not just raw strength, it's fine coordination coupled with that strength, and, yes Norm, it's also endurance. Not cycling endurance, but endurance just the same.

This is all a ridiculous discussion. Michelle Wie will never compete in any meaningful men's tournament. With all the amazingly talented young women coming up the ranks to the LPGA, I wonder if she'll even win a lot over there.

What I am sure she'll be is very, very wealthy. Because she and her Dad have played the money angle very deftly.

01/13/06 @ 15:36
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
The example I listed were to show that she did perform great shots when strength was needed.

When I stated, the comment about her bad form, I meant just that.

Do you know that Retief Goosen hit a round of 81 in last years US Open.

What do you think we would find if we analysed the stats from that round?
We would find that most of hit stats were pretty poor.

Going by your logic, we would then say, oh oops, Retief Goosen isn't good enough for the pga.

Do you know just how stupid your argument sounds.
You take the worst round that someone has played in a pga event, and then start spouting off about how this means they aren't good enough.

How about we took her round of 68 at a previous Sony, or how about we took her rounds of 71 and 70 at the John Deere and analysed those stats.

Obviously those stats would look much better, and you could come to the conclusion, oh she does belong.

Basing stuff on one round of golf shows complete ignorance.
01/13/06 @ 18:28
Comment from: John D [Visitor]
Hi Candace, I sure missed you. A man and wife were playing in their club's annual "Guys and Dolls" tournament. The man was not happy about having to play, but his wife had insisted. On the 12th tee, his patience had reached its limit. While his wife wasted time on the ladies tee, he decided to go ahead and hit his drive from the mens. Unfortunately, he misjudged his shot and his ball hit his wife in the back of the head, killing her instantly. At the hospital the doctor came to talk to the husband. "Mr. Davies, we found a golf ball lodged 3 inches into your wife's brain, which was the the cause of death. But, we have found something else that really puzzles us." "What is it?" asked Mr. Davies. "Well," said the doctor, "we also found a golf ball lodged 6 inches into her anal cavity." The husband dismissed the doctor with a wave of his hand "Oh, that was just my Mulligan!"
01/13/06 @ 19:40
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Norman, tsk,tsk,tsk
****Going by your logic, we would then say, oh oops, Retief Goosen isn't good enough for the pga.

Do you know just how stupid your argument sounds.
You take the worst round that someone has played in a pga event, and then start spouting off about how this means they aren't good enough.***
Obviously, you can't read Normie, can someone please call in some remedial help for this poor soul. I NEVER based my points solely on this one round you twit, so you can eat your own words "Do you know just how stupid your argument sounds"
I have cited examples of how her limitations affect her play and ability to score against the men both generally, based on all those attempts she has made QUOTE-She's tried 3 times at the Sony now, the John Deere, the PR trip to Japan for the Casio Open and others have chronicled all her exploits here, ad infinitum. Sorry.. she just doesn't have the parts-END QUOTE and where her strengths would apply ie: Evain Open, yesterdays hole#3.

NEVER once did I say because she failed in this one instance she shouldn't be allowed to compete, but what I ACTUALLY have said is that after all her repeated attempts, it's obvious she isn't ready to take this step, but I highly doubt she will ever be. Your Retief Goosen arguement is pure crapola. I never postulated anything to that effect.
QUOTE- Fact is Wie is a money making side show, albeit a very talented female golfer... but still a sideshow on the PGA, where she just doesn't have all the tools to play to the same level as the world's best.- END QUOTE.
I think that sample variance line you tossed out every other post must have seeped in and caused you to suffer cerebral variance.
You aren't accurate in how you ascribe arguements, positions or facts versus anyone here who holds a different opinion tahn yourself. That pretty sad when honest discourse is eschewed in favour of your rabid indulgence in your Wie World. Under Par had it right.. your a wiemen to the core.
01/13/06 @ 20:09
Comment from: John [Visitor]
So yesterday she stunk up the course with a terrible odor. Only one player had a higher score. Her driving average was a pathetic 278 yards.

Today her driving average was 300.0, only 11 players had a lower score and she looked like one of the better players on the course...

Maybe she is who she is and will do what she wants to and to heck with what any of us say :-)
01/13/06 @ 23:42
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
"Maybe she is who she is and will do what she wants to and to heck with what any of us say :-)"

Yes, John, I'm sure that it was willful when she shot that 79, and that she was just being herself.

By the way, I watched the round and it's my perception that the winds died down considerably as the afternoon wore on. I could be wrong, but it did seem that way.
01/14/06 @ 01:02
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
Ah, who is looking for excuses now, Under Par? I made no wind-excuses when she droppped a 79. She simply stunk up the joint. But when she hits a 68, you come up with "Well, looks like the wind dropped." I know you hate to see it, but a 68 was a damn fine score on day two, in the morning or the afternoon.

So she shoots a 68, nearly a top ten round for the day, right after posting a 79, one of the very worst rounds of the previous day. Does this mean she can't compete at the PGA level? Or that she can?

I think it says just what it seems to - she has the ability to score well and shoot low on a men's tournament course, but she doesn't have the game (especially the consistency) to do it for a full tournament yet. I say yet - perhaps she never will, but given that she is 16 years old, I would think there is a fair chance her best golfing days are ahead of her. In which case, it's likely that she will be more than a sideshow eventually Cranky.

But that is conjecture. For now, she did herself proud on day two - both by shooting a great score and because she bounced back from disaster yesterday instead of folding her tent. Unfortunately, she still has to sound the rallying cry of the also-ran: "Wait until next year!"

