Observations of Michelle Wie from 2 rounds on the PGA Tour
It is difficult to remain neutral on the subject of one Michelle Wie. After the disastrous first round 79, it was tempting to say she is totally out of her league. Then she authors a tremendous 68 in the second round and it was tempting to overpraise. Let’s have a look at what occurred and the surrounding situations.
Making it difficult for Wie, the hometown crowd was out in force. The tendency of a golfer in that situation is to try too hard, especially a young golfer. The wind was blowing but that is no excuse. It was blowing for everyone. She’s played there a ton of times and would be familiar with the weather conditions. Besides her coach Leadbetter (now infamously) said she’s the only LPGA player he’s seen who can flight the ball. She knows the greens extremely well and is very familiar with playing out of that type of rough. She did not strike the ball as well as she normally does and her putting was as bad as mine - on a bad day.
The wind dies down for the afternoon tee times and Wie & others take advantage. She turns it around and makes 7 birdies. Unfortunately for her, they are accompanied by 4 more bogies and she misses the cut by 4 shots. Her ballstriking is improved as she stuffs several iron shots and she makes some putts: ten 1-putts against a single 3-putt.
My take on all this is that Michelle Wie has undeniable talent. Even her biggest critics must admit that a 16 year old shooting 68 under PGA Tour conditions is sensational. Only 11 pros bettered her score that day, but to be fair, half of the field was at a disadvantage because of the wind in the morning. The thing we should admit is that if she can do it once, there is a CHANCE she will one day put 2 of these good round together and make a PGA Tour cut.
That first round 79 is troubling because it appears that once again she has succumbed to pressure. I will give her a pass on this round because it is significant that Wie has not played much competitive golf. If you noticed last week at the Mercedes, the pros who hadn’t played much over the Winter were noticeably rusty and did not perform well either. But the longer she struggles with handling pressure, the more unlikely it becomes that she actually WILL put 2 of these good rounds together.
So where does that leave it? She won’t play again until the two LPGA tournaments in Hawaii next month. Wie will likely play in both and I will not change my opinions on her until the end of the 2nd of those two tournaments. She should be expected to reveal something resembling her true form by the end of the second one. Until then, let the debate rage on.
|« Loren Roberts will dominate the Senior, er ah, Champions Tour in 2006||Predictions for Michelle Wie at SONY »|
I commend you for waiting until after the 2nd round, before jumping to conclusions about Michelle's performance, unlike some of your colleges.
After the opening round, many people claimed that Wie hadn't the physical assets needed to get the job done.
Then of course day 2 changed all of that, because she showed that she could not only shoot a good score, but she also made elementary mistakes during the round, where other shots could easily have been gained.
ANALYSIS OF WHAT WENT WRONG ON DAY 1:
Some people blaimed her putting. That wasn't great, but it is much more complex than just putting.
Here are her approach shot stats for each round:
175 to 200 yards, Round 1 = 72 feet. Round 2 = 11 feet.
150 to 175 yards, Round 1 = 41 feet. Round 2 = 11 feet.
125 to 150 yards, Round 1 = 26 feet. Round 2 = 4 feet.
under 125 yards, Round 1 = 35 feet. Round 2 = 13 feet.
I think this shows the massive difference in the accuracy of her approach shots in each round. This was the key, and obviously this helped her putting figures to go down in the 2nd round as well.
For people who arn't impressed with her 2nd round stats, lets compare them to 3 top class pros. I include Furyk and Campbell because they are obviously playing well, leading after 2 rounds. I also include Ryan Moore, as an up and coming top class golfer.
For 2nd Round,
Wie hit 68, Furyk 67, Campbell 67, Moore 69.
They all had similar scores, let's look at their approach stats:
175 to 200 yards: Wie 11 feet. Furyk 26 feet. Campbell 37 feet. Moore 36 feet.
150 to 175 yards: Wie 11 feet. Furyk 31 feet. Campbell 36 feet. Moore 53 feet.
125 to 150 yards: Wie 4 feet. Furyk 17 feet. Campbell 10 feet. Moore 26 feet.
under 125 yards: Wie 13 feet. Furyk 14 feet. Cambell 6 feet. Moore 22 feet.
As is obvious, Wie's approach play was the best by far of the four players, despite them all hitting similar scores.
These stats are particularly important, because several people have claimed that Wie does not have the strength to get and KEEP the ball near the hole. I think it has been proved there that she can do just that.
I am not particularly concerned about her handling pressure. It looks like her golf game is getting better--which means she has more margin for error in winning LPGA tournaments or making PGA cuts. That should help a lot.
I am looking forward to February.
Tim McDonald proved you wrong about what Michelle Wie's biggest critics must admit. He made it clear he considers Michelle Wie's 68 to be so far short of sensational that he could only describe it by "so what?" Apparently without the pressure of trying to make a PGA cut, he considers a 68 in those conditions by a 16 year old girl to be no big deal.
Just wanted to clear that up...
The key for me was that her 68 wasn't at the end of a "great" round, any round with 5 bogies is not a great round for anybody. It says she has toughness to be able to pull it back into shape, but I would have to challenge whether she even brought her A game to round 2 except for a flash to two in the middle. More like her B+ game. Which says with the inevitable improvements that come with age and experience we should see some really exciting rounds not too far down the road.
Come on. You a pro Tennis player.
