« Retief Goosen, will you be my Valentine?With MacKinzie Kline, LPGA learns from PGA's mistakes »


Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Maybe Bubbles needs to apply for a Purple Heart. I mean, TWO injured wrists AND heat exhaustion within eight months?
02/09/07 @ 20:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Hey Jen!

Remember, you dubbed her a "champion"

Of what, we're not sure.
02/09/07 @ 20:52
Comment from: InTheBunker [Visitor] Email

I noticed you casually neglected to mention her last two outings on the LPGA--26th at the Women's Open, 17th in an elite field of 20 at the Samsung. Honestly, you're wondering whether she can still contend among the women?

It seems like it never occurs to you that psyche her has been badly damaged. You hold on to her words--"I'm learning", "I'm getting close", "I'm having fun"--push the mute button and look at her face, her body language. She is broken and beaten carrying the expectations of parents, sponsors, fans and an unrelenting media at 17 yrs old. We've all seen it before--Capriati, Tryon..... Keep holding on, miracles do happen. All she needs is rest with burden of high school, growing up, and soon Stanford??? Ooops, maybe that's why none of this makes sense.
02/10/07 @ 09:27
Comment from: Billy Dawg [Visitor] Email
InTheBunker, you must be using copious amounts of narcotics. Michelle Wie finished in the top 5 in three of the four women's Majors. NOBODY else did that. Only five other women managed to finish in the top 5 in just 2 Majors - Webb, Pak, Ochoa, Inkster & Hurst.

Amongst the men, only Tiger finished in the top 5 in three Majors. Only three men managed to finish in the top 5 in just two Majors - Mickelson, Furyk & Garcia.

Clearly, her performance in a limited schedule against the best women in the world in the toughest conditions available was spectacular. Yet you try to denigrate her 2006 accomplishments with a mention of her more pedestrian finishes. Let me ask you a question. How many of the full-time members of either Tour would like to be able to say that their worst finish in a Major championship was 26th?

02/10/07 @ 14:46
Comment from: Joe Cool [Visitor] Email
Why was she out running???is she preparing for the 2008 Olympics for the 1500 meter race?? I hope she doesn't fall into the "William Sisters Syndrome" of always claiming she is injured and not playing in tournaments. Venus has been a master at the con game...of course, those endorsements just keep paying out the money. I think the comments made by "In The Bunker" were right on as to what is happening to Michelle. Hopefully we will see a happy ending to this Greek Tragedy.
02/10/07 @ 15:12
Comment from: InTheBunker [Visitor] Email

You've hit the nail on the head...MW's performance on the LPGA at such a young age has shown exceptional promise. She could truly emerge as one of the games all-time greats, on that tour....maybe one day against the men.

Unfortunately, her psyche is taking a pounding against the men now, and its my belief that abuse will affect her game and we may never see her true potential as a golfer on either tour as a result. It has nothing to do with denigrating her accomplishments...my point is we've seen young phenoms/prodigies on the professional stage before. History is a good lesson.
02/10/07 @ 15:44
Comment from: RonMon [Visitor] Email
JoeCool, Alex, and InTheBunker, MEET YOUR MATCH!

Why was she running? JOE, you slob, she was training, like all top athletes outside of you and Tim Herron do. Now, why she fell? That'a another question for another time.

Dubbed her a champion? She was a champion long before the book came out. What's up, Alex? If she's not a champion every week or year, that's not good enough for you? Now granted, a win every year or so might solidify the label, but she does deserve it, no matter how remote her last victory is.

