Ron,
In all the articles and blog responses I have seen relating to Michelle Wie and her ability to-justification of-reasons for/against competing in PGA Events, I have yet to see anyone do a simple analysis of her statistical performance against other young golfers on the PGA tour. The results are quite interesting. You may go here http://www.ras0.biz/theladyandthetiger.pdf to see how her first three years of PGA competition stack up against the first three years of Tiger Woods as measured by the dispassionate yardstick of Official PGA Statistics. Some may find the results surprising considering that Michelle was three years younger than Tiger at the time of competition.

What's your point, John, that in five years she'll be better than woods is today? Such stats are absolutely meaningless.

To Under Par
Nope, my sole point was that comparing their first three years playing in PGA sanctioned events, Michelle's record is better than Tiger's was. Past performance is never a guarantee of future value...however, if statistics are meaningless, why do we keep so many of them?

We keep so many of them so that we can use them in meaningful ways -- in their proper context -- not so we can relate them in ways that only serve to distort people's grasp of reality.

The courses that Michelle Wie has played as an amateur are more conducive to her style of play, while Tiger, even as a professional, has yet to develop an affinity for Riviera, the only regular PGA tour course where he played as an amateur. I'm not counting Augusta and US Open appearances as an amateur. John, did you or the pdf look at those stats as well?

No Ron, I am aware of the "horse for the course" phenomenon, but I don't think anyone has developed a statistic for measuring that. The tournaments for each are listed at the bottom of the chart on the pdf.

And Under Par, if the statistics kept by the PGA can not be used to compare the relatvie performance of two golfers, then what is the "meaningful way" in which they can be used?

John,

I will spell this out for you. They can be used to compare golfers, but some comparisons are silly.

Wie is someone who experienced physical maturity at an EXTREMELY young age, meaning that she got close to her potential sooner than most. For instance, why not go back even further, to when they were ten? I'm guessing that the Wie at ten probably could have vanquished the Woods at ten pretty regularly.

You know what this is like? I'm 6'1." This is like saying, "Look at this girl -- she's only 12 and she's six inches taller than Under Par was at that age!"

Get it yet?

Get what, under parr? Is there a point in your argument when you absolutley refuse to see any in other's opinion?

The stats are very useful.

If you were trying to compare a 15-year old Michelle Wie to Tiger Woods, I would agree with Under Par, that that is a little unfair.

However, comparing her at 15 to Tiger Woods at 18, is if anything a little unfair to Michelle.
Sure, Tiger had more potential for increasing his physical power after that age, but that is more than counter, by the fact that Tiger had more time to build his game up at that stage.

Add to that he was winning amateur and junior events left, right and centre at that stage, something Wie has been critised for not doing.
One wonders why a man who was so great for winning amatuer and junior titles at that time was not able to perform nearly as well as her in pga events.

Well, Under Par, I guess June fixed your wagon! Beware bloggers, the Dragon Lady is back! And this time, like Willard, she might not be alone! Under Par, I ask this question in all seriousness: Do you think it is possible for anyone to be as clueless as June is pretending to be? Sorry Norman, I just couldn't help myself.

Alex,

Remember, June is a woman. A characteristic female trait is to dig in your heels and never cede a point even when it has been demonstrated clearly that you're wrong. This is especially common when they don't like you. They're much like children in that regard.

The statistics seem to show that a 15 year-old Michelle Wie was a better golfer than Tiger Woods was at 18, but the staistics are wrong. I would argue that the Tiger Woods who was coming off his 3rd consecutive US Men's Amateur Title would have eaten Michelle's lunch. Why you say, because he knew how to win, he knew what it took to win, he willed himself to win at that level and stage of his career. Michelle doesn't know what real pressure is, the pressure of making a putt to win a big tournament, the pressure to win when you are expected to win. Michelle has had better "results" on the PGA tour to this point than Tiger did when he started, but nobody questioned that he would eventually not only make cuts but also win tournaments. The reason they did not question him was because of his record and his already on display iron will, Michelle has neither. when Michelle plays in 7 PGA tournaments as a 19 year old and wins 2 of them and finishes 25th on the money list let me know and I will gladly revisit this comparison.

C'mon, how could anyone in his right mind compare Wie to Woods? Woods won three consecutive US Men's Amateur titles, she couldn't even get beyond the quarters of the Publinx. Moreover, she lost to a junior girl the last time she played in one of their events.

You people need to have your medication adjusted.

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_

People, people! Can't we all just get along? Where's the love?

Alex
You wrote
"Remember, June is a woman. A characteristic female trait is to dig in your heels and never cede a point even when it has been demonstrated clearly that you're wrong"
That's cute coming from you the most obdurate blogger imaginable.
Also, MW will get much stronger, if you think she has almost reached her peak physically you obviously know nothing about physical training.

Alan M

Hi Stone,
Ref your comment "when Michelle plays in 7 PGA tournaments as a 19 year old and wins 2 of them and finishes 25th on the money list let me know and I will gladly revisit this comparison.
"

Would you give her until age 20? That's how long it took Tiger. At 19 he played in 4 PGA tournaments finishing T41, WD, T57 and T68. He did not have a finishing score below par in any of them. The following year he turn Pro and did MUCH better.