You know that practicing in between school exams isn't quite the same as player top competition. If you don't, I don't believe you were a pro tennis player. There is a massive difference.
Playing golf every day, even if someone was full time with no school to attend, still wouldn't be the same as playing in top level competition.
Players perform better when they get into a groove of playing in regular competition.
By the way, Alex, if you doubt my credentials, why don't we play a handicapped match for BIG stakes? I'm thinking that I'll give you the doubles alleys and take only one serve, and we can play for about $5000. You game?
I hope to be hitting the driving range tomorrow, and I haven't played golf in quite a while due to a unfortunate layoff, and I'm actually a bit nervous, even just about hitting a few shots on the range. Going into a tournament when you haven't played in one for a while is quite daunting, as I'm sure you are aware.
I believe his CS is around 125-130. (Tiger is about 125, Vijay is 120, MIchelle is around 118)
Vijay Singh = 304 yds
Michelle Wie = 289 yds
Net difference 15 yds.
Given that the energy transferred to the ball is equal to the square of the velocity of the club head at impact, Patrick's estimate looks about right to me.
Then she birdied 8, 9, parred 10, birdied 11 and 12, and then bogeyed the 13th, the most difficult hole on the course. Even runaway winner (by 5 shots) David Toms, bogeyed that one on Sunday, in perfect conditions, for his only bogey of the day.
She then birdied 14, and then on 15, the 3rd most difficult, she hit her first shot in the rough, BUT also in a divot. Shw was able to advance it ro the light rough, just short of the breen, BUT it was in another divot! The TV announcers confirmed this, as a friend of mine was on the course, and he didn't know this. This caused her chip shot to be short, leading to her last bogey.
She parred 16 and 17 and then ESPN ran out of time, and did not show her 5-foot birdie putt on 18.
So my contention is that she thrives when she is on live TV, which means that she thrives under pressure.
One thing I noticed during the SONY Open, her swing got definetley faster than the last time I saw. Quite possibly due to work out on upper body strength and reported 5 or 10 lbs of muscle?
In 2004 Sony, Wie hit 3 drives over 300 yards.
In 2005 Sony, Wie hit 2 drives over 300 yards.
This year, Wie hit 7 drives over 300 yards. Also she hit another 5 over 290 yards.
Contrary to what many people would like to believe, her length off the tee has been improving dramatically. She doesn't need much more to be average on the pga.
Also her previous longest drive was 317 yards. This time, she hit one of 325 yards, and one drive of 334 yards. What is she going to do to the women's courses?
Now Normie, in the spirit of amity, I wasn't going to bring this item up, but so I must to again prove my point. You've thrown down the gauntlet, and I'll slap you with it. You Sir are a BLOGGING PLAGEURIZER… a BLOGGERIZER or PLAGEURBLOGGER if you must and here lies the PROOF. Please try to follow along, I'll try to lay it out so even you can understand.
Earlier in these posts, after MiWi's first round of +9 your analysis lead you to conclude her score was such due to the fact that, and I QUOTE YOU: ****"On the other hand, she took 32 putts. Her putting was the 106th best in the field. That is where most of her problem lied. Also around the greens her touch wasn't great on the short game, which is due to feel as opposed to strength."***** and also another quote of YOURS:
****In any case, even though Wie has not done well, the parts of her game that have let her down have absolutely nothing to do with strength.
Standing over her 3 foot putts, she didn't need extra strength to bash that ball into the hole.***
Your logic here implies her fault was missing out on those 3 footers, thus supporting your other quote about "That is where most of her problem lied"(sic)
It was then that I shared with you the view that it wasn't really her putting that was at fault, but the fact that she lacked the control on her approach shots and that was her ultimate demise, and that control was also affected by strength or a lack thereof, and the ability to shape her shots, as well as make up for shortened or errant drives. Please do reread about how I proved to you via the stats that since she was bottom of the field in GIR, distance from the pin etc and how she couldn't help but 2 putt her way around the course because she was on average around 46 feet from the pins. Then I also mentioned that she would suffer this particular problem in cases where the course proved too difficult. Ie: deep rough, shorter drives forcing to play longer irons into greens, that darn nasty wind etc. These are all uncontrollable environmental factors that she didn't possess the tools to manage at this point, as her strength was indeed a factor to be accounted for when viewed thusly. You of course protested loud and long, that the Cranky1 is wrong, my analysis was faulty blather, blather blather… See again your quote above ie: PUTTING
I did say though, that on courses and conditions that didn't exploit this shortcoming, she could do well ie: Evian Masters, but environmental factors being uncontrollable, she has shown to date that she succumbs to these forces and fails to make cuts.
Ok so far so good, I trust your cognitive abilities have allowed you to follow thus far. Then I read "Golf with Shanks" blog titled "Observations of Michelle Wie from 2 rounds of the PGA tour" and yes you sir have a wonderful post there. A comparative analysis of the differences and her improvement on her 2 rounds and here again I QUOTE YOU *** "Some people blaimed her putting. That wasn't great, but it is much more complex than just putting.
Here are her approach shot stats for each round:
175 to 200 yards, Round 1 = 72 feet. Round 2 = 11 feet.
150 to 175 yards, Round 1 = 41 feet. Round 2 = 11 feet.
