« Bowditch update & other stuff you didn't know matteredBowditch: THE Story of the Bob Hope Classic »

89 comments

Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Poor Jennifer Mario.
This is not the first time she has made a blog, and someone else nicked the idea to continue there own blog.

Last cultprit: Mark Nessmith, and his follow up story got 288 comments.

How many will this one get?
01/22/06 @ 17:08
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Nobody actually knows what Wie will do, but I certainly think she will do alot more, than just dominate the lpga.

Ron Mon, I think she will qualify for a mens major, but not yet. She'll probably try for 2 this season. The US and British Opens.

Although it's a long shot for her to actually qualify this time, the experience should do her good.
01/22/06 @ 17:10
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Maybe when Paula Creamer wins a mens major, it might inspire Wie.
01/22/06 @ 17:12
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Don't forget Creamer is due to win a mens major in the next few years, as predicted by one of the regulars to this site.
01/22/06 @ 17:15
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Does anyone know if Creamer cares to spend her time competing against men? She can kick her boyfriend's arse (Tarik Can of Augusta State) but still cannot outdo her short game coach, and he's no major-event player.

Bloggers ALWAYS poach from each other. I'm shocked that you haven't picked up on others besides me and Balls-Out.

I don't think that ANYTHING another female player does, influences Wie's sphere in the least. Her drummer's beat is her own.

01/22/06 @ 19:00
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
There would have to be some other extenuating conditions to Grouse's propositions. It should be about 10-1 for Michelle Wie ever playing in a men's major. As for the 16-1 on a top-ten finish this year, from what I've read she has only one additional sponsor's exemption for certain this year on the big tour, at the John Deere. Jennifer's blog doesn't say what the condition for action on those bets would be. If they are as she has written, I'd up my odds that I would lay to 6-1 and 48-1, triple of Grouse's line. Any takers? Leave your e-mail address and I'll get back to you.
01/22/06 @ 19:08
Comment from: Jennifer Mario [Member] Email
Ron--loose screw? I'm not the one setting the odds here, merely reporting on them.

But thanks for the "beloved" bit. I think I might be blushing.
01/22/06 @ 19:13
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Yeah, that's true. Apologies on that one. I guess I got carried away.
01/22/06 @ 22:40
Comment from: Young [Visitor]
John,

I'll take both bets, at $20 apiece. But how do I know you'll be good for the $960 if you lose the 48-1 bet? I know you're not planning to lose but I once had the misfortune to have had someone on the Net renege on a $100 bet. Incidentally, the guy who reneged was a critic of Michelle Wie. I just hope it's not the case that every critic of Wie would never really put his money where his mouth is. :)




01/23/06 @ 00:37
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Hey Ron my Mon admit it man, without Wie you’re nothing. Nobody reads your other stuff or comments on it until you drop the name Wie into a posting. That is the Power of Wie. Love her or hate her everyone has something to say about Michelle.

While Baldwin is running down Duval in a parking lot, Michelle shows up to a press conference and it is standing room only with press from all over the world. It doesn’t matter that she may have shot a 79 and blown any chance of making a cut, she still shows up and fights back her emotions while responding to questions. That is what a Professional Athlete does; they do not run away from the public that supports their lifestyle.

Now who has the guts to be a Professional Athlete?

Don’t knock your writers meal ticket Ron, just go with the Wie flow.
01/23/06 @ 01:55
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Did anyone realize for the last three years Michelle qualified for the top 125 on the LPGA official money list in the limited events she palyed:

Wie in LPGA 2005, Age 15 (Tournament Site Date Scores Finish Money)

Weetabix Women's British Open Southport, England July 28-31 75-67-67-69—278 (-11) T3 $142,000*
Evian Masters France July 20-23 75-70-68-68—281 (-7) T2 $212,283
U.S. Women's Open Colorado June 23-26 69-73-72-82—296 (+12) 23rd $30,000*
LPGA Championship Havre de Grace, Md. June 9-12 69-71-71-69—280 (-8) 2nd $164,385
Kraft Nabisco Championship Rancho Mirage, Calif. March 24-27 70-74-73-71—288 (E) T14 $27,571
Safeway International Superstition Mountain, Ariz. March 17-20 73-67-73-71—284 (-4) T12 $23,964
SBS Open Turtle Bay Resort Feb. 24-26 70-70-70—210 (-6) T2 $79,977
Totals (money turned down) $680,180. Good enough for 16th place on the ADT official money list.

2004, Age 14

Samsung World Championship Palm Desert, Calif. Oct. 14-17 74-72-67-70—283 (-5) T13 $15,000*
Wendy's Championship for Children Dublin, Ohio Aug. 19-22 73-69-71-69—282 (-6) T6 $29,975
Evian Masters Evian-les-Bains, France July 21-25 71-71-76-69—287 (-1) T33 $17,500 U.S. Women's Open South Hadley, Mass. July 1-4 71-70-71-73—285 (+1) T13 $60,000 Michelob Ultra Open Kingsmill, Va. May 6-9 72-67-73-72—284 (E) T12 $35,090
Kraft Nabisco Championship Rancho Mirage, Calif. March 25-28 69-72-69-71—281 (-7) 4th $82,000
Safeway International Superstition Mountain, Ariz. March 18-21 72-67-70-77—286 (-2) T19 $14,040
Totals (money turned down) $253,605. Good enough for 47th place on the ADT official money list.