02/10/07 @ 17:16
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email

What is Bubbles a champion of?
02/10/07 @ 17:50
Comment from: Booger [Visitor] Email
What does running, aka "training" have to
do with golf? Stadler wasn't a pretty
picture when he won the Masters. Phil
Mickelson has won two green jackets, and
might need a bra in the near future if he
doesn't get his act together. By the way,
Phil is 14 under at Pebble Beach after
three rounds.
02/10/07 @ 19:07
Comment from: Joe Cool [Visitor] Email
Before you start calling me a "slob" beat 4:54 in the mile...you really are a piece of work!!
02/10/07 @ 22:19
Comment from: Lester Hinson [Visitor]
Was she stoned when she fell?
02/11/07 @ 00:36
Comment from: bad joke [Visitor]
I think Michelle accidentally stepped on a Nike shoelace while adjusting volume her Sony mp3 player.
02/11/07 @ 05:43
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Joe Cool,

Your timing on the comparison between Bubbles and the Williams sisters couldn't having been better.

Venus and Serena BOTH withdrew from tournaments today; Serena with the flu, and Venus with, you guessed it, a sore wrist.
02/11/07 @ 09:01
Comment from: Billy Dawg [Visitor] Email
InTheBunker, we have never seen a 16/17/18 year-old perform this well at the highest level of the women's game. NEVER. I don't understand how anyone can possibly be critical of a 26th place finish in the Women's British Open. By way of reference, that's about as good as Phil Mickelson ever does at the men's Open.
02/11/07 @ 10:28
Comment from: Joe Cool [Visitor] Email
02/11/07 @ 20:35
Comment from: Boola Boss [Visitor] Email
Billy Dawg, you could have also added that the world's number one woman golfer, Annika, finished in 31ST PLACE in the Women's British Open, and that Karrie Webb, winner of the Kraft Nabisco (the first major) failed to make the cut in the WBO!
02/12/07 @ 04:04
Comment from: patricia [Visitor] Email
The LPGA events are going to be a lot less interesting without Michelle, that's for sure.
02/12/07 @ 10:31
Comment from: JoltinJoe [Visitor] Email
"She was a champion long before the book came out."

Champion of what, exactly? She has zero wins on any pro tour. As of today, that is one fewer than Tadd Fujikawa. Top 5's and top 10's are nice, but they don't add up to being a "Champion" of anything.

Well, now that she has two bad wrists, I say we just put her into the golf hall of fame right now. After all, if it weren't for her injuries, heat exhaustion, jet lag, etc etc she would have already won a PGA Grand Slam, right?
02/12/07 @ 12:34
Comment from: InTheBunker [Visitor] Email
Just stunning. Billy, either you are incapable of understanding my point or moved by a force I can't understand. But please stop the comparisons of Wie to Mickelson's performance...and Boola, stop the comparisons to Sorenstam and Webb. They're an insult. Each of those players is a multiple winner in the professional ranks; also winners of multiple majors.

We still don't know if Wie will join their ranks or the ranks of Kournakova. This isn't horseshoes--close don't count. Greatness is measured in wins. My point IS, her game seems to be regressing playing against the men.
02/12/07 @ 20:17
Comment from: vale [Visitor] Email
I agree with the issue that MW in under an enormous amount of pressure. Who could stand up to the amount of scrutiny she has to endure and at such a young age. I haven?t read any articles considering the fact that she may very well have broken down last summer at the women?s British Open. Keep in mind her record up to that event was nothing but spectacular even without a win. She was ranked a solid number TWO in the world of women?s golf and closing in on Annika. In fact, I read that it was possible for her to over take Annika for the number ONE spot if she won the British Open and Annika did not fair well at that event. There was all the moaning about her not deserving to be rated that high without a win. Low and behold just before the Open started, they changed the rules and diluted her numbers and dropped her out of contention for top honors. She then has a 26th place finish followed by a 17th not to mention her horrible finish on the PGA. Not making any excuses for her, but I just wonder if that drop in World ranking wasn?t the magic button that pushed her over the edge. You mostly read about all the money and press going to her head, what about all the brow beating she gets for not winning. The year before, Paula Creamer was put on a pedestal for winning over a million dollars in her rookie year after playing 25 events. MW only played in eight events and won over seven hundred thousand and finished something like number 15 on the money list, if they would have recognized her winnings. Keep in mind that the other fourteen in front of her played in 20 to 30 events. And she did it while still only being 16 years old. Not yet eligible to join the LPGA until ?next? year when she is 18.
02/13/07 @ 06:48
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
InTheBunker, It is premature to infer that Wie's performance is regressing after just a couple of mediocre performances (by her previous standards) against the women. If she were to have a number of consecutive similar finishes, then you may have a point to consider.
02/13/07 @ 08:42
Comment from: InTheBunker [Visitor] Email
No, Vale--Paula Creamer was lauded because she WON two tournaments as a rookie--let me repeat, WON...WON two tournaments. Not because of her earnings. She was the youngest winner of an LPGA multi-round event with her victory at the Sybase. She followed that up with a WIN, let me repeat, a WIN, at the Evian.
02/13/07 @ 10:47
Comment from: InTheBunker [Visitor] Email
Shanks, My reference to regressing is a statement on her performance against the men. I'm most interested to see if her struggles with her game carry over to the LPGA. I hope not, she can be good for the game..if she's allowed to progress in a manner not harmful to her confidence.
02/13/07 @ 11:38
Comment from: vale [Visitor] Email