125 to 150 yards, Round 1 = 26 feet. Round 2 = 4 feet.
under 125 yards, Round 1 = 35 feet. Round 2 = 13 feet." ****
Now here is where the dichotomy lies my man, your earlier observations of her round1 faults are quoted above (see PUTTING), yet now your conclusion is that it is much more complex than just putting. It involves good control on the approach shots to be near the pin, to have those birdie chances! Those were exactly the ideas presented to you to counter your "Putting" theory, please review the blog entires here: http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/jennifer.mario/2006/01/11/it_s_michelle_wie_versus_vijay_singh_at.
WHAT????? … you didn't think that up sir, you plageurized every facet and nuance of that from myself and other sources here. It was I who corrected your myopic observation that, and I QUOTE YOU, "Her putting was the 106th best in the field. That is where most of her problem lied " You didn't possess the cerebral wherewithall to formulate that idea on your own about it being "more complex than putting" as your other quotes have proven it beyond your grasp, yet you dare to pontificate thusly? Using your own words, and the logic you displayed in the opening quotes, you proved those musings on her second round and I QUOTE YOU **"I think this shows the massive difference in the accuracy of her approach shots in each round"** are falsehoods.The falsehood is not in the assertion, but in the assertion that YOU thought that to be the case! You sir, did not think that, you merely took ideas and opinion from others and portrayed them as yours, with your "I think" line, yet your original contention was her putting let her down!
Here's a quote from one of my responses to you MY QUOTE "Good putting stats are tremendously influenced by great control on approach shots, GIR etc."
Hmmm, now where did you come up with your alterred opinion, after I posted that?
Have you no shame? Your first posts claimed it was her putting, yet now in different Blog, you claim it to be otherwise.
Let us continue along here Normie, your transgressions are not yet finished seeing the light of day nor reason.
Your next claim is ,and I QUOTE **"These stats are particularly important, because several people have claimed that Wie does not have the strength to get and KEEP the ball near the hole. I think it has been proved there that she can do just that. **
Here again you can't read or digest the points I made… I had said that when the course conditions, ie environmental factors, were NOT FAVOURABLE she had trouble keeping her ball on the green or near enough for a chance at a good putt. See the Not favourable part there Normie! You blighthly skipped over that, thus rendering your claim above false. Strength does come into play when conditions demand it (wind,rough, even temp), and I even said as much when I cited the Evian Masters as an example where she did NOT suffer this, because the course and conditions were not a factor there! The course was shorter than a PGA mens and the weather was nice!
You remind me of the Wizard of Oz; ok the Wiazrd of NormOz if you will, hiding behind your shield of flashing lights, smoke and mirrors while you roar about, proclaiming to all who will listen that you are great and powerful. Well you're not, you're lost lil guy behind a façade, … or perhaps you are the hapless scarecrow. Either way you have just proven to all that your arguements and points add up tp zero. Especially that "Your chances of beating me in terms of stats are very small". Man, you just got it handed to you. See the PUTTING quote as your reasons for MiWi's +9 score.
Now I know you will next say, "But I was right, she CAN handle these impediments, just view her stats from round 2. My stats above just proved it!"
Here again I say to you, Round 2 was a lot easier for her She teed up later in the day, once the conditions had improved ; you know that nasty wind that foiled her drives and balked her approach shots in the first round. (Actually her second round driving stats increased substantially, another point that proves her strength,or lack thereof did not allow her to overcome the course conditons during the first round) So I say No sir, she hasn't proven she "has the tools" to handle those impediments, as the environmental factors that were an obstacle the first round, were not as prevalent or daunting in her second. So she has proved she can play well when the factors are closer to optimal, but under tough sledding, she hasn't quite gotten the skill to make the cut! Keep following the logic here Normie ol' boy, so that you can see where the issue is. She'll do fine under good and more prefferential course conditions, but her game is not consistent enough YET, to take on the big boys course under all conditions, because you can't control those environmental factors. Wind and rain and all manner await, witness the dreadful start to the 2004 campaign, so that is why I maintain she should hone her skillls at a level more comensurate with her age, gender and abilities.
Be that presumption right or wrong, only time and experience will tell, however much you may deny. That debate will prevail and her 68 was a good score to post after that +9, HOWEVER:
My original point here is irrefuttable… your own words have proven you out! You claim MiWi's putting let her down and then do an about face after several of my exchanges have enlightened you, now claiming those ideas as yours! In short sir … YOU HAVE ZERO CREDABILITY. While this isn't a world crisis, it sure points to the fact that you display no intellectual honesty.
Now you are simply a Wei-Zealot. If you say it fast enough, it becomes self apparent. Wie-Zealot, weizealot, weasel .....it.
Sorry for the ectremely long post above, but a neccesity to TRY to encapsulate my salient points in a manner I hope Norman can fathom.
So I say.... thus ends the gospel according to Cranky.
Shanks, I am posting this in response to NORMAN, who's post is up above here."
Accept or dismiss someone’s opinion but please limit your feeble attempts at character assassination in your effort to stifle the posts on this forum.
I for one like the diversity of thought exercised by the participants at this site. After all that is what separates us from the rest of the world, the right to voice what we think.
Norman is a definitely a Wie fan we all can tell. So what and who cares, I still think his stories are swell (ed).
Ronnie, the ultimate defender of Paula’s honor and chaste, has more than a little trouble when it comes to cut and paste.