One thing her 68 certainly did do - prove Baldwin wrong (again). That score will keep the interest in Wie quite strong, both for the rest of this year and right up to next year's Sony Open, when she tries again.
01/14/06 @ 02:35
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Interest will remain because they'll do anything to hype "No-wins Wie."
01/14/06 @ 02:37
Comment from: JohnD [Visitor]
At least she was color co-ordinated....BLACK! Perfect for the occasion. Maybe she'll go away, now. You know she should have learned...3rd times a CHARM. Looks like the CHARM of loosing will stay with her!
01/14/06 @ 08:23
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Fact is Wie is a money making side show, albeit a very talented female golfer... but still a sideshow on the PGA, where she just doesn't have all the tools to play to the same level as the world's best.- END

If she can shoot the 12th best score of the day, that shows that she has the tools. She played a bad round. She played a great round.
By her 2nd round she showed that she has the tools to succeed, all that she needs to make a cut comfortably is to use those tools on a consistant basis.
01/14/06 @ 09:21
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Duh.. Norman, weren't you the one who said a few posts back "What do you think we would find if we analysed the stats from that round?" and the "Basing stuff on one round of golf shows complete ignorance" .
Oohhh touche... you moron, with your 2nd to last post here just shot yourself in the head.
Yeah I said she was talented, I said she would probabaly do well at the LPGA, but I also said her TRACK RECORD has shown she isn't able to make the cut, and she should hone her talents on the LPGA.
And yes, her attempts at trying to make the cut at PGA events is a sideshow.. a quite lucrative one that, but still a sideshow.
You really don't read or comprehend very well do you... so understand the apellation of moron isn't name calling, cause when it is based on facts, it's really only the TRUTH.

BTW.. you should catch the Sprint Post Game on TGC from last night... specifically Brandle Chamblee's comments.
01/14/06 @ 09:52
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
I think my fellow Wie Warriors have missed an important point. Two years ago when she shot 68 that was a great round--indeed it looked unreal, the round of a lifetime. Her 68 this time was was not a great round, she had 3 straight bogeys for heavens sake. This was a very good round--but it was not a great round in the sense that it looked anywhere near the best she could possibly do. This is the type of round she has so often on the LPGA where she looks like she is dropping strokes all over the place and still winds up in the top 3. Last year at the John Deere it took her A+ game to bring her to the point where she was a stroke over the cut line. This year it looks like her A game will be quite adequate for the purpose. AND IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, only needing your A GAME and not having the pressure of needing to play yhour A+ GAME.
01/14/06 @ 11:04
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I'm not too optimistic about your intelligence level so I'm not so sure if you will understand this but here goes:

- When I said that you couldn't judge someone on 1 round of golf, I meant just that, be the round a 79 or a 68.
- What I then said about the 68 was that that it proved that she has the physical ability to achieve on the pga tour. Her shots showed that she has got the potential to put in the rounds that will get the job done on that tour. Most people simply cannot do this.
Also the manner of her round, showed that she made some basic errors, yet still shot the 12th best round of the day. If she eliminated these errors she could be even better. That shows that she has the ability to acheive.

If you watched her round, you would also know that the way she hit her iron shots showed that she has the ability to take a course apart.
Is there any 16 year old boy who could have hit a round with 7 birdies, in difficult conditions, that was better than all but 11 pga tour pros. Not likely.
01/15/06 @ 17:33
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Your point is well taken.

She made some basic errors, and showed the potential that she could actually have shot much lower, with only minor improvements.

If she improves at the same rate until next year, it is likely that she could have an average and a good day and still make the cut.
All is rosey for us Wie-warriers.

I must admit, when she was hitting all those crisp iron shots on day 2 I did feel a little for for Baldie and his mates.
01/15/06 @ 17:37
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Sorry Alex I didn't bet on Michelle the unknowns were too great. I did unfortunately drop a couple down on Jason Gore and he didn't do as well as Michelle at the cut.

But I must say Jason looked well fed over last year. He didn't miss any meals over the off season.

01/15/06 @ 20:46
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
No, Jason doesn't look like he misses the complimentary buffet table too much.
01/15/06 @ 21:02
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
You certainly do change the construct of your argument, and bend reality at will. For instance you said above about her 68 that she ".. hit a round with 7 birdies, in difficult conditions,...", yet while watching the round the commentators all talked about how the wind conditions had improved. So I guess the round she shot "under difficult conditions", must have been her opening round, that +9 gem.
Again from above I quote "it proved that she has the physical ability to achieve on the pga tour." Yet the tough conditions of the day before,and her other attempts only exposed she didn't to play CONSISTENTLY ie: she doesn't have all the tools. Thats' why I mentioned the Brandle Chamblee point above... a huge Wie booster, yet after her round of 68 he said, and I am paraphrasing, "She could play her own game on the LPGA, be a Tiger Woods out there and challenge Annika. But she's disadvantaged on the tour. Her driving distance only puts her at average and she can't spin or control the ball the way the men can. She can't get at tough pin locations or shorten up the long holes enough.."
Hmmm, exactly the points I was making 24 hrs before. This guys a former pro, and makes his living as a golf broadcaster. Well, the nerve of that guy huh Normie.. maybe you had better send him a nasty letter, chastise him real good and finish him off with an atomic head noogie!. How dare he have any opinion that differs from NORMAN, why he's only a mere mortal!
You seemd to be stuck in this vacuum of hyperbole and hero whorship. No one here is saying MiWi can't golf or is a bad person. They contend that her attempts to make the cut at Tour events at this stage are:1-premature or 2- have run their course.
I'm sure we'll get to see her try again at the John Deere... depending on how she fares at her LPGA events. At least there she'll get more that 2 rounds in per tourney.... if all goes her way.
Let me return another one of your quotes to you again, "Your chances of beating me in terms of stats are very small."
Ok, then Ab-Norman, since her objective was to make the cut in these attempts, and she has failed each time the stats bear out: 6 missed cuts, 0 made. Kinda lopsided there.