Your correct, Paula did win twice in 2005 out of 25 events and her first win was her ninth tournament of the year. In that same year MW was only 15 and they both played in the same eight events. MW finished ahead of Paula in 5 of the 8 events and in the one win that Paula had in the same event (Evian Masters), MW finished 2nd. In those eight events Paula had three top five places including one win, while MW had four top five places.

In 2006 when Paula was 19 years old versus MW at 16, the end results were the same. MW finished ahead of Paula in 5 of the 8 events, only this year Paula didn?t have any wins in 27 events. MW increased her top five finishes to six of the eight events while Paula only had two top five finishes in these same events with no wins. Again, in one of Paula?s finishes ahead of MW, it was by only one place.

Paula won $300,000 more than MW and finished in 11th place on the money list for 27 events. MW finished in 15th place while only playing in 8 events.

So the bottom line is that Paula did win twice in her last 52 events and had a total of 16 top five places, which is far better than the vast majority in the LPGA. However the winless MW through the age of 16, did manage to finish in the top five places in 10 of her last 16 events as a 15 and 16 year old. I really find it hard to believe that MW?s accomplishments are anything but astounding for any golfer, male or female let alone someone who was only 16 years old. As everyone knows, no one in the history of golf as a professional has accomplished a higher percentage of top five finishes at the same age and that is male or female. I would also bet that there are few if any that have a higher percentage at any age. I?m not bashing Paula, but when you compare everyone?s stats, MW is a winner for what she has accomplished, unless you are part of the all or nothing crowd. As far as her sponsors are concerned, these are multi billion dollar corporations paying her millions and they are not idiots. If they were, there would be multi-millionaires all over sports at 17, just a thought.
02/13/07 @ 13:07
Comment from: Blazer [Visitor] Email

I think MW will find the going tougher when having to play every week on a tour as opposed to cherry picking events. She typically shows up at an event venue well before the tournament to practice on the course. Other LPGA members don't have that luxury as they're busy plying their trade.
02/13/07 @ 13:38
Comment from: InTheBunker [Visitor] Email
Vale, et al--It's the cynic is me talking now. I've read your comparative 'analysis' of Wie vs Creamer (Do you keep that data at your finger tips) and my conclusion scares me. But, I'm left wondering--do you work for the William Morris Agency? Is it your job to troll the web and keep the positive MW vibe going in the face mounting skepticism? Tell the truth now. We all know there's alot of money riding on her image.
02/13/07 @ 15:46
Comment from: Shanks [Member] Email
InTheBunker, I think it is a huge miscalculation to compare performances in men's events vs. women's events. It is really comparing apples to oranges. For the men's events, the rough is longer, the greens are firmer & faster and each hole is an average of approximately 50 yards longer, not to mention the quality of the opposition. Ultimate pressure is on every facet of Wie's game in those events. Compare that to women's events where Wie is Tiger-like, hitting short irons and wedges into every hole. Like all the bombers on the PGA Tour, hitting fairways becomes less important. It just becomes more of a putting issue for Wie when she plays against the women.
02/14/07 @ 08:15
Comment from: InTheBunker [Visitor] Email
Vale--Facts? How did this start. You said Creamer was put on a pedestal because she won a million bucks--FICTION. I said she was lauded because she won two tournaments as a rookie--FACT. Then you launched a ridiculous comparative analysis of Wie vs Creamer which had nothing to do with nothing. BYE.
02/15/07 @ 19:48
Comment from: 2under [Visitor] Email