June, who is definitely a Wie fan that never uses spell check, yet I enjoy reading her posts and translating, oh what the heck.
Under Par who is not a Wie fan and the forums resident tennis bum. After reading his posts, it is easy to assume that much of his chatter is influenced by rum.
Alex the attorney, who only loves himself and is sometimes prone to irritate, we do enjoy reading his posts and understand the caveat, it is a requirement of his profession to bloviate.
Expect more of my analysis of the forum members, in the future, never fear. In the meantime Mr. Ocranky I respectfully ask, please stick it in your ear.
Ocranky, how interesting it is to read your comments. For the record, I am a professional golfer, with extensive amateur success, some development tour success, and very limited European Tour success.
After, not being able to play golf for quite a while, I only started back at full practice yesterday, and it continued today. I am penciled in to play my first event back in about one months time. I have a limited European Tour schedule, because the category I have qualified in is lesser than having a full tour card. Later I will hope to be attempting to qualify for the British Open, as I have tried in previous years.
I recognise that my chances are very slim, although that won’t stop me trying, and won’t stop me practicing.
Why am I telling you all this?
I am telling you this, because my experience has thought me exactly what is needed to compete at each of the many levels in professional golf. With your systems of measurements, I am sure my achievements have far outweighed Michelle Wie’s. I have won prestigeous amateur titles, and I have qualified for full European Tour events, and made many cuts, something Michelle Wie has not done. If anyone should be annoyed at exemptions being handed to someone like her, it is the likes of me.
However, despite my own longing to qualify for majors, and to be able to take my game onto the epga tour regularly, I am not so bitter that I refuse to admit when others have talent. In Michelle Wie, there is someone who is a far better golfer, than I was at her age, and who has some aspects of her game, which are at this time far ahead of my own.
I do not begrudge her one bit for any number of exemptions she get, because she deserves every single one of them.
Now on to your substantive issue of your accusations:
- you have accused me of changing my mind on the problems of MW’s 1st round.
- I did not change my mind, it is simply that you decided to twist what I said.
Here is my quote which you quoted me on:
“Her putting was the 106th best in the field. That is where MOST of her problem lied. Also around the greens her touch wasn't great on the short game, which is due to feel as opposed to strength”.
Notice the word MOST. Did you skip over that word?
After the first round, it was reported that Wie missed several short putts. Then on television highlights, they showed Wie missing several short putts, and making silly mistakes on little deft chips around the green. Any sensible person would have looked at this and blamed her putting and short game.
Having looked at tourcast after the 2nd days play, I looked at all of her stats in detail. It was obvious then that her approach shots on day 1 were wayward.
That is when I posted these stats on this board, showing the difference between her approach shots for the 2 days.
NOTE: You have tried to claim that I copied this from you. When exactly did you post these stats?
MORE IMPORTANTLY: I did not say that putting wasn’t a problem on the opening day, I said that putting WAS NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM. Putting, short game, and approach play were all problems.
Here is the quote of what I said:
"Some people blaimed her putting. That wasn't great, but it is much more complex THAN JUST putting.
Yes some people blamed her putting, including me, and I still stick by that 100%, her putting was indeed a problem, but what did I say is “IT WAS MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT”, meaning that my research showed that putting was NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM. That doesn’t take away from the FACT, that her putting on the opening round was a problem and cost her several shots.
So, you might try to twist what I actually said, but what I said remained the same. I said that putting was a problem. It is still the case that it was a massive problem for her.
Not only did she have two 3 putts, but also whenever she had a putt of about 20-30 feet, she ended up missing and left herself with quite a tester. If you were a golfer, you would know that if you keep leaving these, it drains your confidence and you eventually miss more of them and play worse overall, but I’m guessing you have never played golf.
THE ISSUE OF CONDITIONS:
You have completely twisted the reality of what happened between rounds 1 and 2 of the Sony Open.
Firstly, conditions were indeed very bad in round 1, but it certainly had not cleared up on day 2 as you stated. Yes conditions were slighty better, but far from perfect. If they had improved that much people would have shot 61 as they did in the third round, when conditions had actually got much calmer.
SO TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE CONDITIONS:
For players who made the cut:
In round 1, 29 players shot par or better.
In round 2, 33 players shot par or better.
In round 3, 51 players shot par or better.
Now Ocranky, I am aware of your very restricted comprehension, but I’m sure most people will be able to follow.
If round 2 had such wonderful conditions, the players would on the whole, have done alot better than in round 1.
The FACT as shown above is that the players scored much better on day 3 WHEN THE CONDITIONS IN REALITY HAD MUCH IMPROVED.
I think this shows ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVELY that Ocranky is completely wrong in his assessment of the conditions.
AS REGARDS PLAYING IN WIND:
I live in a very windy area. I reguarly have to play rounds in windy conditions. I can tell you categorically, that the biggest factor in learning how to play in wind is experience.
To further back this up, last years Sony Open was played in windy conditions. Several older players finished high up in the leaderboard. For many of them it was their best finish for the whole season.
Why did these older guys have their best finishes in windy conditions?
According to Ocranky, good wind play is all about STRENGTH. Therefore as you get older, you must get stronger. Is that right Ocranky? I’m sure plenty of guys will be delighted to hear this theory.
The reality is very different. The reality is as I have stated. Good wind play requires extensive experience of playing in the wind.