2003, Age 13
Sports Today CJ Nine Bridges Classic Jeju Island, Korea Oct. 31- Nov. 2 85-78-70—233 (+17) 69th n/a
Safeway Classic Portland, Ore. Sept. 26-28 69-72-73—214 (-2) T28 $10,327
Jamie Farr Kroger Classic Sylvania, Ohio Aug. 14-17 73-72—145 (+3) Missed Cut
U.S. Women's Open North Plains, Ore. July 3-6 73-73-76-76—298 (+14) T39 n/a ShopRite LPGA Classic Galloway Township, N.J. June 27-29 71-72-72—215 (+2) T52 $3,948
Chick-fil-A Charity Championship Stockbridge, Ga. Apr. 25-27 72-70-71—213 (-3) T33 $7,825
Kraft Nabisco Championship Rancho Mirage, Calif. March 27-30 72-74-66-72—288 (E) T9 $35,600
Totals (money turned down) $57,700** Good enough for 108th place on the ADT official money list.

As a thirteen year old she still qualified for an "Exempt" LPGA Tour Card.

No wonder she likes teeing it up with the guys. She needs the competition.

01/23/06 @ 03:32
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
"err: palyed = played"
01/23/06 @ 03:35
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Remember all, she was limited to just eight sponsor's exemptions each year and still finished in the top 125.

Looking at the improvement each year she jumped 61 positions up the money list from 2003 to 2004 and 31 positions 2004 to 2005.

Just try to imagine where she would have placed if she played a full season of 25 events each of these years.

Look out Annika, Michelle is right on your heels.

I can't wait to see what she does in 2006.
01/23/06 @ 05:03
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Her $991,485 over the three years would place Michelle Wie at 135 on the LPGA Career Money List if she had cashed the checks and her stats counted from 2003 to 2005.

Give me a break. She only played in 20 events over a three year period out of 75 events in the same period for a regular LPGA tour member.

These girls really suck (not rock).

01/23/06 @ 05:19
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Young, you don't know if anybody is going to nenege on a bet if the money hasn't been put down. After doing some research, I've discovered that making that sort of bet over the internet is bordering on illegality and is frowned upon by the FCC. So you saved yourself $40. Laying odds against Michelle ever winning a men's major has nothing to do with being a critic or an admirer of MW. Before you throw your money away on any such wager, I'd advise you to digest this: In the last ten years, only 24 different golfers have one a major.
01/23/06 @ 08:14
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
edit: "won one major."
01/23/06 @ 08:17
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Asia_Guy,

You saw through the smoky curtain of deceipt that I have woven around myself. You are correct. Without Wie, Woe is Me.
01/23/06 @ 09:21
Comment from: jackson [Visitor]
The stats you have cited regarding Michelle Wie are truly impressive, Asia Guy. I only have one problem with your reasoning and train of thought. You say that she is looking for a challenge that is why she is playing with the guys---fair enough, but she has yet to win on the LPGA tour, so by your reasoning she has proved her dominance and need to go to the next level by showing that she can finish in the top 5--This is borderline insane. How can somebody that has never won, let alone dominate be ready for a new challenge. You tell Annika to watch out, Michelle is right on her heals, are you kidding me? Annika has 66 career LPGA wins and is coming off a season in which she won 10 times in 20 starts(thats a 50% win rate you sun-baked boat person) and somehow Michelle is right on her heals with her career win percentage of 0. While Michelle was probably playing a little slap and tickle with the boys at school, Annika was winning the women's world team championship this weekend. You want to talk about how great Michelle is going to be one day, fine, but for now she is just a winless, little girl with a world of unfufilled talent.
01/23/06 @ 10:23
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Guys, if you want to read some far out Wie insanity, try the UK writer on golf in the Newcastle Journal, Tim Taylor. That newspaper is the one that reported the wagering odds on MW winning a men's major. This fellow is right out of Fantasyland. He makes Asia-Guy and Norman look like Wie skeptics.
01/23/06 @ 11:11
Comment from: Tom Halpin [Visitor]
She is 16 years of age, still at high school and finished ahead of 18 full time PGA tour pros in Hawaii. Now I may be mistaken but I really do think that is quite extraordinary. How come nobody is calling for the guys who finish behind her to quit playing tour events?
01/23/06 @ 11:43
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Tom H, no less an authority on golf than Ian Baker-Finch, a former Open champion and now a TV golf announcer has said that Michelle Wie should give up on attempts at the PGA tour. She has never qualified for a PGA tour event. She simply does not have the credentials to compete on the big tour. Annika Sorenstam had one sponsor's exemption three years ago. She failed to make the cut, but did post a better two-round score than several men pros. She had the good sense to admit she was out-classed on the men's tour and has not tried again. Remember Tom, MW didn't FINISH ahead of anybody since she did not FINISH the tournament. When a player doesn't make the cut he doesn't get to FINISH the tournament. She shouldn't quit playing tour events, just not men's events.
01/23/06 @ 12:52
Comment from: Martin Levac [Visitor]
Michelle Wie did not finish ahead of 18 full time PGA tour pros in Hawaii, she simply did not finish.

In the world of racing, DNQ, DNF and FIN are literally miles appart. In racing as in golf, DNQ-DQ-DNF-CUT implies that it is impossible to finish the race or the tournament.