01/16/06 @ 04:58
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Don't forget her attempts on the Nationwide Tour.

About Chamblee: wow, I'm surprised he actually told the truth about a cherished female creature. The PC thought police are going to have to take him out to the woodshed for that transgression.
01/16/06 @ 11:17
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Conditions were still difficult enough on Friday, although not as bad as Thursday.

Since you don't appear to have the ability to understand that 68 was a good round, maybe something simple will help you more.
Michelle's 68 was bettered by 11 players. It was equalled or bettered by 18 players, and 120 odd players shot a worse score than it.

Maybe that can get through to you, but probably not. Whatever the conditions, the quality of the round is reflected by how well it did against her opponents. If half the field had shot 65, then obviously it would not have been that good at all, but the fact that it was so good in comparison to the other players shows the quality of the round.

As regards the consistancy, I don't know what your point is. I haven't come across anyone who has said that she is the complete player now.
People, myself included, have stated is that she has the game at her current age that shows she will likely be able to compete competitively on the pga in time to come.

OCranny said:
"She could play her own game on the LPGA, be a Tiger Woods out there and challenge Annika. But she's disadvantaged on the tour. Her driving distance only puts her at average and she can't spin or control the ball the way the men can. She can't get at tough pin locations or shorten up the long holes enough.."

It doesn't particularly matter to me who you are paraphrasing there. If her driving is average, why does that stop her competing?
Her driving on both days, was over 10 yards longer than Jim Furyk, and he seemed to be able to compete okay.
On the item of putting spin on the ball, she can put the desired spin on the ball to keep it close to the hole.

Have a look at these stats for approach shots:
175 to 200 yards: Wie 11 feet. Furyk 26 feet.
150 to 175 yards: Wie 11 feet. Furyk 31 feet.
125 to 150 yards: Wie 4 feet. Furyk 17 feet.
under 125 yards: Wie 13 feet. Furyk 14 feet.

I have already stated that Wie outdrove Furyk on both days. Also her approach shots, as shown were much closer than the pin than his shots.
In that round, Furyk hit 67, and Wie hit 68.

Why have I compared her to Furyk?
Because Furyk is one of the most accurate players on the tour. His driving isn't that long, and so he relies heavily on his accuracy.
I think that speaks volumes about Wie's game.
01/16/06 @ 16:38
Comment from: Boola Boss [Visitor]
For Ocranky1: You MUST NOT have caught Brandle's comments on Michelle on Sunday night on TGC! He turned it all around, praising Michelle, saying that she does not have the distance right now, but even now she has enough distance to be competitive on the PGA tour, AND that a few years down the road, she would be able to compete on the PGA tour on a regular basis.

Also you didn't mention Michelle beating Vijay 68-69 in round 2!!
01/16/06 @ 19:59
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Now Normie, in the spirit of amity, I wasn't going to bring this item up, but so I must to again prove my point. You've thrown down the gauntlet, and I'll slap you with it. You Sir are a BLOGGING PLAGEURIZER? a BLOGGERIZER or PLAGEURBLOGGER if you must and here lies the PROOF. Please try to follow along, I'll try to lay it out so even you can understand.

Earlier in these posts, after MiWi's first round of +9 your analysis lead you to conclude her score was such due to the fact that, and I QUOTE YOU: ****"On the other hand, she took 32 putts. Her putting was the 106th best in the field. That is where most of her problem lied. Also around the greens her touch wasn't great on the short game, which is due to feel as opposed to strength."***** and also another quote of YOURS:

****In any case, even though Wie has not done well, the parts of her game that have let her down have absolutely nothing to do with strength.
Standing over her 3 foot putts, she didn't need extra strength to bash that ball into the hole.***
Your logic here implies her fault was missing out on those 3 footers, thus supporting your other quote about "That is where most of her problem lied"(sic)

It was then that I shared with you the view that it wasn't really her putting that was at fault, but the fact that she lacked the control on her approach shots and that was her ultimate demise, and that control was also affected by strength or a lack thereof, and the ability to shape her shots, as well as make up for shortened or errant drives. Please do reread about how I proved to you via the stats that since she was bottom of the field in GIR, distance from the pin etc and how she couldn't help but 2 putt her way around the course because she was on average around 46 feet from the pins. Then I also mentioned that she would suffer this particular problem in cases where the course proved too difficult. Ie: deep rough, shorter drives forcing to play longer irons into greens, that darn nasty wind etc. These are all uncontrollable environmental factors that she didn't possess the tools to manage at this point, as her strength was indeed a factor to be accounted for when viewed thusly. You of course protested loud and long, that the Cranky1 is wrong, my analysis was faulty blather, blather blather? See again your quote above ie: PUTTING

I did say though, that on courses and conditions that didn't exploit this shortcoming, she could do well ie: Evian Masters, but environmental factors being uncontrollable, she has shown to date that she succumbs to these forces and fails to make cuts.

Ok so far so good, I trust your cognitive abilities have allowed you to follow thus far. Then I read "Golf with Shanks" blog titled "Observations of Michelle Wie from 2 rounds of the PGA tour" and yes you sir have a wonderful post there. A comparative analysis of the differences and her improvement on her 2 rounds and here again I QUOTE YOU *** "Some people blaimed her putting. That wasn't great, but it is much more complex than just putting.

Here are her approach shot stats for each round:
175 to 200 yards, Round 1 = 72 feet. Round 2 = 11 feet.
150 to 175 yards, Round 1 = 41 feet. Round 2 = 11 feet.
125 to 150 yards, Round 1 = 26 feet. Round 2 = 4 feet.
under 125 yards, Round 1 = 35 feet. Round 2 = 13 feet." ****
Now here is where the dichotomy lies my man, your earlier observations of her round1 faults are quoted above (see PUTTING), yet now your conclusion is that it is much more complex than just putting. It involves good control on the approach shots to be near the pin, to have those birdie chances! Those were exactly the ideas presented to you to counter your "Putting" theory, please review the blog entires here: http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/jennifer.mario/2006/01/11/it_s_michelle_wie_versus_vijay_singh_at.

