#1 LPGA booster: David Leadbetter

I am not a Leadbetter fan but he was right in his evaluation. It is often said shot making is lost art in modern golf. Still we have some excellant shot makers left in pga tour. But in lpga I can not think of single player who can be called shot maker. Annka hits dead straight but she has never been known for her shot making ability. I think big reason is the way lpga sets up their courses. Simply players don't feel much need of shaping the ball both way because of short course and generous pin position.

Well, we all know putting is the worst part of Michelle's game at this point and yet she kept finishing somewhere near the top, which should tell us that her "tee to green" game has something to do with it.

Maybe Leadbetter isn't that great coach as you said but at least here he got something right IMHO.

Michelle did use couple of shots, not that I know other LPGA players also has these shots or not.

Knock-down, High Cut, Draw... you name it.

Only problem for Michelle is that she still didn't have complete control over them like PGA pros. But at least time is on her side.

I've never thought much of Leadbetter as a teacher; he's just far too technical. Faldo agonizes too much over technique and paralysis by analysis sets in; he needed a coach who would have told him to let his creative juices flow more.

As far as women and shotmaking goes, I can give you some unique insight into this. Up until not that long ago I used to teach tennis full time. The women in tennis are the same way in that their games are never as complete as the men's. And I can tell you that this involves something inherent in the female mentality (ability factors in too).

One time I was teaching a ranked girl who was loath to work on her slices. Why? She was afraid (emotion) of "losing her game." I can't remember ever hearing that from a boy. It may only be one example, but it reflects nicely what I found to be generally true. Boys like to experiment, and they find it fascinating and stimulating to work on new shots. In contrast, girls tend to be content to just hit the same shot over and over again.

I can assure you, this difference is due to something innate.

I found it interesting that even Michelle's old coach thought that her swing looked to mechanical. That is the Leadbetter influence at work. That being said I agree with Leadbetter and the other posters in their analysis of Michelle's shotmaking ability. She certainly does have a wider array of shots then many, if not all of her LPGA counterparts. I remember watching Annika in the ADT Skills Challenge a couple of years ago, there was a trouble shot that in order to execute one had to either hook or slice around a tree and she simply could not pull the shot off.

I don't think that golf is an attractive sport for girls who are naturally athletic, at least in the US. Little is done to encourage them to try golf, for example there is no girls golf team in my daughter's HS. More athletic girls tend to take up soccer, lacrosse, gymnastics, track, tennis, etc. and they don't even consider golf. As a result, there just isn't a huge talent base of girls getting in to golf and the LPGA is not as competitive.

Under Par, I don't buy your argument that women are innately less willing to learn new skills. Look at sports where women and men both have to learn complex skills like figure skating and gymnastics. I don't see any more sophistication in what men do in these sports.

Peter Kostis once said Reason why players like Ricky Barnes and Bryce molder are having trouble in pro ranks is because they were reluctant to make change to jump to next level because they didn't want to mess up immediate success. It is true that some athletes don't want to take risk but it is not male female thing as under par insists.

It sure is a male/female thing, and I don't think that -- I KNOW it. Unlike you folks, I worked in the field for 15 years, and I can assure you that I saw more than a scientific sampling of both sexes.

As far as figure skating and gymnastics go, they're not analogous. This is because success in those sports requires that you learn all the different movements. In other words, if you can't do the balance beam you won't even be in a competition. necessity is the mother of invention.

Golf is different in that you can be a one-trick pony and enjoy great success. Circumstances don't necessarily force you to change.

I'll give you another example of this phenomenon. Studies have shown that male tennis pros generate about three times as much topspin as female ones. Of course, though, all experienced pros know this through experience.

Now, I know that you may assume that this is due to the men's greater strength yielding more racquet head speed, and that wouldn't be a stupid assumption. But there's more to it. You see, even when I would teach kids of 6, 8 or 10 years of age -- a period during which the sexes possess virtually the same strength -- I found that the boys would naturally generate far more spin, whereas the girls tended toward a very flat ball. It was very, VERY rare to find a girl who spun the ball well.