What is extraordinary is the attention she gets just for trying. I'd put more attention on the matter if she was actually doing.


ML
01/23/06 @ 12:53
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
I will reply to these comments:

For Ron my Mon: You are the man. I respect your work.

For jackson: Michelle played in seven regular LPGA events in 2005 and ended up with $680,180 in earnings on the tour. Paula Creamer played in twenty-five LPGA events in 2005 including the end of year money padding events and ended up with $1,531,780 in earnings on the tour.

Now jackson dig out your calculator and figure out the productivity of each player for events played. Paula did have two wins, but her per event earnings were lower than Michelle who had no wins. In five of the eight events they played in the same field Michelle led Paula in the field.

Did you happen to notice the events Michelle entered were the toughest events on the LPGA tour when you take away the SBS in Hawaii?

I think we can safely say she is hot on Annika's heels.

For John ZZZZZZZZZ: I would be the first one to agree that Michelle should forget about playing with the men. Not for your inane arguments that she doesn't have the strength to play in the PGA (A 68 on a PGA setup course at 13 and 15 years of age shows me that dog won’t hunt.), but for the simple fact she could clean up in the LPGA if she applied her focus there. Unfortunately the LPGA will only allow her six exemptions (not including qualifying for the majors) this year and she has no other option but to play in men’s events for experience. The one positive from playing with the men is she gains an A_G boatload of experience when she plays with the best players. If you have experience with coaching John you know playing with somebody that is better than you, brings your game to a new level. You of all people could see this at the Sony when she came back from the worst round of her life, put her emotions in check and carded a 68 the next day, that is a “World Class” athlete in the making.

This gal qualified for a LPGA card at thirteen and every year since. She would already be in the top 135 on the lifetime LPGA career money list as a fifteen year old. The only one on the tour who is consistently a challenge for Michelle to surpass is Annika and she doesn’t play every round with her.

For Tom: I tried that argument before and the Jackboots are “stuck on stupid” when it comes to Michelle. How many finished behind her at the John Deere or last years Sony Open Tom? A whole bunch of PGA Professional golfer did.

For Martin Levac: I haven’t read your postings before so I will assume you are a new Michelle Wie Jackboot marching in step with the rest of them. Get a clue man, when you finish on the field of play ahead of someone you beat that individual not the whole field.
01/23/06 @ 13:56
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Since MW is a pro and she "beat" these 18 players, how much was her payday for "beating" these guys? What's that you say? She is already rich and doesn't need the money? She's only a 16-year-old girl? John Z and Martin L are jackbooted thugs? In the PGA tour stats the only word after Michelle's lackluster two rounds at the Sony was "CUT". JOhn Huston bogied the final hole at the Sony and missed the cut by a single stroke. He was very disappointed, but by A-G's convoluted logic he should have rejoiced since he scored better for two rounds than about 60 golfers. Huston got the same word after his name: CUT.
01/23/06 @ 14:29
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Asia-Guy and Tom H, since you fellows have stated that you believe that MW's missing the cut by four shots at the Sony is a remarkable accomplishment, perhaps you can give me an answer to this question: Off the top of your heads and without any research, tell me the names of the golfers who missed the cut by four strokes at the 2005 US Open. What's that? Why that was seven months ago! How can anybody remember that? Okay, how about the golfers who missed the cut by four strokes at the Hope? That was only two days ago. Come on, guys you can do it! Surely you didn't forget such a remarkable accomplishment. And please, none of this "she's only 16, she's busy with school, she had to take her driver's test, she wants some chocolate" BS. She's a PROFESSIONAL! She gets big bucks in appearance money! It's time for her and her mob of adoring brown nosers to put up or shut up.
01/23/06 @ 15:23
Comment from: RonMon [Visitor]
Tomorrow I will create a blog that will satisfy Asia_Guy's flatulent yen for controversy and feedback, and not mention Wie in any context. Can't be done? Just wait and see!!!
01/23/06 @ 16:02
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z said:
JOhn Huston bogied the final hole at the Sony and missed the cut by a single stroke. He was very disappointed, but by A-G's convoluted logic he should have rejoiced since he scored better for two rounds than about 60 golfers. Huston got the same word after his name: CUT.
*************************

John Huston has 7 pga tour victories. Why would he be glad to miss the cut by one stroke. Why would he be glad if he finished in 25th position? The guy is 44 years of age. Comparing him to Michelle is a little strange to say the least. Of course someone who has achieved 7 victories isn't going to be happy with missing the cut, no matter by how many shots.

If John Huston was back at a time when he was 16 years old and missed the cut by 1 shot, he probably would have been very very proud.
01/23/06 @ 16:42
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z said:
no less an authority on golf than Ian Baker-Finch, a former Open champion and now a TV golf announcer has said that Michelle Wie should give up on attempts at the PGA tour.
*******************************

Tiger Woods said the opposite. Quoting one person doesn't really prove alot does it.

01/23/06 @ 16:45
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z said:
Remember Tom, MW didn't FINISH ahead of anybody since she did not FINISH the tournament. When a player doesn't make the cut he doesn't get to FINISH the tournament. She shouldn't quit playing tour events, just not men's events.
*******************************

If Tiger took that attitude after his first 4 failed pga attempts, things would be very different.

In fact if Tiger took that view after his first 7 failed pga attempts, then things would be very different.