WHAT????? ? you didn't think that up sir, you plageurized every facet and nuance of that from myself and other sources here. It was I who corrected your myopic observation that, and I QUOTE YOU, "Her putting was the 106th best in the field. That is where most of her problem lied " You didn't possess the cerebral wherewithall to formulate that idea on your own about it being "more complex than putting" as your other quotes have proven it beyond your grasp, yet you dare to pontificate thusly? Using your own words, and the logic you displayed in the opening quotes, you proved those musings on her second round and I QUOTE YOU **"I think this shows the massive difference in the accuracy of her approach shots in each round"** are falsehoods.The falsehood is not in the assertion, but in the assertion that YOU thought that to be the case! You sir, did not think that, you merely took ideas and opinion from others and portrayed them as yours, with your "I think" line, yet your original contention was her putting let her down!

Here's a quote from one of my responses to you MY QUOTE "Good putting stats are tremendously influenced by great control on approach shots, GIR etc."

Hmmm, now where did you come up with your alterred opinion, after I posted that?

Have you no shame? Your first posts claimed it was her putting, yet now in different Blog, you claim it to be otherwise.

Let us continue along here Normie, your transgressions are not yet finished seeing the light of day nor reason.
Your next claim is ,and I QUOTE **"These stats are particularly important, because several people have claimed that Wie does not have the strength to get and KEEP the ball near the hole. I think it has been proved there that she can do just that. **

Here again you can't read or digest the points I made? I had said that when the course conditions, ie environmental factors, were NOT FAVOURABLE she had trouble keeping her ball on the green or near enough for a chance at a good putt. See the Not favourable part there Normie! You blighthly skipped over that, thus rendering your claim above false. Strength does come into play when conditions demand it (wind,rough, even temp), and I even said as much when I cited the Evian Masters as an example where she did NOT suffer this, because the course and conditions were not a factor there! The course was shorter than a PGA mens and the weather was nice!

You remind me of the Wizard of Oz; ok the Wiazrd of NormOz if you will, hiding behind your shield of flashing lights, smoke and mirrors while you roar about, proclaiming to all who will listen that you are great and powerful. Well you're not, you're lost lil guy behind a fašade, ? or perhaps you are the hapless scarecrow. Either way you have just proven to all that your arguements and points add up tp zero. Especially that "Your chances of beating me in terms of stats are very small". Man, you just got it handed to you. See the PUTTING quote as your reasons for MiWi's +9 score.

Now I know you will next say, "But I was right, she CAN handle these impediments, just view her stats from round 2. My stats above just proved it!"

Here again I say to you, Round 2 was a lot easier for her She teed up later in the day, once the conditions had improved ; you know that nasty wind that foiled her drives and balked her approach shots in the first round. (Actually her second round driving stats increased substantially, another point that proves her strength,or lack thereof did not allow her to overcome the course conditons during the first round) So I say No sir, she hasn't proven she "has the tools" to handle those impediments, as the environmental factors that were an obstacle the first round, were not as prevalent or daunting in her second. So she has proved she can play well when the factors are closer to optimal, but under tough sledding, she hasn't quite gotten the skill to make the cut! Keep following the logic here Normie ol' boy, so that you can see where the issue is. She'll do fine under good and more prefferential course conditions, but her game is not consistent enough YET, to take on the big boys course under all conditions, because you can't control those environmental factors. Wind and rain and all manner await, witness the dreadful start to the 2004 campaign, so that is why I maintain she should hone her skillls at a level more comensurate with her age, gender and abilities.

Be that presumption right or wrong, only time and experience will tell, however much you may deny. That debate will prevail and her 68 was a good score to post after that +9, HOWEVER:

My original point here is irrefuttable? your own words have proven you out! You claim MiWi's putting let her down and then do an about face after several of my exchanges have enlightened you, now claiming those ideas as yours! In short sir ? YOU HAVE ZERO CREDABILITY. While this isn't a world crisis, it sure points to the fact that you display no intellectual honesty.
Now you are simply a Wei-Zealot. If you say it fast enough, it becomes self apparent. Wie-Zealot, weizealot, weasel .....it.
01/17/06 @ 06:28
Comment from: isogood [Visitor]
hi jennifer
I found a friend of you here !

allez Jean !

There is a great debate here in France also about that, difficult to translate all... quite the same
01/17/06 @ 11:46
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

The network pooh-bahs obviously got to Brandle -- don't bet against it.
01/17/06 @ 12:36
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Oh, I forgot to mention something, and it's most apropos.

Singh: -9. Wie: +7.
01/17/06 @ 14:04
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
To be more accurate:
Singh Even. Wie: +7.

Don't get me wrong, Singh is a FAR FAR better player than Michelle Wie, but you can't include his final two rounds in the interest of accuracy.
For instance, had conditions got worse and he shot 75, 75 and finished at +10, he still would have done better than Wie at +7, so let's leave out his final two rounds.

I replied to your post in Shanks thread. Sorry if I have embarrassed you, but you really messed up your facts.
01/17/06 @ 15:06
Comment from: John D [Visitor]
To be EVEN more accurate: 2005 wins: Singh=4 Wie=ZERO
01/18/06 @ 07:25
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Ocranky you should try to improve your style of writing. I find it most confusing and difficult to follow your points.

Having read through it about 3 times, I noticed that you seemed to flip back and forth.

What won me over in Norman's argument was that he said that conditions were not so much better on day 2 than day 1, and he showed the scores of the players to prove this. Also on day 3 the scores were far better indicating that conditions were much better on day 3.