Sorry Ocanky if I have embarrassed you, but really you should not make such stupid accusations, and declare yourself as so knowledgable about playing in severe weather conditions, when it is obvious that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
But if that's what you feel you have to do to support your opinions, by all means, do it. The purpose of this space is to allow opinions to be expressed (within decency limits of course).
Powerful stuff here. Reading this topic, it is difficult to stop.
I had read comments by 0cranky1 and thought that he made some very good point and had caught Norman out.
Then I read Normans comeback and I was really impressed.
Norman, you are a scholar, no doubt about it. You have put your points forward in such a forthright way. You have backed your claims up with facts throughout.
Reading back over Ocrany's points, he just mis-represented your views to suit himself.
Well done in the manner that you have shown him to be a fraud.
There are alot of golf blogs on the internet, but Norman's points here are among the most intelligent and articulate that I have come across through many golfing websites.
(Rolling on the floor laughing their asses off.)
I might not have commented on here much but I have read extensively.
I have commented by the way, under the name of Johnny but someone else also used that name and so I added the initial N.
Asia Guy here are some comments on the other guys here
>> Asia Guy is like the class clown. He tells jokes and is quite a funny guy at times. His one downfall is he is a massive Wie fanatic.
>> Norman although he is very intelligent and well able to put his points across concisely also sufferers from the same coniditon as Aisa Guy. That is Wie-fanatisism.
>> John Z likes to reiterate just how old he is, to try to illustrate just how much life experience he has, because he thinks age brings wisdom. He suffers from a complex of taking everything in the context of men being better than women. I'm not an expert about golf, but reading through the comments I think that Norman has shown that strength isn't a factor here, or if it is Miss Wie seems to be able to handle the strength shots okay. I do agree with John Z wholeheartedly though that women cannot compete with men in any strength or endurance sports.
>> Ronnie, suffers from what the Wie fanatics do, except it is for Creamer that his passions lies. To be honest, I didn't even know that Creamer wanted to play with the men.
>> Under Par, suffers from an belief that women and men have different roles in society and boundaries should be strictly obeyed. He seems to be some sort of ultra-conservative.
>> June seems to be more of a Wie fanatic than anyone.
>> Shanks I thought was a Wie fanatic also, but then he commented something like Wie suffers under pressure, which would suggest he is probably more of a Creamer fanatic.
>> Chris Baldwin doesn't care about golf, but he does like it when people visit his blog, and he tries to achieve this goal.
>> Alan is another Wie fanatic, probably the most severely affected of them all.
>> Jim Coulthard comes across as quite an intelligent chap, and seems to just butt into the topics now and again with a common sense remark.
>> Jackson is the easiest guy to figure out among the bunch. He is obviously no more than 16 years old. He probably has a couple of tattoos already and plans to get many more. He is most likely covered in body piercings with nose-rings, ear-rings, lip-rings, anywhere else he can shove them. He is an angry little child but has time to mature.
If I've left anyone out, you may request my comments on those people.
Someone here said they were a tennis professional so I wanted to ask them what they thought about her, but I wasn't able tofind out which of the posters said that.
Anyway, that's the secret out. Hingis for the Aussie Open!
And that "stick it in your ear" comeback.. what wit, what diversity of thought, what utter garbage. It's more than infantile.
Shanks, I noticed the thread to Marios blog was not active and since Norm needs to do some reading there, I have posted that reply he awaits there. His first post here, was linked to those items. I too agree with you shanks, a forum for open and honest discourse is great.
You have me a little wrong, tho. I am more a fan of golf than of any particular player (although I do dislike a few). I enjoy playing it, watching it and talking about it. If you continue to read my posts, I think you'll find that I'm equally critical and appreciative.
P.S. Creamer is obviously a terrific talent, but needs to add distance if she hopes to pass Sorenstam any time soon. She needs to perform better in the Majors as well. She also let a couple tournaments get away with shaky play down the stretch but gets a pass on that because she was able to close the deal 4 times. Regardless, she had the best year of any female not named Annika.
However I don't think you were fair in the claims you made.
You quoted things that Norman said and then twisted their meaning to suit your own argument.
When Norman clarrified exactly what he meant it was fairly obvious that he knows what he is talking about. I don't have that much golf of knowledge, but I can tell when someone is spoofing and when someone is actually bringing forward a valid concise point.
I didn't come in here with any previous disposition and actually thought you might be right, until I read Norman's reply.
I have interest in all kinds of sports and a partiular facination with women in sports such as Martina Hingis in tennis.
I also much prefer the golf style of Creamer because I like the way she plays with such still. I am much more inclined to support skilled players like for instance Martina Hingis in tennis ahead of the power players like the Williams sisters.
For that same reason, I am more inclined to support Creamer than Wie whenever they play on the lpga, because I think sport should be about skill more than power. I do admit that Wie has talents but I much prefer the more skilled approach of Paula Creamer.
Reading your comment they seem to be probably amongst the least biased on here.
I certainly agree that Creamer had the best year, apart from Annika. Taking 2 lpga titles is great. I'm not sure about how much the 2 non lpga were worth.
However the Evian Masters was absolutely fantastic. I watched full highlights of it, and they referred to it as the 5th major, so I assume it is a bit like the Players in pga terms.