She should keep playing mens events as long as she keeps aquiting herself well.
01/23/06 @ 16:49
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z said:
JOhn Huston bogied the final hole at the Sony and missed the cut by a single stroke.
*****************************

Wow.
From the way people comment on these blogs, you would have thought that Michelle was the only one to have ever had a bad finish to a round to miss a cut narrowly.

Many thanks for this find John Zelda, showing that even experienced guys with 7 tour victories, can bogey the last hole to miss by 1.

You are becoming a Wie Warrier John Z. Well done.
01/23/06 @ 16:53
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
NORMAN

I disagree with your assertion about someone with 7 PGA victories being happy about missing the cut by one stroke. Happy is too strong a word--but I suspect there was a point where David Duval might have taken encouragement from coming close to making a cut. He must have found ways to take encouragement from small triumphs to enable him to keep going during his slump.

JOHN Z I don't know who missed the cut by 4 shots at the lasst US Open, but UNDER PAR remembered a boy who qualified for the US Open at Bethpage Black which was bck in 2002. It turned out to be Derek Tolan who missed the cut by 16 shots.

01/23/06 @ 19:32
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Ian Baker Finch.

A few years ago a male sportscater lost his job for a comment he made about women not being able to be as good as men at golf because of their breasts, which presumeably get in the way of their swing. If Finch had said that Annika did not belong at the Colonial, he would have lost his job. If Michelle enjoyed PC protection, he would lose his job now--unless the Wies intervened on his behalf. But Michelle does not enjoy PC protection, so Finch's job is quite safe.
01/23/06 @ 19:47
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Interesting, Jim. The breasts angle never crossed my mind, though admitedly they must get in the way. Does that mean all those breast augumentations are not meant for serious or aspiring female golfers? How shocking.
01/23/06 @ 20:16
Comment from: John [Visitor]
Martin Levac
In the world of racing, DNQ, DNF and FIN are literally miles appart. In racing as in golf, DNQ-DQ-DNF-CUT implies that it is impossible to finish the race or the tournament.
*********************************

Apparently Martin, you are not very familiar with the sport of Auto Racing. The official order of finish of all races lists the finishing order of all cars which took the green flag at the start of the race. Unlike Golf, cars which do not complete the full number of laps as did the lead car still get paid something--even the ones that blow their engines or crash on the first lap.

Similarly, the final results of a golf tournament list the final order of finish for all players who tee'd off on day one. Those who did not make the cut are so marked with the designation CUT, however their position in the results listing is in order of their finishing position (at the end of the last round before the cut.)

Therefore it is perfectly appropriate to say that a golfer finished "ahead of" or "behind" another golfer even though neither made the cut.




01/23/06 @ 20:28
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
NOrman, the name is ZEDELLA as you have been told many times before. Please,in the future, PAY ATTENTION!
01/23/06 @ 20:56
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Jim C, the fact that you don't know who missed the cut at last year's US Open is not surprising. What does surprise me is that you would interject the name of a rank amateur who his no interest in this blog into the debate. Do you Wie Nuts know the meaning of "non sequitur"? If not, look it up.
01/23/06 @ 21:14
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Auto racing.

If a race car does not qualify for a race, will the owner automatically stop racing the car--or will the owner want to look at what happened carefully before making a decision? It is not just the order of finish that is important--it is also whether there seems to be a reasonable chance in the future based upon what happened.
01/23/06 @ 21:14
Comment from: jackson [Visitor]
Asia Guy I don't need a calculator to figure Michelle's career earnings, they are $0. All your numbers are based on money which would have been earned had she been a professional, impressive totals to be sure, but not real money. She has yet to cash a check as a professional. Granted she has just started her pro career, but the fact remains that her resume remains devoid of wins. You are free to back the winless wonder, I will always support the players who have proven they can win. You seem to be obsessed with the money aspect of golf, ask your pal Norman or any golfer for that matter which they would rather have on their resume, money titles(or your ridiculous money per start title) or victories and get back to me with the answer. Consistency is great, but wins are why we play sport.
01/23/06 @ 22:44
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
The commentator who was fired was the Briton (His name escapes me, but it's not Peter Aliss) who used to do golf commentary here in the US. And actually, what he said was that BIG breasted women were at a disadvantage.

Secondly, it's not correct to say that if Wie benefitted from the same degree of PC protection that Finch would have been fired. I work in the media, and the fact is that there are more variables than you could shake a stick at. It's not just what you say but also how you say it, who you are, your history and, even more significantly, the kind of uproar that results (who targets you and to what degree you are targeted). Also, making a comment about a specific woman isn't nearly as hazardous as making one that applies to the whole group or a good portion of it.

Of course, the PC thought-police cowards don't cow me a whit -- this is the pen of Braveheart here.
01/23/06 @ 23:32
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Comment from: John Z [Visitor] · http://John Z
Tom H, no less an authority on golf than Ian Baker-Finch, a former Open champion and now a TV golf announcer has said that Michelle Wie should give up on attempts at the PGA tour.

1991 Open one of two Professional wins on the Tour for Ian spanning a career of two decades.

He should know about missing cuts he became an expert at missing them during his career. He is the Cut Zen Master Grasshopper.

If Michelle had taken the money from the LPGA events she entered last year, her total earnings for 2005 would have outpaced Ian's career earnings by a hundred grand or more.