I don't pretend to be a golfing expert, but I don't think you need to be to understand this.
If the conditions were so easy on day 2, than why did the field of players play no better? Also, why then on day 3, when the conditions were actually much better, did the average score go way down.

I think you have been completely proved wrong there Ocranky. Sorry, but your attacking post seems to have backfired on you. Don't worry, worse things can happen than that.
01/18/06 @ 10:02
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Johnny N:
The sore differential between day 1 and 2 is simple. On day one she had an early tee time and played in tough conditions, as did the whole field. On day 2 she had a later tee time, and she got to play in improving conditions.The bulk of the field sho higher scores on day 2 because the buclk of the field played while the conditions were worse. If 75% of the field teed off earlier than her and the conditions improved ONCE she was on hole 2 for instance, therefore more players would have faced tough conditions versus the fewer who had later tee times. I hope that explains it.
Look at her playing partner Camilo Villegas, who played onder identical course conditiuons as her for BOTH rounds. He shot 72, and 64, she shot a 79 and 68. He beat her by a total of 11 strokes under the same conditions. He is a Nationwide tour grad and won a spot via Q-school and spent parts of 2004 monday morning qualifying. Incidentally he shot his scores while playing with an infected hangnail.
Round 3 scores might have been so because the pressure was off for many..they made the cut. Pin locations could affect things greatly. I was working that day and didn't get to see the round 3.
I'm sorry if you had trouble following the other post..I laid out my facts chronologically.
01/18/06 @ 11:01
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Ocranky seems to make valid points about the tee times. Since he mentions it, I do think Wie was one of the last to start her round.

If her playing partner improved his score so much also, this suggests that maybe the conditions were indeed much improved.
01/18/06 @ 11:16
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Johnny N:
Another item to consider for round 3 is, they call it "moving day". On this day you CAN see huge differences on how they:
1-cut greens closer and roll them to make them much faster ( verti-cut a longish bent grass green and you can put the stimp meter off the top)
2;stop watering greens to make them harder
3- some courses have air sytems to even dry the greens out
4- place tee blocks in positions that tighten the angle to the fairway and force player to have longer carries or it put trees in lay lines.
Hope some of these points make sense, honestlu I can spell.. i just can't type well!
As for what you think of me or my posts, I really don't care. I take issue with Norman for not being honest. If you see that as OK fine, my life is no more better or worse if you or anyone here likes me. My posts were about facts, so in an HONEST debate or discussion if you will, you can take both sides of an issue, while condemning a person who holds a different view, and then magically accept that view as the one you'd like to adopt. I take that back..you can do that, but you'd better be prepared to accept the fact that people will call you 2-faced. Sorry, I won't apologize for taking Norman to task for that.
01/18/06 @ 11:35
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Johnny that should read "You CAN'T take both sides of an issue" There's those typing skills.. that and too many nights shifts in a row!
01/18/06 @ 11:37
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
One other thing... I believe Under Par alluded to the Carmilo Villegas total 4 rounds of scoring as an item worth noting, in one of the blogs here. I happen to share his opinion and don't mean to imply that I am the sole holder of that tenet. It amazes me to see a first year tour player, in his first tourney do so well under all the pressure. Not just the weather but the fan and media hype he had to deal with. That's playing under presure, when you do that in your first tourney with that much media coverage. I'm afraid I would skull a 5 yrd drive to left if I had to tee it up like he did!
01/18/06 @ 11:50
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Johnny N.,
I can fully understand why you agreed with Ocranky's position above.

He tried to degrade Wie's round based on the following facts:
Wie shot 79 in round 1.
Wie shot 68 in round 2.

Villegas shot 72 in round 1.
Villegas shot 64 in round 2.

This was selective information that was presented.

If we include Wie's other playing partner Chris Couch:
Couch shot 71 in round 1.
Couch shot 76 in round 2.

So although, Ocranky was indeed correct that Villegas's round improved he seemed to forget about the information that Couch's 2nd round was much worse.
I wonder if not including the information is anything to do with it not suiting his argument.

We are all guity of choosing the facts that suit us, but in this case it was blatantly obvious.

As regards Villegas, I agree that he played very well and achieved alot by finishing in a tie for 42nd place. He sure is one to watch.
01/18/06 @ 12:31
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
From your points above, just to clarify, are you suggesting that the course plays much harder for the 3rd round?
01/18/06 @ 12:34
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
While thinking about what I had said about Carmen Villegas' showing, it occured to me that there are a few more things that make it even more amazing. He was interviewed and to me seemed wide eyed with wonder. Not only the media crush but his first PGa event, the exotic locale, all the perks and attention that goes along with the big show.
Now here he is playing alongside MiWi who
1:is intimately familiar with this course, it's her home track, it could be a huge change for him coming over from the Nationwide.
2: MiWi is much more used to the media crush and everything else. She been through it at every PGA or NatWide or Cantour tryout, as well as her LPGA entries. Another edge for Wie... and what looks like another disaadvantage for CV
3: MiWi has a super team.. Leadbetter et al, and I'm sure she has had some really intensive workouts with a swing guru prior to this event. LeadB even said as much on the golf channel.
4: This is a first time event for CV, so not only do you have thiese other pressures, it's your 1st trip to the bigs
Wow..that lloks like 4 on the + side for MiWi. Those are big advantages, and CV calmly beats her by 11 strokes? Wow.. I'm impressed here.
But there's a thrid guy in this equation, namely Chris Couch. Well he beats MiWi in the first round too.. arguably the toughest weather conditons of the 4 days, so thats not bad. But what, he scores lower on the second day.. this cannoit be some will say. Logic dictates that if his 2 partners score better because of the weather, his benefit should be to an equal or greater exent.
So he's 50/50 here vs MiWi they each outscored each other once.
Now some guys thrive under pressure.. I would say that Camillo showed he has some mettle, but others don't hold up in the long term with such pressure, they start to falter.
Othe's fold like a lawn chair and implode. Hmmm but facts tell us that even though Couch didn't manage the pressure or distraction as well the second day, he MADE THE CUT! MiWi however didn't snif sniff.. so much for stats alone, as they can be real deceiving, just as some people are using them.
Oh BTW does anyone know what Couch';s and Villegas' 3rd round scores were?
I know MiWi's was zero... but it didn't pass the MC line.
01/18/06 @ 13:14
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Hmm now I can't find the post I sent which outlined how, even in better weather a 3rd round score for an entire field be less than the first or second day rounds.
Well fer' instance:
1- they can keep the greens wetter for the first 2 rounds, just so the green are receptive
2- this can affect APPROACH shots tremendously if they alster or manage the firmness and dryness of greens betwenn ah lets say the 2 nd round.
3: dito for rolling or cutting the greens. Verticut a bent grass green that has for 2 previous days been cut a rolled with a coventional greens mower. days growth and watch the stimp meter rocket
4: if these things do occur, now why shouldn't scoring go down, even drastically, cause everyone KNOWS the pros game lives or dies on the short game and things like that.
5: pian placements can get trickier..not as nasty as 4th round but they can make the same hole play totally differently between 2 rounds.