She won that title from start to finish with such a great display that she has to be considered the next best after Annika, when you put that with all her other acheievements.
I try not to be biased, but I do form opinions - which subject to change, of course.
Just with regard to the point about Wie and why hasn't she won yet? Correct me if I am wrong but I had believed that she had turned 16 recently. From the impatience in your post, if I didn't know I better, I would think that every golfer who achieved anything had won on either the lpga tour or pga tour by the time they were this age.
Shanks, I will defer to your greater knowledge on the Japan womens tour. I simply won't pretend to have any knowlege about the quality of it.
If there were lpga players in the field that suggests it was tougher than I originally thought, but for it to be tougher, these would want to be good lpga players, not players who miss lpga cuts alot of the time.
Point taken though about winning, it has to be more difficult for players to play in a foreign tournament because they lay things out differently and their grass is different.
Asia Guy, I meant exactly what I wrote.
"I might not have commented on here much but I have read extensively. I have commented by the way, under the name of Johnny but someone else also used that name and so I added the initial N.
Asia Guy here are some comments on the other guys here
>> Asia Guy is like the class clown. He tells jokes and is quite a funny guy at times. His one downfall is he is a massive Wie fanatic."
Hey Johnny N. you are right about me on most counts except the fact that I am really an Annika fanatic. When I watch her launch one into the woods from the tee and then with hit some miracle shot out of the crap to get up and down, I get excited. When Annika has a bad day (not many) she will still finish in the top ten regularly. Paula, Natalie, Morgan, Ai and yes Michelle will be chasing this stoic Swede for a few more years I assure you.
That said Johnny, I do respect the game Michelle brings to each event when I consider her age and experience. The fundamentals are there to be one of the best in the world, but she won’t fully develop until she can play more often. So as a fan of golf I enjoy watching her play.
Don’t tell Ronnie, but I really like Paula’s game and how she can close the deal. There are many gals playing on the LPGA tour for years with only one win to their credit. Paula has two LPGA wins in her first year. Now that is impressive and should be respected. I respect good golf by anyone.
When you read some of my comments Johnny you should refer to your analysis of me and understand when I say Michelle will win all four majors this year, I am not serious. I was hoping to bring Alex back from his self-imposed exile in Florida by baiting him a bit. I miss reading the posts Alex places in the forum. It is refreshing to see that lawyers actually do have a soul, contrary to popular belief.
The jury is still out on Natalie, Morgan, Ai and Michelle until they can win events regularly on the LPGA tour. But guess what Johnny? They have years and years of golf ahead of them to prove themselves to the world. They are all still teenagers.
Johnny N, wisdom does come with age. You'll discover that when you grow up. Anyone who thinks men are better than women obviously hasn't been married for 52 years as I have. Anyone who isn't aware of the intrinsic differences in hand, arm, wrist and leg strength between men and women."
John ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. I could introduce you to a couple gals in Reno that would arm wrestle you for money and prove some of your theories wrong.
It's not so much of an obstacle in golf, although it is true that most women do not have the physical strength required to compete at the very top of the mens game.
Michelle Wie has shown that she has the physical strength required. It has not yet been proven if she will or won't be able to be a good enough golfer to compete on the pga full time. It is my opinion that she will, but it is just an opinion. I don't think we will know definitively for quite a while yet.
But whatever happens, the difference in physical makeup of men and women will not stop Wie from achieving.
Johnny N, you obviously suffer from a belief that they do not.
There's one big difference between our two dogmas, however, aside from the obvious ones. Mine accords with what has been the norm in every single civilization from time immemorial up until almost the present. Moreover, the majority of the people in the world (America isn't the world) still subscribe to it, I would imagine.
Would you like to bet your life that you're right?
As G.K. Chesterton said,
"Fallacies don't cease to be fallacies simply because they become fashions."
you already said that we won't see a Wie victory on the PGA tour for 12 years. If physical differences between men and women won't stop MW from winning on the PGA tour what will stop her? Got any excuses handy?
Padraig Harrington is a very very fine player in my opinion.
- in 1998 at age 27, he was ranked 106.
- in 1999 at age 28, he was ranked 50.
- in 2000 at age 29, he was ranked 24.
- in 2001 at age 30, he was ranked 11.
- in 2002 at age 31, he was ranked 7.
- in 2003 at age 32, he was ranked 8.
- in 2004 at age 33, he was ranked 6.
- in 2005 at age 34, HE WON HIS FIRST PGA TOUR TITLE.
* all stats are year end rankings.
By predicting that Michelle Wie would win at age 28 or so, I am predicting that she will win her first pga tour title 5 years earlier than Padraig Harrington.
I am not sure of how deep your knowledge of golf is, but surely you can recognise by Harrington's ranking just how good he is. Yet he was 33 years old when he won his FIRST PGA TOUR TITLE.
There are also many fine fine players playing in the pga at the moment who have not yet won titles. Michelle may well have physical attributes to help her achieve, but her game needs to improve a great deal if she is to have any chance of winning a pga tour title.
Improvement in golf takes alot of time and effort, as Padraig Harrington and other top class professional golfers would be able to tell you.
Do you now understand that it is not unreasable to expect her to take time to get her game to the approapriate level?