People have trouble understanding these factors nowadays because everyone has equality on the brain.

There is no doubt that there is natural difference in physical ability between men and women. But there is no evidence that women is more likely to sit on current success rather than sacrificing immediate success for jumping to next level, a la Tiger. I think that's purely individual thing.
Annika decided to change her body completely despite she was one of best player in the wrold at that time. Karrie webb also decided to change her swing despite she was number 2 player in the world at that time because she wanted to regain #1.
Beth Bauer finished 18th in money list in her rookie year and won ROY. But she decided to change her swing because she wanted to gain distance. That didn't work out and she lost her card this year.
How about Wie? Wie might have won lpga tournament already or made pga cut if she relyed on her money shot, draw. But she kept using fade in most important tournaments like major and pga tournament despite she has been fighting double cross until recently. That shows wie isn't afraid of experimnet just like Tiger.
It shows there are plenty of female players who took risk.

Women's gymnastics and skating were not always so complex and challenging. They became more challenging as women tried new skills and brought up the overall level of competition. IMHO, the same thing will happen with golf as players like Wie have success using new shots, other players will have to bring up the level of their game to remain competitive.

Under Par,
If there was a difference in the way that women and men thought, that was more society driven that anything else.

If you know anything about Michelle Wie, you know that she certainly doesn't have those limiting beliefs, as to being inferior to anyone, or in wanting to limit her shots.

She certainly is fairly unique in this regard, but I think she will inspire more girls to come around to her way of thinking.

I think Wie is probably already changing the attitudes of many junior girl golfers, who once looked at the womens game to copy shots, and are now checking what shots are being played on the pga, and wanting to maximise there games as to what is possible.

Again I will say your tennis knowledge is probably excellent, but probably much better than your golfing knowledge.

I could explain the level I have played the game at, but I know this wouldn't help my argument, because even the very top players disagree on if it is possible for Wie to be a pga tour player or not. I have heard so many personal views throughout professional ranks, with experts coming out with completely different views.

One of the problems with LPGA is that there really is no one who can shape iron shots. They don't even bother, except for the wedges. Callaway x-18s(Sorenstam) and Rac LTs(Creamer) are great if you want to clunk the shot straight, but like Stone said you can't slice, hook or blast out of the rough using those clunkers. So, basically a LPGA player in the rough will either bail or try to hit it out as far and straight as she can. PGA players on the other hand can shape shots with their irons. I bet the only clubs Sorenstam tries to shape are her wedges. LPGA would be far more fun to watch if the players can shape shots with their irons.

You know, you people really are a bunch of fools. I told you something that I know for a fact and explained my observations in depth. And providing anecdotal evidence involving exceptions to the rule only proves that you have extremely poor analytical skills.

And, Norman, saying that a difference in thinking between the sexes would have to to due to socialiization is completey idiotic and doesn't even accord with consensus belief in the field of psychological research. You ought to read a little bit.

I don't suffer fools gladly.

Your observations are anecdotal evidence, and your resorting to name calling is evidence of a weak argument.

My observations are based on a sample of thousands; I'm not basing my whole argument on a few anomalous individuals who are mere exceptions to the rule, exceptions that would have to exist

Under Par,
Just watch over the seasons to come, and I'm pretty sure you will observe more and more "exceptions", until the exception becomes the rule.

Norman,

Of course you're going to see more exceptions in normal in PRO sports. That's why they succeed -- they're exceptions! That does not, however, change the fact that there are certain immutable differences between the sexes, nor does it mean that girls will ever be different in this regard, because they won't be.

Some of you people really are as dumb as rocks.

And you are not, Under Par?

I think it's time to apply Alex's ranking system here. I vote to give Norman and June six Alans each. That is what you will get, pending final approval of the committee.

Under par. Even after blacks were allowed to vote, Blacks were reluctant to cast vote. Is it evidence that black people doesn't have interest in exercising their right to vote? More reasonable answer is they were afraid of KKK threat.
In social science stats doesn't necessarily lead to truth because there are so many hidden factors.