Yep ZZZZZZZZ, I'm going to lend credence to what this hack says. I'm sure Michelle is taking his advice seriously.

This is your expert John ZZZZZZZZZZ?

Give me a break.

I'll listen to real winners, Ernie Els and tiger Woods.

01/24/06 @ 04:58
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Asia-Guy, Do you think the fact that Michelle and Tiger are both endorsers of Nike might have something to do with his benign comments? Ernie is too much of a gentleman to say anything but compliments about MW. Also he might be on the lookout for the PC police. Look at how Vijay was villified for his remarks about Annika in the Colonial three years ago.
01/24/06 @ 09:02
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Under Par, the British announcer who fell victim to the PC Gestapo was Ben Wright.
01/24/06 @ 09:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim Coulthard said:
I disagree with your assertion about someone with 7 PGA victories being happy about missing the cut by one stroke. Happy is too strong a word
*****************************

Actually Jim I said that obviously he WOULD NOT BE HAPPY, with missing a cut, because of his previous success.
01/24/06 @ 09:31
Comment from: trip [Visitor]
Asia Guy, remember that it was Woods who was one of the first to speak out against Wie and her ambition to play against the men. Tiger was the original proponent of the, "learn to win first" theory or career path for Michelle Wie. Hard to argue with him, look how it worked out for him. I think in the coming years Michelle will have to make a choice. Does she want to be a great, even dominant LPGA player or will she be satisfied simply being a celebrity, making a few cuts on men's tours here and there.
01/24/06 @ 09:48
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jackson said:
ask your pal Norman or any golfer for that matter which they would rather have on their resume, money titles(or your ridiculous money per start title) or victories and get back to me with the answer.
*****************************

Through my experience, most golfers want to win enough money to get financially comfortable. That is number one priority. Then when someone has become financially secure, which is defined differently by different people, the next stage is to be as ambitious as possible in golfing achievements.

Ultimately that is to win the big titles.
It isn't all straight forward though.
At lower levels it is about getting a tour card, and improving your ranking. For those who achieve full exempt tour status, it is about building the world ranking so that they automatically qualify for more events. Obviously top 50 in the world means that someone can pick and choose what they want to play in.

I think I know people in just about each of the categories, so goals are different for everyone.

At Michelle's level, obviously she has achieved the financial goal already. Her next goals should be about tour cards.
She will very likely achieve her lpga tour card next season, if she wants to take it.
But this is such a simple task for her, that obviouly her next lpga goal should be and is to win. She has achieved the next best thing, 2nd in a major, so what is left?

Win number 1 lpga.
Made cut number 1 pga.

01/24/06 @ 09:50
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
A-G, as a volunteer coach of Track and Field for more than 30 years, I do know quite a lot about the differences in abilities between males and females. Competing against superior athletes will improve one's performance as long as that competition is among athletes of the same sex and class. At my school we NEVER had girls running against boys even in time trials. I don't know of any school that did. At NO level in this sport, which is known as athletics in much of Europe, do girls and women compete against boys and men. In fact, in several states in the US, such a competition is forbidden by the rules of the High School AA. The girls would simply be out-classed, just as Michelle Wie is out-classed when trying to compete against male pros. Annika Sorenstam, the best woman golfer in history, admitted she was out-classed after the 2003 Colonial. She realizes that women can't compete with men at golf on the highest level as does Ian Baker-Finch and anyone with the God-given brains of a goose. The only ones that think otherwise are MIchelle and BJ Wie and the crackpot Wie Nuts on this board.
01/24/06 @ 09:52
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z,
Ernie is too much of a gentleman to say anything but compliments about MW.
****************************

Ernie is indeed a gentleman.
However he doesn't just avoid saying bad things about Michelle.

He has gone out of his way to play practice rounds with her and encourage her in her career.
If he was simply being pc, he would just say, "yes she is a great talent" and leave it at that.
Ernie has a deep respect for MW, something many people could learn from.
01/24/06 @ 09:59
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z,

On a number of occasions you have rightly stated how women cannot compete evenly in physically demanding sports.

Track and Field is the perfect example. Take running for instance. It is all physically related, in that there is no skill level required.

Obviously in sports like this, the top women would be completely outclassed by the top men.
Equally there would be no point in women training with men, when each of the men would just start the race faster, and gradually pull further and further away during the race. What would be the point of them competing together?

Golf is different. Michelle has not finished at the back of field in any mens tournament she has entered.
In athletics, any women would likely finish at the back of any top class mens field, barring disqualifications of course.

You have said Michelle is outclassed in these events.
Was she outclassed at the Sony, by Sean O'Hair, who finished level with her, and is one of the US best prospects for young talent.
Perhaps she was outclassed by Jason Gore, a 3 time nationwide and pga winner, who finished level with her.
Or how about the 2 previous major champions who finished 3 shots, and 5 shots behind her, maybe they outclassed her.
01/24/06 @ 10:27
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Norman, back to golf 101. When someone doesn't make the cut, he or she doesn't FINISH ahead of anyone. All of those failing to qualify are lumped into one category: CUT.
01/24/06 @ 10:40
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Suppose the stat guys at the PGA started keeping official track of the position of CUT players and by how many strokes they missed the CUT. Would that make any difference in our arguments about how well or poorly Michelle Wie is doing?