As a veteran of the Vietnam Conflict let me assure you that excess testosterone is not a characteristic valued in a fellow member of a combat squad. It leads to stupid behavior that gets several of your buddies killed. Should you ever be so unfortunate as to find yourself in such a situation, hang with the guys who keep their heads down and their rectums puckered. You will still accomplish your mission done and may possibly live to fight again another day--not guaranteed.
Oh no! Now Norman has put Padraig Harrington into the mix. Norm, if I didn't know one damned thing about golf I'd know that Harrington has different plumbing than MW, that he has a lot more of a substance known as testosterone, and that a combination of the two make for better golfers, athletes, construction tradesmen, engineers, architects, scientists, musical composers and conductors, and combat soldiers. Any arguments?
Man John ZZZZZZZZZZZ. You must be dripping in testosterone Dude. I bet you leave a major testosterone slick when you swim in the ocean and the Coast Guard shows up with the oil slick booms.
Actually I hate to burst your bubble Master Sexist, but I have hired quite a few talented female engineers and architects over the years. Several of them now head design groups in our little company. They relate better with the clients and can turn a dream they come to us with into a reality.
are you really that stupid or are you just play-acting.
Reading Norman's post, it is OBVIOUS that he said that Padraig Harrington is a great golfer and that you are VERY STUPID to be thinking Michelle should achieve a pga win, at her current age when it took Padraig until he was 33 to win a pga event.
I didn't notice Norman saying that Michelle Wie was a better golfer than Harrington or that she ever would be. He simple said it takes time to win, as shown in Harrington's case.
John Z, I really don't like insulting people, but you really appear to be very stupid indeed.
Some of the article:
Wie has committed to play only in the Fields Open at the Ko Olina Resort, the week following the SBS Open at the Turtle Bay Resort.
It's a surprising choice, considering Wie got a sponsor's exemption last year from the SBS Open and finished runner-up.
Team Wie hasn't ruled out the Korean-sponsored SBS tournament as yet.
But it's creating quite a dilemma, according to BJ Wie.
"We would like to support the community and the Friends of Hawaii Charities," he said. "Our dilemma is that it would use two of her six (LPGA) exemptions."
He is hoping against hope that the LPGA might increase the exemptions to at least seven, but it won't happen this year, LPGA official Kathy Lawrence told The Advertiser.
People seem to forget that though she is now a professional, Wie still goes to school and can play only 12 or 13 tournaments, maximum, during the calendar year.
One drawback about playing in the two 54-hole LPGA events here is that they end on Saturday, which means the Punahou School junior would miss four days of classes if she played in both.
The Saturday finish is geared for live telecasts back to Japan and South Korea when it's Sunday.
"The most influence to my schedule is my school since I'm only allowed two weeks a semester," Wie said in a Sony Open press conference.
For those who keep saying "why doesn't Wie concentrate on the LPGA first", there's an interesting article on the Wie scheduling problems in:
Some of the article:
Wie has committed to play only in the Fields Open at the Ko Olina Resort, the week following the SBS Open at the Turtle Bay Resort.
It's a surprising choice, considering Wie got a sponsor's exemption last year from the SBS Open and finished runner-up."
Now everyone can see one reason why she will play men's events in order to be able to get some competitive rounds under her belt each year. The LPGA is the big loser in the long run by limiting her to only six exemptions on their tour. When Michelle plays in a LPGA event attendance is up an average of 35 percent over the normal gate. Press pass requests from reporters worldwide also are much higher. More publicity for the tour.
Each time Michelle earns a paycheck on the LPGA tour it will not count on the ADT money list because she is not a member of the tour. Her statistics will not be counted by the LPGA and she won't be eligible for the year-end invite only tour events.
Playing at Ko Olina was Michelle’s only option out of respect for a golf course that has allowed her to play for free over many years. It is her home course and she has countless rounds of golf there.
Here is what Michelle should do:
Play in both the Fields and SBS where she has a better than even chance of winning one of them. If Punahou will not go along with her absences she should hire the best tutors that can help her achieve her academic goals and take them on the road.
Only having four events left to play on the LPGA tour she should commit now to only playing in the Majors on their tour. This will cause a flurry of calls from event sponsors and broadcast networks to the LPGA Commissioners office.
For the rest of the year, to fill out her schedule she should commit to JPGA and KPGA events that will pay her a million dollars plus just to appear. At the end of the season she could buy Punahou and finish out her senior year.:-0
Hopefully you are learning that it is pointless trying to engage in any sort of common sense debate with John Z.
Johnny N., yes you understood my point. I certainly wasn't saying that Michelle was as good as Padraig Harrington. I simple stated that if it took a great player like him until he was 33 years to win a pga event, why should we be expecting Michelle to achieve this so much earlier.
I have little doubt that John Z understood exactly what you were saying, but since he had no possible way of arguing back at you, he decided to insult you.
You'll just have to get used to that. It is his style and what he knows best.
You're absolutely correct when you say that men are superior in those endeavors, and it's a sad day for the world when speaking the truth gets one branded with an "ist" label (Although, who really cares about the meaningless terms that the left has originated?).
Of course, why should it surprise anyone that men would excel in these areas? They're MALE endeavors! Woman's primary domain is the domestic realm; man's primary domain is the realm he has to operate in to provide for his family. Oh, by the way, you can save the worn-out leftist refrains, such as references to how one belongs in the Stone Age or has Neanderthal status. I've heard them all and I'll once again quote Chesterton: "Fallacies don't cease to be fallacies simply because they become fashions."