I dunno, sounds like some compelling arguments there..... but there's way more. Consider Tee BLOCK placements and how many ways you alter that. Wow, it's really much more complex that you would initially think! Now ain't it?
01/18/06 @ 13:24
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
ps I have even heard of PGA courses where they actually use air to dry the greens. You heard me an underground system to artificially hop their greens up. They would however do this between rounds so as not to unfairly punish a few golfer only!
Is there a fly in here... whats that buzzing sound?
01/18/06 @ 13:26
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
This also reminds me of one other thing I heard once.
"Figures never lie and lairs always figure"
The phrase I think, means that no matter how impressive a given set of statistics are, there can also be a whole bunch of ways and compelling make them look to their own advantage.
Stats are much like a candle.. they can provide us with illumination, but they does so all around. And thusly all stas should be looked at from ALL angles... not just the construct we have fashioned to fit them to!
Hmmmm.. now where is that buzzing sound? **yawn**
01/18/06 @ 13:34
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Another question.. has anyone here heard of the term "Moving Day?" I think, and hell I could be wrong it applies to how the field can change on the third day or a tourney due to the factors that have ben applied to stiffen competition. Now I could be wrong.. unless it also applies to those unfortunate souls who misssed the cut and are moving out of town that day?
01/18/06 @ 13:37
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
PS in the post aboutVillegas & Chris couch it should read" he scores higher the second day.. my typo there. I can spell, but I just can't type
01/18/06 @ 13:43
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
WOW .. I owe a big aplogie here, CHRIS COUCH did not pass the cut line.. my fault, I admit error in that. He tied MiWi. I accept 10 told you so's for that error., but I did a full cicle around that candle and saw my erro. Nothing like looking twice!
01/18/06 @ 13:51
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Gee .. just one other thing. Iknow I made a mistake and I hope people see I corrected it in 8 mins time. Yes Chris Couch did fail, but given all the advatages I pointed MiWi had, I mean HOME COURSE, TEAM MiWI, her being used to media pressures, and she's not playing for her day to day sustenance she has this huge endorsement deal, and he tied MiWi. Thats not a win, but then again he was cut 16 times last year. Yeah, maybe he didn't play that well.. and probably none of the factors I mentioned here apply. Or could they?
01/18/06 @ 14:05
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
LOL... Gotta New lawnchair anyone?
01/18/06 @ 14:42
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]

Yes Chris Crouch did miss the cut so he doesn't have a 3rd round score. Glad you noticed your error.

For Villages his scores were:
72 64 73 71

By the way, there are many people biased in favour of Michelle Wie, but you are just as biased against.

You have made up a list of reasons or excuses if you like, why Michelle should do well, and how disadvantaged poor Villages was.
And then you go on to say how Couch had a bad day the 2nd day, but that is okay because he played well in tougher conditions on the 1st day.

Going by arguments made against Wie at the John Deere, that would mean that Couch was playing well, was near the cut, and then folded when he thought he may make the cut. I guess you probably think this assessment would be okay for Wie in that situation but for anyone else it doesn't apply.
01/18/06 @ 14:45
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
I'll accept thats premise if I understand you correctly. To be sure of this, you contend Couch failed to play better when opportunities to better his score were available, if that opportunity was that course conditions indeed were improving as that 3 some played their round?
Yeah, well based on the previous years performance, he might have that tendency. I would be remiss to accept that idea outright without some fact checking though.
To be sure I wouldn't say Wie or Couch failed to make the cut because they thought they might actually win, imlpying they are scared to win. In either case the "folding" could be more one of not being mentally tough enough to forge ahead when the chance is there. Some people don't have a killer instinct or will subconciously "let up on the gas" I'm not sure if that nuance is different enough from your post, but it does pose a scenario that might fit the equation.
01/18/06 @ 16:26
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I didn't contend anything about Couch.
I simply said that people who judge Wie harshly at the John Deere, should also judge Couch harshly at the Sony, because both were inside the cut line but played badly towards the end of their second rounds.

As regards Chris Couch himself, I know very little about him. He will have a full season's pga tour play and should be judged over the full season. Personally I don't believe in judging him, just based on him playing badly at the end of this particular round.

No player should be judged on one particular round. Equally Wie's success on the pga tour is not guaranteed by one round of 68.

All Wie's round does, is prove wrong, the people who said that she hadn't the physical attributes necessary to play competitively on a pga course.
Her approach stats also proved wrong, anyone who said that she hadn't the physcial attributes necessary to put enough spin on the ball for her approach shots.