As far as Annika is concerned, Michelle Wie had no wins but 3 seconds and a third on the LPGA as a 15 year old. Does anyone happen to know what Annika's record on the LPGA was when she was 15? I'm certain she had no wins, since Paula has the record as the youngest at 18, but it would be interesting to know how many seconds and thirds Annika had at 15.
01/24/06 @ 11:37
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Norman said "Take running for instance. It is all physically related, in that there is no skill level required."
Wow first Normie is a golf-guru, now he is an athletics expert. NO SKILL LEVEL REQUIRED????... Normie I think you should attend a track meet and say that to a sprinter or hurdlers face. You might indeed find out what skill is involved.
So if you race somone who is skilled at coming out of the blocks, but you are both equally as strong, then by your argument you should at least tie, or you might even win since you claim NO SKILL is involved.
That statement of your is so moronic....
01/24/06 @ 11:56
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
JIm, I don't think Annika played an LPGA event until 1992 when she was around 22. Her first full year (1994) she played 18 events and had 3 top 10s (t2, t6 and t10). She missed the cut 4 times.
01/24/06 @ 12:53
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Annika's first LPGA win was the US Open in 1995, her 35th LPGA event.

What a choker!
01/24/06 @ 12:58
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Jim c, it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference. It would still be as irrelevant as it is now. And how many times to I have to tell you guys, Michelle Wie's age is also irrelevant since she is a PROFESSIONAL. When a person is a pro in any trade or career, excuses like "she's only 16", "she was affected more by the wind", "she's just learning", "she needs more experience", etc. ad nauseum just don't cut it. Any career tradesman or professional who tried those excuses with an employer would be standing in line at the unemployment office. It is equally as irrelevant what Annika was doing at age 15, but since you asked she was in school like any normal teenager, She didn 't begin her pro career until age 23 after finishing high school and college. Obviously Annika's path to stardom was and is more successful than Michelle's.
01/24/06 @ 13:04
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Jim Coulthard:
Since Annika took up golf at age 12, it only took her 5 years to make her National Amateur Women's team. So at 15, she was in her 3rd year of learning a sport and in the fifth year of playing that sport she made it onto a National Am Team.
Her bio doesn't indicate what amateur events she had entered and how she placed, but doing the above alone seems to be a testament to her natural talent!
01/24/06 @ 13:07
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Kudo's John Z... you were more obvious in capturing the point I was making. At 15 Annika wasn't a media hyped, talented athelete ala MiWi, she was an athlete who was on a much different path! And Just look where it got her!
01/24/06 @ 13:11
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
John Z, you are right Michelle is a pro, and she has performed like a pro. Are you saying that every one who had a worse record than her last year should turn in their cards? That would make for some very short tournaments.
01/24/06 @ 13:13
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
Comment from: John Z [Visitor] · http://John Z
Asia-Guy, Do you think the fact that Michelle and Tiger are both endorsers of Nike might have something to do with his benign comments? Ernie is too much of a gentleman to say anything but compliments about MW. Also he might be on the lookout for the PC police. Look at how Vijay was villified for his remarks about Annika in the Colonial three years ago.

Ernie is the guy Michelle called and asked for advice about turning pro or not and encourages her to keep trying to make it on the PGA tour. He has played a few practice rounds with her and showed her some shots that Michelle added to her tool bag. The first practice round she played with Ernie was at the 2003 Sony Open.

Ernie is also the one who introduced her to David Ledbetter after he played the practice round with her in 03. I think the comment Ernie made after the first practice round was, “I don’t remember much of my practice round, we were too dumbfounded watching this 13 year old girl hit the ball.”

Ledbetter coached Michelle "Pro Bono" starting in 2003 after seeing the talent she had in person at an LPGA event. He offered her a full scholarship to his Junior Golf Academy, but Michelle and her parents did not want to relocate to Orlando.

You’re right about one thing John, Ernie is a gentleman and he would not provide false hope to a young girl unless he spotted some real talent in her.
01/24/06 @ 13:16
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Ocranky1, what's your point? Nobody knows what Michelle's record will be at 36, so how can you make comparisons.
01/24/06 @ 13:17
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Paul W.. read back to Jim COULTHARD'S QUESTION about:What was Annika doing at 15? I answered his question, she was in school and just 3 years into learning a sport. If Jim poses a question like that to try to use it to prove his views on MiWi, then why shouldn't it get answered. He was the one making comparisons, perhaps you should ask JIM what his point was!
01/24/06 @ 13:24
Comment from: Asia_Guy [Visitor]
One more example John Z. Paula Creamer did attend the David Ledbetter Junior Golf Academy in residence and he is not coaching her full-time.

01/24/06 @ 13:24
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Ocranky1 said:
Since Annika took up golf at age 12, it only took her 5 years to make her National Amateur Women's team. So at 15, she was in her 3rd year of learning a sport and in the fifth year of playing that sport she made it onto a National Am Team.
*****************************

I don't know much about the state of women's amateur golf in Swedan, when Annika started out playing amateur events.
I would hazard a guess that it might be a little easier to get into a National Am Team in Swedan than the US, but that's just a guess. Perhaps you know better.
01/24/06 @ 13:26
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Ocranky1,
OBVIOUSLY when I quoted the running example, it was meant for running events only, hurdles is not just running.