"Tiger-like"? If you are going to state her
performance in mens vs womens events cannot be fairly evaluated, then let's be a little more careful in comparing Wie to Woods.

Her distance may be longer, similar to Woods versus most of his competitors, but Woods has a much better short game, short-iron game, course managment, and is mentally much tougher.

Now, Wie is young. She needs to develop. But in order for that to happen, the "Wie Warriors" need to go into hibernation for a while. Their expectations, coupled with their delusions, only serve to put more pressure on her. It doesn't help to crown her a "champion", when she has yet to accrue accolades deserving of such a title.

Talking about her is getting old. She is still just "hype". I hope that changes for her in the future, and she is able to live up to the expectations that the "Wie Warriors" and Mario have set forth for her.

02/15/07 @ 19:49
Comment from: James [Visitor]
Just wondering ... why would she put a cast on the wrist and then not tell anyone what the injury is? Especially given all the criticism about her excuse-making, why won't she or her doctors give a press conference, show the x-rays and tell the world what's wrong so they'll stop doubting her?
(Dare you to post this, BTW)
02/15/07 @ 20:45
Comment from: BV [Visitor] Email
I'd put both my wrists in casts TOO, in order to keep $8M in endorsements flowing in!! ;) Just a thought...
02/16/07 @ 13:16
Comment from: Vale [Visitor] Email

You?re right about Michelle not being in the same league with Tiger and her game not being on his level. However I think you are probably wrong when you talk about her game in general. It appears that Michelle has learned the lesson of course management at a much earlier age than most of the top golfers of today. If you look at what Tiger and Phil did in their youth, actually Phil was a bit slower in the learning curve, you saw all out golf. It was win big or nothing. How many times in the last several years have you heard Tiger say ?I just want to be near the top? going into Sunday. Sure he wants to win big, but it is more important to constantly be consistent and you will win more often by being in contention. Phil finally admitted that a couple of years or so ago. So when you evaluate Michelle?s game over the last two years, you can?t help but notice the consistent pattern taking place. She is almost always in contention and six out of eight top five is a testament to that consistency. You can only achieve that level of consistency with course management. Just imagine what she might be able to do on the LPGA even if her tee to green game never improves, but figures out how to knock off five or six strokes per round putting. Couple that with the potential of a 300 plus yard drive that actually lands in the fairway instead of the ruff.

I?m not sure you really meant it the way you said it, but, according to your theory, Michelle Wie would have to be a masochist, how else would anyone strive from constant ridicule and no praise?

I believe that?s what you are advocating. If everyone who believes MW is doing well or even thinks she is god?s gift to the LPGA, would just keep quiet, the pressure would be removed and she would be on a much faster pace to winning. That would only leave the rest (not you) who are constantly belittling her, from her endorsement deals, not being a full time LPGA member, playing against the men (for some fairly hefty appearance fees I?m sure) and for not winning. Then there is the de-hydration problem, how dare she. Falling down and hurting yourself while exercising, for god sake Michelle, what were you thinking? Oh yes, and there is the, come on Michelle, we know you are just faking this wrist thing. After all, you only had six top five finishes out of your last eight outings; we know you?re scared to face the ladies again. Don?t give us this crap about still being in high school or you?re still just a kid and no one your age has ever won. Come on, your making all that money; let?s see some wins. Where?s the justification for all that money you?re raking in? The ridicule just goes on and on and on.