That doesn't mean that she will do well every time she plays on a pga course. It simply shows that she does possess the necessary physical abilities to do so.
01/18/06 @ 16:42
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
I was being wary of the "folded" issue you raised thinking you might have surmised from my post above that since I had mentioned 3 categories ie:those that prevail, those that just can't meet the bar in the long run and those that fold or implode, that the 3 people had to pigeon holed , each in thier own spot, which I did not intend as the case.I don't think fold is approriate for either person in this case. They probably fall into the failed to meet expectations. A sure dissapointment, but not a case where either folded, cause like you I don't have the knowledge of Couch's mental makeup.
My contention about Wie has been, she is a gifted and talented golfer, she was abilities that will most likely net her many wins on the LPGA, but her skill level to handle the more demanding PGA courses is not there. You might bristle at this,( down boy! lol) but I submit to you why would Leadbetter and Wie both openly admit that they worked on those very same things. See Leadbetter's assertion that Wie is starting to be able to spin the ball and work it unlike any women he has coached. The point is why would Leadbetter and Wie be tackling this if she had that skillset? That would be a monumental waste of practise time, to actively persue learning a skill you already possess? We might agree to disagree here......
01/18/06 @ 17:43
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Again, I'm not really as knowledgable on golf as some other people might be on these blogs, but if Wie and Leadbetter were working on something wouldn't that be to improve it.

I'm sure that Vijay probably has all the shots in golf, but he does still work on them, and try to improve, doesn't he. He is a notorious for practicing alot.

By the way, I am just saying that Vijay and every other player, no matter how good they are need to work on there games.

I have noticed over these blogs that whenever anyone mentioned anyones name other than Michelle Wie, someone gets their knickers in a twist and starts shouting, you shouldn't be comparing her to Vijay, Vijay is a much better player, or something like that.

Hopefully there are some people with the intelligence to know what I am talking about, that every player player needs to work on their games.
01/19/06 @ 10:28
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Johnny N:
The point you make seems obvious on the outset..yeah pros practise something to retain that particular skill, why shouldn't that apply to the Wie?Leadbetter point. Well the point is Leadbetter said on Academy Live that this is something she needed be able to do to compete!Something they identified from her past attempts to qualify. Wow..that makes it obvious then.
Leadbetter's assertion that Wie's ability to learn this skill puts her ahead of the other women he's taught indicates this is a learning situation, not one designed just to stay sharp, as you point out with Vijay and his tremendous practise routine. That would be a case of a skilled palyer honing and maintaining a skill he has. Those are 2 totally diferent scenario's now aren't they?
01/19/06 @ 11:09
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
The point of players honing there skills is probably something we will agree on.

What we will probably won't agree on, is where her skill level is.
Every single shot that Wie plays has the capacity to improve.
I think we would all probably agree that her putting needs to improve.
Her short game, although really impressive at times needs more work.

Her driving which is often mentioned as setting her apart from other women still ideally needs to lengthen, although at the Sony, it was pretty impressive.

I have no problem with people saying Wie's approach game needs work.
The problem I have is when people claim that she doesn't have the necessary strength to execute her approach shots. She has showed that she can play those approach shots, whether close to the hole, further away, in the rough or on the fairway, with precision.

Obviously she isn't going to do this all the time. I certainly have the strength, but I fluff quite a percentage of those shots, despite knowing exactly what I need to do with them. So her approach game is not the best out there, and certainly is a long way behind that of Jim Furyk, but it is not due to physical reasons, it is due to consistancy of skill, lets agree on that.
01/19/06 @ 15:00
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
I think that MiWi has all the potential for a great future in golf. She a skilled player, who if she lives up to that potential she could become a force in the LPGA.
My comments about her strength can't be confused with length. She can generate clubhead speed and absolutely bomb it under ideal conditions. I'm talking about the hand/arm strength that allows a skilled player to release the hands and add that extra pop that increases the spin on a shot, similar to a tennis stroke as others have described it. It's that spin rate (and launch angle) that allows a ball to fly off the club face and negate the impediments of wind or lie conditions. That doesn't mean she is weak, just that she doesn't achieve the same spin rate to allow the ball to carry on it's intended path, when the wind or rough becomes an impediment. Your post above mentions how she can play those shots precision, yet her first round showed otherwise.
My take on her first round at the Sony was that she seemed to give up her strokes on her approach shots, or got forced into a longer approach because they came in too short or released too much. Thats often the case with windy conditions and players have to move back a club or try to force a shot. I would hazard a gues that her birdie on #3 that round was probably a downwind hole where the wind played less effect on her shot. I agree her precision is there in good conditons, ie: Evian Master's she played extremely well.
We could argue forever on who's right on this one and it wouldn't make a whit of difference. MiWi will be herself, and only the future and her desire to shape it, will prove any predictions right or wrong.
There are race horse who are mudders and others run best on a dry track, while even at the highest competitive level there are some PGA golfers can contend with the wind while other's can't. That's a physcal limitation they either have to accept or adapt to... as best they can.
Whether you are a WieFan or find it all to be Hyper-Wie, all we can do from here is talk about it.
01/19/06 @ 19:23
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Then again Normie, in all honesty it could be a physical limitation or a technical one that can either accept or improve on.
01/19/06 @ 21:39
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
The best thing Michelle could do is cut loose that self-promoter David Ledbetter and hire Dave Pelz to fix her putting. Tee to green production has never been her problem.

