Let's all jump to conclusions about Vijay Singh, Stuart Appleby and Michelle Wie

I agree with your comments about jumping to conclusions.

If Wie makes the cut, many will be shouting how great it it, which it would be, but some would view it as proof that she will definetely get her tour card, which it will not.

On the other hand, if she misses the cut, plenty will rejoice and say that it means it shows for definete that she can never make it on the pga, which it won't.

As regards, the Sony Open, expect a story from Chris Baldwin after the first round, if Wie shoots a bad round with little chance to make the cut.

However if she in with a good chance, expect a story from Chris Baldwin if she misses the cut after the 2nd round.

If she makes the cut, expect silence until after the final round. Then you can expect a column on her not performing on the weekend.

Of course if she did well on the weekend, you will have the no wins story.

Then if she wins the title, of course we will have to expect the quality of the field to be attacked. So one thing for sure, expect a Chris Baldwin story.

Right on, Norman.

I must say Norman you have hit the nail on the head. It's nice to see a self-proclaimed Wie fan acknowledge that one made or missed cut in a men's event does not a career make or break. The notion that anybody could negatively critque a made cut is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the notion that Michelle could actually win this thing.

Thanks Stone,

I think it is Chris Baldwin and a few followers, who try to form an impression that Wie fans all believe that she is the best player in the world and is the longest driver.

Most of us, think that she has been brilliant so far, and admire her, but know that anything can happen in golf.

I agree that Michelle Wie PROBABLY won't win. Let's put it this way, she has as much chance as David Duval.

Norman,

I agree completely with your first post. However, her chances of winning are between slim and none, and slim just left town.

Again, the only thing I fault you Wiemen for is that you can't recognize how grossly over-hyped she is.

David Duval may have a miniscule chance to win the SONY but Michelle Wie has zero chance of winning. Last time the former worlds number one Duval played it was in Japan about a month ago. He showed major signs of life & finished 9th. Wie has yet to make a cut - even in several lesser events - against men, including one in Japan.

Shanks,

Duval was maybe a bad example in the sense that he was a true performer a few years ago, and there is a tiny possiblity that he could recapture that form at the Sony.

There is a view expressed by some journalists that every player in the field has the chance to win except for Michelle Wie. Do you subscribe to this view?

I know that I don't. There are plenty of guys, in the field, that I could say will definetely not win.
Furthermore, there are some that it could be said have practically no chance of winning in the entire year. What are the chances of 46 year old Michael Allen taking his first pga tour title at the Sony?

Norman,

You're probably right in saying that there may be others who can't win. After all, in every PGA event there are some individuals -- like Wie -- who are only there because of a sponsor's exemption, individuals whose accomplishments don't warrant their participation.

Now, for all I know, there could be other people like that in the Sony. I believe I'm correct in saying that many of these tournaments allow local juniors and favorite sons entry, despite the fact that these people can't cut muster.

I admire Michelle Wie's talent. It's possible that she could develop into the greatest female golfer of all time. But yes, Michael Allen's chances are better than Michelle Wie's. And I would have to agree that while some of these guys are extremely unlikely to win, they still have a better chance than Wie.

Let's look at some of the handful of men she outscored for 2 rounds last year. Take Thomas Levet - nearly won the British Open in a playoff. Has won on the European Tour. How about Len Mattiace - multiple Tour wins and nearly won the Masters. Every one in the field - except Wie - has distinguished themselves at some point of their careers playing against a field of men (including Q-school, Nationwide Tour, college, etc). She has not. What has Wie ever done on a big course against a field of men that gives her even the faintest of chances of winning?

Now, she may play better than some of the field, or even more than half of the field. Making the cut is one thing, but win? Zero chance.

Under Par may have a point about a couple of sponsor's exemptions. I don't really know if any of those types are in the field. My comments are directed towards those with PGA Tour playing priviledges that they earned.

You're right, Shanks. It also should be pointed out that finishing ahead of one to two dozen men in an event means little, owing to the unique nature of golf.