I'm not sure if your post was just joking or if you are really that thick. It's difficult to tell sometimes.

Even in hurdles, if you take a woman with the highest possible achieveable skill level of going over the hurdles in the perfect fashion, she still wouldn't beat the men. That is the reality. Perhaps you disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.
01/24/06 @ 13:32
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Norman:
My post was answer to JIM COULTHARD's question, and only based on facts. I wasn't the one using the "what was so and so doing at 15" to support any argument.
So what about the "No Skill" point you made. I see Norman likes to say things and not back em up!
01/24/06 @ 13:33
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z:
Michelle Wie's age is also irrelevant since she is a PROFESSIONAL. When a person is a pro in any trade or career, excuses like "she's only 16", "she was affected more by the wind", "she's just learning", "she needs more experience", etc. ad nauseum just don't cut it.
****************************

Ryan Moore is just 23 years of age. He is a professional, but it is his rookie year on the pga tour.
He should not be judged in the same way as Vijay or Ernie.
He is learning his trade and has done well so far.
This season, he has only played one event so far and missed the cut.
At the end of the season when he is judged, it should be taken into account that he is a rookie, and it should be taken into account that he is young.

Would you agree, or do you think he should be judged by the same yardstick as Vijay Singh for instance.
01/24/06 @ 13:37
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z said:
Obviously Annika's path to stardom was and is more successful than Michelle's.
***************************

Oops John, I think you have sorted it all out there.
Michelle, at 16 years old, is less successful, than the greatest female golfer of all time, has been up to 35 years old.
Let's not forget, age doesn't matter here, they are both professionals. Don't worry about Michelle's next 19 years of golf, because the important thing is, she hasn't achieved as much as Annika now.

Let's put it this way, Pressel hasn't achieved what Sorenstam has. We could substitute the name of any current lpga player in that.
01/24/06 @ 13:43
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Norman said:
*********************************
"Take running for instance. It is all physically related, in that there is no skill level required."
********************************
Norm won't be posting here for a few days. He's going down to his local athletics club, find someone that has the same leg strength as him and race that person, because since he asserts NO SKILL is involved, it should be a cakewalk. Unless of course he says that to their face, then I think the beating he'll take is quite different.
01/24/06 @ 14:18
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Or Normie, you could just e-mail your quote to Darren Campbell, Marlon Devinish, Jason Gardener or Mark Lewis-Francis.
01/24/06 @ 14:21
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Paul W, it won't be necessary for touring pros to turn in their cards if they don't perform well. The PGA will do it for them as it does every year to those who do not finish down to 125 on the money list or have used up their exemption(s). That's why the PGA holds the "Q" school every year. Michael Allen, for instance, has been to it about a dozen times and just recently made it through once again. If Michelle and her Team Wie have so much confidence in her game, maybe they should enter her in the "Q" tournament. But, as my grandson would say, "I don't think so!" She'll no doubt just keep accepting the undeserved sponsor's exemptions until the novelty wears off or the PGA executives apply pressure to the tournament directors. The latter is unlikely to happen because the PC crowd would howl with anguish.
01/24/06 @ 15:22
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Norman, when the PGA season is over, Ryan Moore will be judged. If he doesn't earn enough on the tour he'll get a trip to the "Q" school. His age and the fact that he was a rookie will have no bearing on the suject.
01/24/06 @ 15:28
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
John Z, I was refering to the LPGA.
01/24/06 @ 16:15
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Michelle Wie does not get invitations because of PC--she gets them because she brings in the crowds and the Nielsen ratings.
She has much the same appeal that Annie Oakley had 100 years ago--and that was certainly not due to political correctness.

Michelle Wie may not achieve what Annika has, she may achieve much more, or she may achieve something different. Annika's statements on her competition with the men have no bearing on Michelle Wie--who unlike Annika has trained extensively for competition on the PGA.

Right now Michelle is actually more of a semi-pro than a pro, since she also has a full time "job" outside of her sport, namely school. She is also a new pro or semi-pro and there is no reason to assume she has peaked.



01/24/06 @ 18:02
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
And there is no reason to assume she has not peaked.
01/24/06 @ 18:24
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Jim C, Did I read your post correctly? Did you state that Michelle has trained extensively at age 16 for competition on the PGA tour? I thought the position of the Wie Nuts was that MW wasn't getting enough play in, what with her school and all. Just for my edification, how does a 16-year-old girl train extensively for PGA tour competition?
01/24/06 @ 18:39
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z said:
And there is no reason to assume she has not peaked.
***********************

Her age is a reason. If she was playing tennis, you could argue that she may have possibly peaked, although it would be unlikely, since most top women tennis pros at the moment are 23 and upwards. Maria Sharapova being an obvious exception.

For golf, peaking usually happens later again, so there is certainly many reasons to assert that it is highly unlikely that she has peaked.
01/24/06 @ 18:42
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Ocranky1 said:
Norm won't be posting here for a few days. He's going down to his local athletics club, find someone that has the same leg strength as him and race that person, because since he asserts NO SKILL is involved, it should be a cakewalk. Unless of course he says that to their face, then I think the beating he'll take is quite different.
*******************************

I said physically related. Why are you just mentioning leg strength? Obviously physically related includes strength and stamina and endurance.
People who dedicate themselves to that sort of training would obviously beat me in a race, and I'm pretty sure I could take care of them in a round of golf.