Also you should be careful in selecting sample in socail science. Who plays tennis? Mostly upper class white people. That means your sample has flaw from the start.

Jay,

I didn't cite statistics -- try to exercise better reading comprehension. Moreover, your KKK/black people example isn't even remotely analogous to what is at issue here.

Lastly, if you believe that the social sciences are valid, you most likely cannot be reasoned with. They are not "sciences," but, rather, comprise a bunch of ideology-based theories, theories that rely on the manipulation of data for validation.

Under Par,
Since my point seemed to escape you I will make it again.

There will be more exceptions in the upper tiers of womens golf.

You were saying that women were more afraid to take more risks and try out new shots than men.

I am saying that Michelle Wie will help to break these barriers down, barriers which exist inside peoples heads.

You have already said that it is a phychological difference not a physical one.

If it was simply physical, then you could argue that it could not be broken.
Mental barriers can be broken, trust me on that.

Norman,

Okay, I'm going to explain this in such a way that even a small child would be able to understand it. I did not say it was purely "psychological"; what I thought I had made clear is that it has to do with innate brain differences between the sexes. You are aware, Norman, that science has determined definitively that there are PHYSICAL brain differences between the sexes, aren't you?

Now we have on-site Scientist, a brain scientist at that in Under Parr. Great!

Thanks Under Par,

So what you are now saying is that women in general don't like to try new and different shots because their brains are actually designed differently.

Perhaps you could go into all these differences bit by bit.

We are all born with free will. That means we can choose what we want to do.
There is absolutely nothing that a man can do that a woman can't, except for those things which are physically dependant.

Paula Creamer's golfing brain is far superior to any other woman or man.

When the new lpga season starts, and you all get to witness Paula's new length off the tee, then you will begin to understand the changing nature of golf.

Absolutely. As per Mr. Under Par who eqauated height to mental and emotional maturity as in Wie's case, if Paula has a big head, she must undoubtedly have a superior brain capacity. Unfortunately, I am not privy to Paula's head size, but I am sure Ronnie could vouch for her.

Okay, I'm sorry, Ronnie has to be joking. Ronnie, as I'm sure Alex will tell you, you stand NO chance of winning the competition if you don't generate serious, sober work.

You're risking disqualification.

Norman,

It's obvious now that you're just a dumb jock. Any further efforts at explaining this would no doubt prove fruitless, as it's plain that you lack the requisite sophistication.

Under Par, I am extremely disappointed with you. I had thought you better. You have claimed male superiority over the lesser sex, and I, being a full blooded male myself, would not actively discourage your view point, unless it interfere with my appreciation for one particular female golfer, i.e. Wie. I find distasteful and tracherous your use of "Alan"s to convey dumbness, however you may define dumb is besides the point. Why must you use a male name as units of your dumb index? I would suggest "Sandolo"s, the female golfer in provocative pose that the Travel Golf prominently and shamelessly display in its home page. Please Under par, reconsider your dumb index.

You're right, Extreme, I may start using "Extremely Under Pars."

Under Par said:
Norman,
It's obvious now that you're just a dumb jock. Any further efforts at explaining this would no doubt prove fruitless, as it's plain that you lack the requisite sophistication.
******************************

Or could it be that I lack the necessary pre-formed bias against anything female, that is required, to make anyone believe your viewpoints.

Norman,

It's that you lack the common-sense and discernment. Hey, do you have daughters?

Check out my latest blog--it's a tribute to you all--http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ron.mon/2006/01/11/the_people_have_spoken_travelgolf_s_fan_

Under Par
You never cease to amaze.
Can I ask you a serious question.
Bearing in mind the thread of this blog. Do you believe wie is different to the other female golfers in that she has broken the mould and isn't restricted in the shot making department like the other female golfers.
I thought you were going to say that in the first posting but you stopped.
Alan M

Alan,

Yes, Wie is singular among female golfers. As they say (although I don't really like the saying), "The exception that proves the rule."

I appreciate the honesty.
Alan M