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

In other words, I can hit fifteen of the worst shots imaginable in a tennis match and still achieve easy victory. In golf, however, even just seven horrible shots could easily destroy my round.

Thus, it may sound impressive to say that this "15-year-old girl" beat a score of grown men, but it really isn't. In every tournament you have a handful of pros who are having their worst week of the year. For instance, Jason Gore just shot 80-80-82 at the Mercedes. Would it surprise you if Wie were able to better that? It's silly. A good number of female pros could better that performance, but there's no way under the sun that they're better than Gore.

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

Thanks, I should quote that if Wie shoots a couple of 80's.

Norman, not to pick on you but, you've got to put Gore's bad scores in context. He also won 3 Nationwide Tour events and one PGA Tour event - all in 2005. This is very much an example of what I was saying. At his peak, Gore can beat the entire field. It's a proven fact. He can be excused for some poor performances.

Shanks,
I didn't mention Jason Gore.
I certainly respect the season he had last season, and didn't say anything about him. Under Par mentioned him.

What I meant was that Michelle Wie would not get the same benefit of the doubt as would a proven champion. If she were to shoot those scores, it would be viewed as more appropriate for her than it was for him.

If she wins on the lpga, does that make her a proven champion?

Here are some odds at one particular bookmaker:

M Wie to make the cut 2-1

M Wie to finish last including ties 11-4

M Wie to finish in the Top 20 including ties 16-1

M Wie to finish in the Top 10 including ties 33-1

M Wie to finish in the Top 5 including ties 80-1

M Wie to get a hole in one in the Tournament 200-1

M Wie to win the tournament 500-1

Against women, yeah.

Let me ask you a question. If Annika Sorenstam - the greatest living female golfer in the world by far - played in the Mens US Open and shot 80-80, what would that say?

If Annika shot 80-80, what is the context, what are the other guys scores like?

Keep in mind that they are supposed to be increasing the US Open to 12,700 yards, and making the fairways just 5 feet wide to help maintain the integrity of par.

So 80 could be a great score!

The context is the US Open, like it always is. Use last year at Pinehurst if you want because scoring is usually very similar at all of them. Obviously, 80-80 would miss the cut, since unlike the Mercedes, there is one.

(BTW, that's a pretty funny reference to a silly post on somebody else's blog. Don't let the bashers see that you have a sense of humor, Norman. They won't know how to respond to you anymore.)

SHANKS

Annika is the greatest femal golfer in the world on an a typical LPGA course--but no female in the world is better thsn Michelle Wie on this particular course set up as it is for the Sony Open. If Annika shot an 80-80 at the Mens US Open I would be shocked because that would tell me that Annika was willing to try to qualify to play in a mens event the same as anyone else. Michelle Wie failed to qualify for the Open in 2005, but at least she is willing jto try to qualify just like anyone else--something we have never seen from Annika.

If I were playing I would have ZERO chance to win, but every player in the field could win, although the chances against it in most cases are atronomical--so it is all a matter of what your cut-off is. If you say worse than 100 to 1 is your cutoff, at most there could be 101 guys all at 101-1 and then 42 guys plus Michelle Wie with no chance. In practice it is very unlikely that there are miore than 20 guys who should be 100 to 1 or better to win.

In 2003 aa a 14 year old amateur Michelle Wie missed the Sony cut on this course by a single stroke. THAT gives Michelle Wie a better chance to win this tournament than any newcomer to the PGA who managed to qualify outside the top 10 and ties in Q School. It sounds to me like SHANKS considers a top 30 and ties finish by Michelle Wie in the 2006 Sony, if she can manage it, to mean less than a top 30 and ties finish in the 2005 Q School, which would have been impossible for Michelle Wie only because the PGA practices age discrimination in accepting entries jto Q School. I have predicted that Michelle Wie will finish ahead of 4 out of 5 Q School grads(Cut makers judged after 4 rounds, and all ahead of cut missers who are judged after two). Anyone care to predict that Wie will not accomplish this.