Most people will strive on praise if anything, but only leaving the bashing, is that really what you meant? I could agree if you were advocating everyone leave her alone, but then again she might be the type who loves all this attention. I don?t think any of us knows what drives Michelle, but I?m willing to bet she is more likely driven by support than ridicule. Don?t confuse expectations from her fans with expectations from those who ridicule her
02/18/07 @ 02:46
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]

02/18/07 @ 13:29
Comment from: Vale [Visitor] Email

Thanks for the response; it?s good to see you can post something other than ridiculing Michelle. Now that's progress!!
02/19/07 @ 00:50
Comment from: Visitor [Visitor]
Vale, Huh? What in the heck are you talking about? Your post is too inane to respond to.
02/19/07 @ 18:39
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]

Don't take this personally, but you really could use a crash course in English composition.

As you can see by the previous post, I'm not the only one having trouble comprehending your posts.

Twice in your diatribe, you referred to someone "striving" on something or other, when you obviously meant "thriving."

And twice you spelled "rough" as "ruff."

Enuff already! Or else we'll have to get tuff with you!
02/19/07 @ 21:44
Comment from: George [Visitor]
BTW, I suspect Michelle may never be a full-time LPGA'er.

Isn't Michelle going to Stanford? I know, I know, so did Tiger and the siren song of those PGA mega-bucks drew him away from the university.

But I believe Michelle has no intention of becoming a full-time player on the women's tour. I suspect the regimen crafted by her stage father does not call for that outcome.

02/19/07 @ 22:55
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]

I agree. Her agents and handlers, especially BJ Wie, have all but stated exactly that.

Her camp has said emphatically that she will never be exposed to the ignominy of attending "Q" school, so unless she is handed a practically permanent exemption by the LPGA, she won't be a regular on that tour.

Her camp has even hinted that she might play a few events on the European Women's tour, and a few in Asia where she reportedly has more marketing appeal.
02/20/07 @ 10:09
Comment from: golf fan [Visitor]
alex said:
"so unless she is handed a practically permanent exemption by the LPGA, she won't be a regular on that tour."

Actually, anyone who places in the top 90 of the LPGA's money list automatically earns a card for the following year, they don't have to go through Q-school, or rely on sponsor invites. Michelle was number 15 last year and I think 14 the year before that. So it's not likely she'll have to go though Q-school. Her spot on the money list will be more than enough to get her a card.

The PGA has a rule like that too, but it's not the top 90 who get a card, it's the top 125.

02/20/07 @ 10:55
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
golf fan,

You are correct.

What Bubbles will need is an exemption to the 18 years old rule. and then sufficient sponsors' exemptions to get enough winnings to finish in the top 90.

That is, if she DESIRES to become a full-time LPGA member.

She has strongly hinted that she doesn't, as have her father and her agents.
02/20/07 @ 11:51
Comment from: Vale [Visitor] Email
I can?t figure out why Wie?s sponsors are putting up with her going to college. Finishing High School is understandable, but with the money they are putting out, you would think they would demand a full time schedule for maximum exposure.

The sponsors might very well be the reason for multiple tour exposure versus just the LPGA. However the continuation as a part-time player with her endorsements just boggles my mind.
02/20/07 @ 23:15
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]

You are laboring under several misconceptions.

Bubbles is three months from graduating high school, and six months from attending college, if, in fact, she ever does attend Stanford.

But assuming that she does go to Stanford in the autumn,
there is no assurance that she won't be available to play in any tournament to which she receives one of her patented exemptions.

Over the past two years of her high school career, Bubbles has missed about a dozen weeks of school with apparently no ill effects. In fact, she reportedly has blossomed into an honor student despite her frequent and prolonged absences.

Once her tuition is paid at Stanford, nobody at that prestigious university will care one whit if she ever shows up for class or even if her private jet flies within 500 miles of Palo Alto. She might not make the dean's list if she only attends Stanford part time, but that should only be a minor consideration.