Under Par said:
Remember, June is a woman. A characteristic female trait is to dig in your heels and never cede a point even when it has been demonstrated clearly that you're wrong. This is especially common when they don't like you. They're much like children in that regard.
***************************

Sounds like you have womanly traits.

Stone said:
I would argue that the Tiger Woods who was coming off his 3rd consecutive US Men's Amateur Title would have eaten Michelle's lunch.
****************************

Your facts are VERY wrong.
Tiger was coming off his third US Amateur J-U-N-I-O-R title.
Junior is very different to mens.

He didn't win the mens until he was 18 years of age.

Under Par, also believed your quote, which had him ranting about how Tiger won the Amateur title and she could only get to the quarters of the publinx.

The reality is very different:
- At 15 Wie got to the last 8 of the US Mens Publinx.
- At 17 Tiger got to the last 32 of the US Mens Amateurs. He won the junior title that year.

Stone said:
when Michelle plays in 7 PGA tournaments as a 19 year old and wins 2 of them and finishes 25th on the money list let me know and I will gladly revisit this comparison.
******************************

You make a good point here, even though your facts are slightly out again. He was 20 years old, as John said, when he had that season.

The good point though, is that we don't know how she will perform at that age.

Therefore if we want to discuss her now, we just just concentrate on what she has done up until now, which is absolutely outstanding.

Hey, Alan, old buddy! Where have you been? I see you're up to your old tricks. You credited me with Under Par's remarks. I suspect that any day now you'll get something right.Maybe not.

Thanks to Norman and John for correcting my mistakes. Tiger was 20 when he won two PGA titles and earned his card in just 7 events. He turned pro at 20 shortly after winning the Men's Amateur for the 3rd consecutive time. Honest mistake, his record needs no embellishment for the sake of my argument. Michelle can have till she's 200 years old to accomplish the feats mentioned above. She can have 10 lifetimes it will not change the fact that she will never win on the PGA tour let alone merit comparisons with Tiger Woods. Norman is right about focusing on the present. What Michelle Wie has accomplished is truly remarkable. Winning LPGA events and making a cut here and there should be what we expect from Michelle and that in itself is something to cheer about.

Under Par, It looks like Alan is back from the doldrums. I just knew June was not alone. Maybe it's a full moon coming. With both these zanies back in action, things could get hilarious. Stay tuned.

Stone, You are getting way ahead of yourself. Michelle is only 16. If her game continues to progress at the rate it has been for the past 5 years, I dare say she will win multiple PGA tournaments. I for one believe that she will continue to make significant in roads in her game, She has the talent, top notch instructors and motivation to succeed in any tour, as long as she does not lose focus.

Jon,

I hope you get better.

Michelle Wie A Different Perspective

I see so many taking shots at how Michelle Wie should do things differently, play more amateur events, learn how to win, don't turn pro, don't comptete against men learn to win against women etc etc etc.

I just took a look at the career stats of Annika Sorenstam (Easily the #1 All time) and Dottie Pepper (Great Player & Biggest Wie Basher) and checked how they did at the start of their careers compared to what Michelle has done to this point.

Annika first played an LPGA event at age 22 in 1992, played 3 events in 1993 with 2 top 10's, then started full-time in 1994, 18 events with 3 top 10's, In her second full-time year 1995 she dominated with 12 top 10's and 3 wins in 19 events.

Starting at Age 22, It took her 34 events before she won on the LPGA tour, and in those 34 events she had 17 top 10's in 33 starts. She won her first event in her second full-time year.

Dottie first played in an LPGA event at age 18 in 1983 and missed the cut, played 1-2 events per year from 1984 - 1987 with no top 10's in 5 years (only 6 events) her sixth year of playing the LPGA (first year full-time) she was Rookie of the Year with 7 top 10's in 25 starts with no wins.

Starting at Age 18, It took her 33 events before she won on the LPGA tour, and in those 33 events she had 7 top 10's in 33 starts. She won her first event in her second full-time year.

Michelle Wie

At Age 12, Played 3 events missed 3 cuts (At Age 12)
At Age 13, Played 6 events made 5 cuts and 1 Top 10
At Age 14, Played 7 events made 7 cuts, 6 Top 20's, a 4th and a 6th
At Age 15, Played 7 events made 6 cuts, 6 Top 25's, 3 2nd Place Finishes, DQ'd in other event while in 3rd place

So far Wie has played a total of 23 LPGA events (counting the 3 she played when she was 12) and has 3 2nd place finishes.

Remember it took Anika and Dottie 33 events before they broke into the winners circle, and both did it in their 2nd full-time year.

AND

Both could drive themselves home and stop at the bar for a drink if they wanted to.

Jay
Good point, but you are wasting your time with these sort of stats.
The Wie bashers think stats are a waste of time, don't prove anything and have nothing to do with reality.
Good try. Better luck next time.
Sorry Alex, but you guys are so alike. You agree with everything under par says. My comment wasn't wasted.
Alan M

Alan,I never thought it would be so enjoyable flying anywhere on a plane,and losing $50 on top of it. Come on, Michelle, you go girl! As my teenage son would blog: Bwah-hah-hah-hah....