She will not accomplish this.

Shanks said:
Let me ask you a question. If Annika Sorenstam - the greatest living female golfer in the world by far - played in the Mens US Open and shot 80-80, what would that say?
********************************

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


However, I would more likely say, two 80s are a very poor score. I would have hoped she could of at least had one decent day. She obviously wasn't up to the task.

Annika would beat Wie more times than not if they played head-to-head on this golf course. And that is despite the fact that Wie would have a serious home course advantage in addition to having a length advantage. We are talking about the greateast female golfer alive.

Shanks,
I would also analyse the data. I would want to know just what it was that made Annika shoot such a bad score.

Was it simply her lack of driving power, or was she not strong enough to control her approach shots. Was he putting dreadful. I would want to know what she lacked in her game.

Shanks,
If Annika and Michelle were to play the Sony Open, 5 times in this field, I think Wie would win more often than not.

If Annika and Michelle played head to head golf with just the two of them, I think Annika would win more times.

I say this, because I think Annika has an inferiority complex about playing against men, and I don't think she would produce her best in that situation.

If she could be made to play at the Sony Open, but believe that she was in fact in an lpga tournament, she could do quite well on that course.

Paula Creamer would beat either Michelle or Annika, at the Sony course.

I would disagree about Annika's inferiority complex. She just understands that she is not as good as the men. It has nothing to do with an unnatural fear. If she had played against the men as many times as Wie has, she no doubt would have made a cut by now. She's got much more mental toughness than Wie right now, it's not even close. However, that's not to say Wie won't improve dramatically in that area over the next few years.

But for right now - based on their current form over a number of tournaments on ANY tournament course in the world - I'll take Annika to beat Wie more times than she loses.

Shanks,

You're right, it's silly to say that Sorenstam is intimidated by the men, especially since she played excellent golf (for her) at the Colonial.

However, it is incorrect to say that she "no doubt" would have made a cut by now had she played against the men as many times as Wie. That is, if you're talking about PGA tournaments, as opposed to foreign tours or the developmental ones.

The truth is that she almost definitely would not have made a cut on the PGA Tour. As Jesper Parnevik said, if she played the tour the whole year, she'd be lucky if she made one cut. In fact, it's highly unlikely that she would have made one on the other tours either.

Shanks,
I disagree that Annika would have made a cut on the pga tour, whatever about the Japanese event.

Maybe Annika could have made the Canadian & Nationwide Cuts, but Wie played those when she was 13 and at a time when she was still missing most lpga cuts.

As regards Annika and the fear factor, I believe it is very much there, and I believe that is why she has not tried it again.
At the Colonial, she admitted that she was extremely nervous. Unlike Under Par, I do not believe that Annika played excellent golf by her standards at the Colonial.

Annika failed miserably at putting, which is something she is good at, but it takes time to become accustomed to pga greens. She would actually need to take a series of tournaments if she wanted to get used to those faster greens.

I also think Jesper Parnevik is wrong. If Annika played a full season on the pga tour, I think she would find her stride after a few weeks. I think she would miss about 7-8 of the first 10 cuts, but I think she could well make 6-7 of the next 10, and I wouldn't put a top 20 finish beyond her ability.

All this seems irrelevant though, because Annika has made her mind up. I don't think she wants to risk losing her reputation, by taking a chance of failing on the pga.

By the way Shanks, if Wie or Annika were had a stroke to spare over the cut line, with 5 holes to go, I would back Annika to make the cut well ahead of Wie.

What I doubt is Annika's ability to get to that position with 5 holes to play.

Norman---Annika's reputation is safe and secure as the greatest women's golfer and perhaps one of the most dominant female athletes of all time, but your opinion is eerily similar to that held by many Wie doubters when they say Michelle avoided competition against her peers because she would be expected to win, thus putting real pressure on her and exposing her if she were to lose.