As far as her backers like Sony and Nike being miffed at her, this is still a free country and Bubbles is a US citizen, despite BJ's desire to turn her into a Korean national.
Nobody can dictate where and how often she should play golf. BJ hasn't sold her into indentured servitude. Yet.
02/21/07 @ 12:15
Comment from: Vale [Visitor] Email

You?re not really free to do whatever you want, when you?re under contract. It?s not exactly like they are paying her to wear a logo or use their golf balls. She?s in the big time as endorsement deals go, so you would think those millions must come with some stipulations. Then again, maybe your right and they don?t have any input. Could be they were so eager to sign her, they agreed to let her do whatever she wants. College seems like such a risky move to me when the endorsement deals are so lucrative. Maybe she can pull some rabbits out of her hat and chalk up a couple of wins and keep them happy, but playing part-time keeps the odds against her. Maybe Michelle will tell BJ to take a hike when she turns 18. I can?t imagine anyone wanting to keep up this kind of schedule with school and the devotion it takes for practice when your making millions. I may be a fool, but I would go for the money while I had the chance. You never know what?s around the corner that could end your golfing days forever. You can always go to college, but people are not always going to be lining up to hand you million in endorsements deals.
02/21/07 @ 16:52
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]

So your advice to Bubbles is to go for the money? Really?

I've got news for you, my friend, She has gone for the money.

Now, Sony and especially Nike might cancel any further dealings with Bubbles(who could blame them?), but the money that BJ has scammed from them is long gone. Incidentally, Nike canceled a big deal it had with track star Marion Jones when she was alleged to have used performance enhancing substances.(read drugs)

So you think Bubbles might tell BJ,her doting father, to hit the bricks when she turns 18? If she does, it will be from her dorm at Stanford. That will never happen.
02/21/07 @ 22:10
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]

When Bubbles became invoved with Sony and Nike, it was on or about her sixteenth birthday.

That means that at that time, she was not only a minor but a juvenile.

It is illegal for any such person to enter into a contract for services or endorsements. Any contracts made involving Bubbles would by law necessitate the agreement of a surrogate, normally a parent or guardian.(read BJ Wie)

I did a small amount of research on the subject of imposing quotas and/or limits on the number and frequency of appearances, i. e., the amount of labor that a sponsor could require of a client.

In the annotated state laws of virtually all states, any and all such stipulations or attempts to coerce are specifically proscribed in the instances of minor children

Briefly, Vale, what that means is that neither Sony or Nike or anyone else has the right or the authority to tell Bubbles where or when or how often she must play golf. Period.
02/22/07 @ 09:03
Comment from: Vale [Visitor] Email

MW was something like 14 or 15 and she stamped her feet on the ground, pounded the table, did flip flops, caused her head to spin around in circles, screamed, shed a few tears or maybe a lot. I?m not exactly sure what magic trick she pulled, but she managed to get her father to stop being her caddie and I?m absolutely sure he wasn?t pleased. If BJ is as controlling as many, if not all think, his days could be numbered when she hits 18 and who could blame her. She may start Stanford in the fall, but I?ll bet she is a fulltime golfer in the spring no matter how many tours she plays on. I would hope full time LPGA and part-time PGA, but who knows.

If she is ever going to make it in the record books, I would hope it was for the number of tournaments she won versus the number of cuts she made in Men?s events. I suppose it?s possible she could even manage to win a men?s event some day, but that would more than likely be in Asia and it would only be recorded in the LPGA records as an honorable mention.

I was just going to look and see how the LPGA actually treated Paula?s wins on the Asian tour, when I was totally distracted by seeing a picture of Michelle Wie on their main page. I clicked on it and there was her complete bio, I mean it contains information I?ve never read before. It lists every record she has set on the LPGA, which is far more extensive than I knew even existed. Of course most are for being the youngest this and that in professional events. They?ve included everything she?s ever done going back to the girl scouts, maybe Brownies.

This information is interesting, but not as interesting as why the LPGA is giving her front-page coverage after ignoring her last year for not being a member.