You're a real man. It's a shame that the Western man has been so feminized that we're a dying breed.
Under Par and John Z
YOU TWO ARE THE BIGGEST GIRLIE MEN ON THIS BOARD -why else would you guys get your panties in a bunch over a girl trying to compete with men.
Get some balls, and stop being so insecure.
Its not Michelle's fault you two have been beat up by women your whole life.
"Real Men" don't have to tell themselves or each other that they are "real men" they just know it.
Indeed the two Hawaiian events is probably a good idea.
Does anyone know if Annika is likely to partake in these events?
She wasn't at the SBS last season.
If Annika isn't there, it should give Michelle a very good chance, but I think Michelle's best golf will come later in the year, when she is playing more consequetive tournaments. The problem is Annika will probably be on top form then as well.
Slightly off topic.
You referred to it not mattering what Jason Gore did at at the Mercedes because he is a proven winner.
He then finished level with Michelle at the Sony.
Then at the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, after 2 and a half rounds, he occupied last position.
I agree that he is a proven winner, 3 times nationwide last season, and then a pga win, but surely he can't keep going like this for long, without getting flak along the way.
But he is still CAPABLE of winning any tournament. Why? Because he has already proven than he can.
He shouldn't get a lifetime exemption like they do at Augusta. How about 2 years or perhaps a bit more.
It's a whole different ballgame if a player has never done it.
You are right - that was too funny. But I was trying to show that she DOES perform well under pressure - for a 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL!! How many other teenagers are competing on the PGA tour, Shanks? Female OR male? You know the answer is none! In fact, I don't think there are any other teenagers, period, competing! That means she will have 3 more years to compete on the PGA tour as a teenager. Tiger didn't make a PGA cut until he was 20!
Can you imagine how much pressure there is when she knows the whole golfing world is watching her every move - ALL the time? Just think about it Shanks!
There aren't other 16-year-olds in PGA events because they aren't given SPONSOR'S EXEMPTIONS on a silver platter. So, let's not be ridiculous.
There arn't other 16 year olds, but lets be honest. Nearly every one of them would struggle to break 85.
I don't think any of them could hit a 68 on a pga setup under any conditions, windy or calm.
Player's can come back, but I would be willing to write most of the guys off who miss a high percentage of cuts, as regards winning a particular event.
Usually, if they come back to a winning position, their form needs to improve gradually before they get to that point ie. they make a few cuts, then get a few decent finishes. The likes of David Duval don't just come back and win. His form needs to improve bit by bit, as it has been doing.
That's utter nonsense and you should know it, being a golf pro. Why, just a few years ago a 16-year-old boy QUALIFIED for the US Open at Bethpage Black, something that Wie-wie will NEVER do at 16. I'll also point out that I watched a news piece about this boy, and he was no early bloomer like Bubbles -- he looked like a real kid.
I located the information on the 16 year old boy. He was Derek Tolan. Since he did qualify for the US Open, we can compare his performance to that of Michelle Wie. At the SONY, Wie shot 79-68 for a total of 147 missing the 143 cut by 4 shots. Tolan shot 78-88 for a total of 166 missing the 150 cut by 16 shots. I know the US Open is tougher, but not that much tougher.
Hale Irwin shot an 80 there and missed the cut, and he was the best player on the Senior Tour at the time.
That 2nd round included 5 double bogeys and a treble. Ouch.
Let's agree that it was a fantastic achievement for him to qualify.
MW will probably try to qualify again this year. I think she could well get a stage further than last year, but final qualifying is a long shot.
As Jim said the US Open, courses are very tough, but he did miss the cut by 16 shots, which is a long way, whatever way you look at it.
Under Par, I certainly don't expect Wie to qualify for the US Open, but I wouldn't be quite as sure as you on the matter.
Hale Irwin shot 82, 81.
It was a very difficult course, and illustrates just how difficult it is to measure against anything else.
The main point is Derek Tolan, qualifying was obviously a huge exception.
Michelle Wie is another exception, talent wise. That is why I said she is the best 16 year old at the moment, nobody said she was the best 16 year old of all time.
Derek Tolan is 19 now. In any case, how is his career going these days?
Asia-Guy has perhaps unwittingly introduced a delicious bit of comedic irony into this thread. On Hux's thread a debate is raging over the issue of homeschooling of children. On a golf board? Yes. Re-reading some of this masterpiece, I came upon Asia's opinion on that subject. He says that if the Punahou school doesn't like Michelle's frequent absences she should quit and hire a private tutor. So there you have it, folks. By his own admission, Asia-Guy thinks Michelle Wie should be HOMESCHOOLED!"
That was only until the end of the golf season in Asia and after receiving 1.5 million per appearance at the Asia events she could come back and buy Punahou to finish her Senior Year!
Derek Tolan is 19 now. In any case, how is his career going these days?
About as good as Ty's career Norman.
Wie is not the best 16-year-old at the moment.
So who is the best 16 year old u_p?
The best 16-year-old is whoever the best 16-year-old boy is.
Have fun and I'll return when MW gets back in action at her next gift-wrapped sponsor's exemption on the PGA tour.
What about her next gift wrapped lpga tour exemption? She gets sponsors exemptions there as well.
This post has 3 feedbacks awaiting moderation...