Although I was quite a good junior runner with a very good turn of pace, but had no interest in pursuing it further. Golf was my sport.

I think it is about time you gave up your petty little arguments. Getting some common sense would be a pretty good idea.
01/24/06 @ 18:57
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
Normie:
I do have common sense old top! Common sense enough to not say something blantantly dumb as you did. According to you, the four names I mentioned above had no skill, because they were runners.
They happened to win gold for the UK at the last Olympics, but according to your post, their victory was hollow due to your assertion that "It is all physically related, in that there is no skill level required."
01/24/06 @ 19:07
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Ocranky1,
You obviously know very little about athletics.

Perhaps our friend John Z, will answer, how much skill is involved in the running part of track and field. That is for running events which do not include hurdles, which are obviously a highly technical event.
01/24/06 @ 19:27
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
I want to say something about the assertion that Bubbles has gained eight pounds of muscle during the last year. I used to train very hard and I've spent a LOT of time in gyms; in fact, I've been in gyms all over the world. While it's possible that she gained eight pounds of muscle in a year, I think it's more likely that some of that was adipose tissue weight.

It's not as easy for a girl to gain that much muscle weight in that time-frame as you may think. Heck, it's not all that easy for a guy. Of course, she may be filling out simutaneously (I say "may"), which is a factor that could make the claim more realistic.

I'm not saying anything definitive either way; my only point is that people make these claims ALL the time (I gained four pounds of muscle this month!), and very rarely are they valid. You should also remember that girls will tend to gain some body fat as they mature, although, as I've said, she's already as physically mature as a much older gal. So it is a confusing picture.
01/24/06 @ 20:13
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Obviously there are many high school athletes who train extensively--but noy like the pros. I read she willplay the Fields Open on her home course next month, but she will have to make the adjustment of playing from the ladies tees.
01/24/06 @ 21:13
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Crank and Norman, maybe I can indeed settle your spat concerning Athletics. To be successful in the sport, especially at the higher levels, the primary asset is to have the right parents,i.e., heredity. Call it what you will, be it intelligent design, evolution, God-given talent or genetic superiority, the proper physique is a major plus whatever one's event might be. The field events, the throws and the jumps, are mostly skill as are the hurdles. The dashes are primarily for those with natural speed and a penchant for intense training. The degree of skill needed increases proportionately with the length of the race. One need only to see a 5K or 10k race involving several Kenyans and Ethiopians with their use of tactics and psychology to realize this fact. It is interesting to note here what I believe is a corolary between Athletics and Golf. Last August I attended the World Championships in Helsinki. I noted that the medalists in all the Women's events would not have even qualified in the district meets for the state finals if they had competed against HIGH SCHOOL BOYS in my state.
01/25/06 @ 10:14
Comment from: 0cranky1 [Visitor]
John Z I agree with your synopsis 100%, the issue I have with Norman's post was the "NO skill" part. That demeans the accomplishement of many top notch athletes. To be accurate and factual he should have said something like: "Take running for instance. It is MOSTLY physically related, in that there is A LESSER DEGREE of skill level required"
Lose the orignal ALL and NO from his claim and it is much more accurate.
It's very common to see some very vast and erroneous generalizations posted in some of these blogs. Normie might say I'm splitting hairs, but using absolute terms as he did earlier, don't form an accurate basis for his point.
01/25/06 @ 13:09
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z,
Funnily enough I also agree concur with most of your synopsis.

Ocrancky seemed to be pressing the issue of sprinters for skill so it is interesting, that you say that the longer the distances the more skill required.
I wouldn't have actually thought that but I'll take your word for it.

On the heredity issue, that makes sense. At school, when I was young, I had very little physical actrivity, yet I was still the fastest sprinter there. There is also plenty of speed throughout my family.

So what exactly is the comparison between athletics and golf?
01/25/06 @ 16:03
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Skill, agility, stamina, hand-eye coordination, competitive spirit, perseverance, determination and ego, to name a few.
01/25/06 @ 17:08
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Norman, Tally-ho, pip pip and all that sort of rot!
01/25/06 @ 18:26
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Avoiding possibly suspicious women's world records, I looked at age group records for the state of Arizona. It seems that the best times for women were about on a par with the best times for 50 year old men. From that perspective Michelle Wie is never likely to be any better out there than the best 50 year old man--but 50 year old have achieved quite a bit, so the possibilities are there.
01/26/06 @ 19:38
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Jim C, Assuming that you're referring to Track and Field or Athletics in your post, I have to tell you that your premise is flawed at best and extremely convoluted at worst. I am somewhat of an expert on the subject and I must respectfully tell you that your post has no basis in fact. (or fiction, for that matter)
01/26/06 @ 22:29
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
How good at running are 50 year old men anyway?
Still though, it doesn't change the fact that Track and Field is very different to golf.
01/27/06 @ 12:45
Comment from: Skeptic [Visitor]
She is on Steroids.
05/05/06 @ 07:51

Comments are closed for this post.

Simply select where you want to play, find a tee time deal, and golf now!

Dates: July 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
As part of this ultimate strat golf package you'll enjoy $50 OFF each of your rounds at Bali Hai, Royal Links and Desert Pines and enjoy rooms accommodations at the Stratosphere Las Vegas Hotel & Casino from only $26 per night!!!
Price range: $26 - $300