Is the LPGA trying to kiss up to her or is she really joining the tour and the cat has not yet been let out of the bag?

I read an article this morning, where Michelle is planning on playing at the Nabisco and has asked Safeway to hold her exemption spot for her in case she is able to play. Which happens to be the week before Nabisco.

This could be nothing at all, but with the LPGA?s front-page coverage, it kind of makes you wonder.

Still don?t know what is wrong with her wrist, but it must not be broken.

Alex, you seem to have extensive knowledge of LPGA rules. If a player joins the tour later in the season, does her entire records for that year count or only the events after joining? I?m just trying to find out if MW actually won an event, if that would be an incentive for her to join or would it count as a non-LPGA member win? I noticed the LPGA keeps all kinds of stats for members and non-members, assuming you make the record books.
02/22/07 @ 11:22
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]

The only knowledge of LPGA rules that I possess is public knowledge and available to anyone who has access to the internet or a good public library.

Law is my profession accounting for my relative expertise in contracts and child labor laws.

Vale, the length and lack of continuity in your post precludes me from answering most of your requests.

I'm sorry, but I just lost interest.
02/22/07 @ 13:01
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Jennifer Mario,

Since you have an inside track to information about Michelle Wie, you should be able to answer these questions.

What is the nature of her latest wrist injury? Is it a fracture, sprain, contusion, what?

What about the other wrist? That happened four months ago.

What are the prognoses for these injuries?

Thank you in advance.
02/24/07 @ 08:51
Comment from: Jennifer Mario [Member] Email
I only know what's been reported, which is that her wrist is injured, she's wearing a cast, and doctors say it will take four to six weeks to heal. If I had to guess, I'd say that both wrists are ligament strains or tears that only get better with rest. The right wrist could simply be from overuse, which happens to a lot of pro golfers (Paula Creamer, for example, last year) and the left was a trauma injury from her fall.

If it was a fracture she'd likely still be in a hard cast, but photos of her from this weekend show her in what appears to be a removable soft cast. Also, I imagine if it was something as dramatic as a fracture or sprain they would've come out and said so, as it's unlikely she'd be able to return to competition in only four to six weeks.
02/24/07 @ 14:42
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Jennifer Mario,

Thank you.

I have another question which you might be able to answer.

Much has been written on these boards about the tremendous revenues generated by Michelle Wie's endorsements of Sony and Nike products.

However, neither I nor any of my family members, nor anyone in my circle of friends has ever seen any television ads, magazine ads, billboards, etc. featuring MW.

Where do you suppose all this revenue is being generated? Could it all be from Asia?
02/25/07 @ 16:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Jennifer Mario,

Interesting. But if what you say is accurate, won't the increased pressure of full-blown campaigns wreak havoc with her studies at Stanford, studies which will surely be infinitely more difficult than those in high school?
02/26/07 @ 12:25
Comment from: Jennifer Mario [Member] Email
Who knows, Alex. The classes she's taking at Punahou are no cakewalk, she's got a schedule stacked with advanced classes and managing to do pretty well. At college she'll have a more flexible schedule, and be able to plan her classes around her golf schedule a little easier than a high school student can.

Also, she has said in the past that "it might take eight years," but she plans to graduate from college. It sounds to me that she's aware that golf will require more of her time from now on. So perhaps she's planning on only taking a few classes at a time, leaving longer breaks for tournaments, travel, and sponsorship duties.

02/26/07 @ 13:05
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Jennifer, Maybe so.

I don't know the policies of Stanford, but my eldest daughter attended and graduated from Northwestern. She accomplished this in the standard four years.

A good friend of hers who started college with her at NW took five years because she got married while in college. The dean and the board frowned upon any undergraduates taking longer than five years to acquire an undergraduate degree, so much so that they would candidly advise a transfer to another college where that sort of thing was countenanced.
02/26/07 @ 13:33

This post has 2 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.)
Baja California Sur Golf Packages
Dates: January 29, 2018 - January 9, 2019
The most anticipated new course in Mexico!
Price range: $214