She strikes the ball with the flatstick like a blind man taps around to find a curb. She can beat Annika, Paula, Natalie, or Morgan anytime she tees up, but it won't happen until she gets her putting average down to their level of around 1.75 PPGIR.
01/20/06 @ 03:56
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
We will have to agree to disagree on how the wind effects things.
The example I like to use is how the old players seem to do well in windy conditions. Even if physical strength and technique are a factor, it isn't that which helps the older guy, since he obviously is typically not so strong as his younger equivalent. That's why experience is important.
01/20/06 @ 14:28
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Asis Guy,
Even with her putting last year she was able to beat Paula more often than not. Actually she was able to beat every lpga tour player more often than not, with the exception of Annika.

If her putting was very good, what chance would the others have.
01/20/06 @ 14:30
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Thats part is true, Norman, thats why I added the "technical limitation" to that secondary post, as launch angle can have just as important efect on the shot's outcome as spin rate.
Agree to disagree, I do see merit in your point.
With the Bob Hope underway, I guess the next topic might be "What's up with David Duval?" After last week I had really hoped he had turned the corner, and wished he could have posted a better score than he has so far.
01/20/06 @ 14:55
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Duval had a dreadful 2nd round alright.

How 'bout Jason Gore in last position?
01/20/06 @ 16:09
Comment from: John [Visitor]
Asia Guy:
She can beat Annika, Paula, Natalie, or Morgan anytime she tees up, but it won't happen until she gets her putting average down to their level of around 1.75 PPGIR.
How close is "around"? Her PPGIR for the Sony Open was 1.762. That's less than 1% over your "recommended" value.
01/20/06 @ 21:00
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Maybe David Duval has turned the corner--but that shouldn't be any guarantee that he will never have a bad round.
01/20/06 @ 23:08
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
"Comment from: John [Visitor]
Asia Guy:
She can beat Annika, Paula, Natalie, or Morgan anytime she tees up, but it won't happen until she gets her putting average down to their level of around 1.75 PPGIR.
How close is "around"? Her PPGIR for the Sony Open was 1.762. That's less than 1% over your "recommended" value."

That was the "exception not the rule for Michelle". Annika was tied for number 1 on the LPGA tour with 1.75 PPGIR along with Paula Creamer.
01/21/06 @ 02:57
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John said:
How close is "around"? Her PPGIR for the Sony Open was 1.762. That's less than 1% over your "recommended" value.

Also John, the putting is more difficult on pga courses, with faster greens, so Michelle's stat is even more impressive.

She was leaving herself some nice short putts though in the 2nd round, although her putting was indeed very good also.
01/21/06 @ 15:51
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Ocranky said:
I would hazard a gues that her birdie on #3 that round was probably a downwind hole where the wind played less effect on her shot.

Being a stickler for facts, I checked that one out.
She hit her tee shot 281 yards, which was one of her average drives.
That left her 142 yards to the hole, which was about average of what her approach shots were. She hit a decent iron, 16 feet from the hole, which she managed to knock in.
It was mainly a good or a lucky putt, depending on which way you want to take it.
01/21/06 @ 16:04
Comment from: John [Visitor]
I find it fascinating to compare the conclusions people (myself included) have drawn about Michelle's standings with respect to the average PGA Golfer. Using the yardstick of the 2005 Official PGA Statistics and comparing to Michelle in the Sony Open:

Putting Average -- (Michelle does poorly folks say)
Best -- 1.710
Median -- 1.770
Worst -- 1.858
Michelle -- 1.782 (just below median)

Driving distance -- (Michelle too short people say)
Best -- 318.9
Median -- 288.4
Worst -- 258.7
Michelle -- 286.0 -- (2 yards under median)

Greens In Regulation (pct) -- (Michelle not competitive many say)
Best -- 75.0
Median -- 61.1
Worst -- 41.7
Michelle -- 58.3 (well under median but far from worst)

Michelle it turns out is a slightly below average PGA golfer so far this year...which is mind blowing considering that she is also a 16 year old girl.
01/21/06 @ 23:33
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Comment from: John [Visitor]

Michelle it turns out is a slightly below average PGA golfer so far this year...which is mind blowing considering that she is also a 16 year old girl.

She would have done better on a calm day. The winds were 25 gusting to 35 on the first day.

This is not an excuse, she came in 2nd at the 2005 SBS in Hawaii that was played in gusts to 40 mph.
01/22/06 @ 00:45
Comment from: John [Visitor]
The wind blows on everyone, the rains fall on everyone. The point to me is that according to the statistics, she doesn't need any excuses.

The above stats include the worst round she ever shot at the PGA level. I expect them to improve significantly over the rest of the year.

The more rounds she plays in the PGA, the better picture we'll have of just how she stacks up. Can't wait for the next one.
01/22/06 @ 01:14
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Comment from: John [Visitor]
The wind blows on everyone, the rains fall on everyone. The point to me is that according to the statistics, she doesn't need any excuses.

You may have noticed Annika does not play in Hawaii and I'm wondering if Paula will reappear after last years SBS finish.

They don't like playing in the stiff breeze in Hawaii. It shortens their game.

01/22/06 @ 02:45
Comment from: AllBiz [Visitor]
It's true, we must agree, that Wie generates a lot of interest and $$$ for golf....

Just look at this chain of discussions!!!

And for the "women will never beat men in any sport" -- Remember Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs..... :)
01/26/06 @ 04:16
Comment from: Wilson [Visitor]
Billie Jean King was at the prime of her career and the number one ranked women in the world, Bobby Riggs was 20 years past his playing prime and even then he was just a marginal men's player. How about this, no woman will ever win a men's PGA tour event, just as no women will ever win a Men's USTA tennis event, or no women will ever win a men's track and field event.....I could go on and on.
02/15/06 @ 13:19

This post has 10 feedbacks awaiting moderation...

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.)
Verona Golf Packages
Dates: February 17, 2017 - December 31, 2018
Enjoy two nights and three rounds of golf at Turning Stone Resort Casino.
Price range: $242