Norman,

Now I know you're delusional. Sorenscam could never in a million years make 6 out of 7 PGA cuts -- you are nuts. You obviously either didn't watch the Colonial, or you don't know as much about golf as you claim.

Under Par, you should read my comments more carefully.

* I said she would miss 7-8 cuts in her first 10 events.
* Then she would make 6-7 cuts IN HER NEXT 10 EVENTS.

That is she would make either 6 OR 7 cuts from the next 10 events, having built up experience of playing 10 pga tournaments and getting used to the differents style of course.

Stone,

My argument is not similar to any of the anti-Wie brigade. I have simply stated that Annika would likely beat Michelle when it gets tight.
I would equally say the same thing about Annika versus Creamer or any other female player.

As regards Annika, I think she has a great reputation, but if she were to go against the men for say a season & take 7 sponsors exemptions. If she were to miss all 7 cuts, people would say, yes she is the greatest woman, but really is it not just a case of women being useless at golf.

That would tarnish her reputation.

I think Norman's prediction for Annika's success is a wee bit optimistic. But even if she did manage to do what he forecasts, he's got her making 8-10 cuts out of 20, which most likely means she'd finish that hypothetical year outside of the top 125.

However, even if she never made a single cut, it would not tarnish her reputation one iota. She'll still be called the greatest female golfer of all time - quite an accolade.

Norman,

I did read your comments and I got your meaning -- you're just wrong. Sorenstam would be lucky to make one out of twenty cuts.

You obviously didn't watch the Colonial with a discerning eye. She hit most every fairway and hit more shots at the pin than you could shake a stick at. The problem was that she COULD NOT hold the greens given the distances she was approaching from, her trajectory and spin rate. The men would land a shot five feet from the flag and it would stop within ten. She would land one five feet and it would roll over the green or end up 45 feet away. THAT is why her putting seemed so poor: she just didn't have many good birdie attempts. Whenever it was a tight pin, she had no chance to get it close.

Moreover, this problem would only become more acute on other PGA courses because they tend to be longer. And nothing would alter this pattern; if you can't stop it, you can't stop it. Only divine intervention is going to change that.

For someone who purports to be a high-level golfer, your knowledge of the game has an inordinate number of gaps.

Under Par is making some valid points. Typically there are 6 "easy pins", 6 moderate and 6 tough in the Tour set-ups. I think that at the few venues on Tour that reward precision over power - like Harbourtowne - Annika would figure it out and have a decent chance at making the cut. I just don't think she'd do well on the weekends when the courses get dried out and set up tougher every day.

I just want everyone to know that from the bottom of m heart, with every fiber of my being I wish that Sorenstam could play the PGA Tour for a full year. That way everyone would know that she was completely out of her league, and that comparing her to the men is laughable.

Sorry Under Par, but Annika won't be playing a full season. I too would like it to happen, but it won't.

As I have stated before on many occasions, Wie has more strength than Annika, not only from the tee, but as regards puting more spin on the ball. That is why I have maintained that Wie is a better player on a pga course than Annika is. Matchplay is a different thing because Annika would be more used to the pressure that an Annika-Michelle showdown in match play would bring. So I would put Annika ahead in that regard, but not in normal pga tournament play.

As regards, making 6-7 cuts in her 2nd 10 tournaments, I have no problem with people thinking that is over-optimistic but I stick by it.

I think that Annika's game in other areas is sufficiently better than most of the competition that she would meet, that it would help to compensate. We are only talking about making cuts here, not winning titles.

As regards, levels of game, I have a friend on the European Tour, who's golf game is FAR BETTER than mine, who has said that Annika could EASILY hold onto a pga tour card, by finishing in the top 125. He reckons she would finish about 80th. I haven't even claimed this, although I think it would be a close run thing whether she would make the top 125.

What your friend says is irrelevant, since anoter guy who has had some success on tour was shown to be egregiously wrong about Wie. His name could be Mickelson.

As far as your analysis of Wie vs. Sorenstam in PGA events, I agree with you 100%.