Another self-congratulatory blog from blogger that basically blossomed over the internet like wild mushroom.

Ding, Ding, ding..

Yes, Leadletter agree with you.

In fact, Bush, Ann Coulter, and Karl Rove agree with you, too.

Shanks,

Your fan must be on the wrong website.

Like a lot of clueless posters lately on these threads,
he makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe he'll try to explain his position. Nah!

Great idea. Get Michelle Wie to compete on a lesser women's tour so you can dismiss a win as meaningless and rip her to shreds if she doesn't win.

What can you say about someone who saw only one person choke in the last two Kraft Nabiscos and that was Michelle Wie in 2006? Or maybe you did see players choke at the first Major this year, but chose not to write about it. If that is the case, why didn't you make the same choice last year? Is it because you have some chivalry when it comes to adult women, but none when it comes to a 16 year old girl? The women who struggled this year suffered enough without having their noses rubbed in their failures--but last year Michelle Wie needed to be kicked when she was down.

Jim C,

Why the fascination with Wie?

Speaking of Wie, why all of a sudden Leadbetter becomes the spokesperson for the Wie camp?

Methinks "Your fan" is not really MY fan. And I see that Jim C still doesn't agree that mental mistakes are a form of choking. Don't really know what to say about that. Jim C is correct that the 2007 KN was a chokefest. But other bloggers at this site covered the topic well enough that I limited myself to a few comments on their blogs.

So, now that's out of the way, do any of you have any comments about the Wie camp change in direction???

Shanks,
I have a comment on the change of direction. Leadbetter was speaking out of turn.

Actually he has since confirmed to Rich Lerner that Michelle is still considering playing the John Deere Classic. That will depend on how good her wrist is and how good her game is at that stage.

So back to the Leadbetter issue, the fact is that the Wie's decided to change direction, not Mr Leadbetter. They decided to cut back on mens events as they realised that their decision to take on a number of events on different tours at the end of 2006 was a huge mistake. Trying to adjust to playing here and there every month or so on different tours with different setups, would be difficult for a seasoned pro, let alone a full time school student.

It was the Wies and Michelle specifically who decided that she wanted to focus her efforts more clearly on winning on the lpga tour as the number 1 goal, whereas she had previously had dual number 1 goals of lpga win and pga cut.
That's not an end to mens events, as Leadbetter appeared to pick it up. She still intends to play some mens events, just not the crazy schedule she had of late 2006 where she played a significant amount of mens events, on some really tough courses.

What Leadbetter's story was about, was more blowing his own trumpet and saying to the public, how brilliant is this David Leadbetter who convinced the Wie's of the correct way to do things. That's the perception that David Leadbetter wanted to give.

It's staggering how the Normans and JimC's on the world continue to worship at the BJ Wie temple of the absurd. Many of us have been saying for years that BJ/Michelle's quest for a PGA cut was misguided for her long-term development and confidence. The best path for her is LPGA success first. Then LPGA domination (if she can do it). THEN worry about playing with the men.

As Mr. Miyagi said, "First learn, stand. Then learn fly"...

I do not agree that Wie did make a bad decision in that situation. But there is another point. Maybe it is choking if a shortstop makes a bad throw to first or if a pitcher throws a hanging curve. Maybe it is choking if a shortstop makes a bad decision to try for a double play. In all these situations there could be a serious problem for the future. But a pitcher who makes bad decisions can simply let the catcher make the calls in the future.

Jim C,

Shortstops? Pitchers? Cathers? Bad throws? Hanging curves?Double plays?

Jimbo, this blog is supposed to be about GOLF. One analogy with baseball would have been sufficient

Ron Sirak from the legitimate golf media has confirmed what I have been saying all along:

"The headline was intriguing and not totally unexpected. "Wie to focus on women's events: coach" screamed the menu page on Yahoo late last week. The link carried the reader to an Agence France Presse story in which David Leadbetter was quoted as saying 17-year-old Michelle Wie "hasn't got any PGA Tour events planned at the moment." There is just one problem with the story. It's not accurate.

Leadbetter was quoted by AFP at the Wachovia Championship saying Wie is "going to commit herself to the LPGA" and next year "she'll probably take up membership" on the women's tour. Missing in the story, however, was any comment from Wie or her family.

Neither Wie nor the William Morris Agency, which represents her, was speaking as of Monday. But Jesse Derris of the Ken Sunshine Agency, the family's spokesperson, told Golf World, "It's fair to say no options have been ruled out."

Others close to the situation, however, spoke anonymously and more aggressively. "I wouldn't jump to any conclusion that she's not [playing against men]," said one source. Another said, "Nobody is going to determine her playing schedule except her. If she wants to play against the men, she'll play against the men."

The most likely PGA Tour event for Wie to play next is the John Deere Classic July 12-15. She missed the cut there by two strokes in 2005 and had to withdraw because of heat exhaustion midway through the second round last year. Record crowds turned out both times.

"Michelle has been invited," John Deere tournament director Clair Peterson told Golf World Monday. "The only person I have spoken with [on this matter] is B.J. Wie, and he has not said what David has said." Peterson hopes to have an answer by the end of May. Several sources indicated Wie would make a commitment to the Deere within the next two weeks.

"The community views Michelle as one of its own, and I think that will be a big part of her decision," Peterson said, painting a rosy picture for his event. Wie donated $25,000 to make the home of local resident Travis Hearn handicap-accessible. He was paralyzed in a high school football game."

Read Ron's full article here:

http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?
/newsandtour/gw20070511wie.html

David should listen to this quote:

"Nobody is going to determine her playing schedule except her. If she wants to play against the men, she'll play against the men."

TC gets bonus points for the Karate Kid quote.

What I glean from this blog is that the diehard Wie-wee's, i.e., One-Putt, putt4par, Jim C, and Norman think that Leadbetter is a loud-mouthed, pompous windbag, and one who has absolutely no say-so in the direction of Bubbles' career.

If this guy is half the idiot that all the Wiebots think he is, it makes me wonder why Bubbles has hired him as her coach.

And it also appears that the Wie Warriors can't wait fir Bubbles to accept another PGA exemption, muddle around for her two rounds, and then tell a fawning interviewer how her game is getting better and is "almost there."

If that makes you clowns happy, I hope for your sake she does tee it up at the Deere.

Welllllllll Alex, Leadbetter did give her a scholarship when she was an amateur and provided Gary Gilchrist as her coach. After Michelle turned pro Gary was gone and Leadbetter stepped into the position of coach. Michelle did owe The Leadbetter Academy something, but the debt should be paid off after this season.

No one can argue otherwise that Gary was an excellent coach for Michelle and a trusted family friend. She made steady progress under Gary's instruction and it carried over into the start of her 2006 season. What we witnessed at the end of last season and the beginning of this one is the David Leadbetter effect on her golf game.

Gary is out on a recruiting trip to Asia right now for the International Golf Academy he directs and it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't spend a few days in Hawaii visiting with Michelle and her family.

David is on the ropes and he knows it, so he came out swinging with his rant. I predict Gary will be Michelle's coach in 2008 and the negotiations are taking place now.

Last year Wie tried to develop a game for the PGA. This year it seems like her focus will be the LPGA, and I would guess we will not be seeing forged metal irons. For now she will not play any long men's courses.

Shanks,
It is interesting how you started the blog at such an inopportune time.
You start issuing the congratulations and then all the opposing stories come out. Ah well.

Here's an interesting fact. Three young Americans this year have won on the LPGA, and all three missed a cut one or two tournaments later. Let us suppose that Michelle Wie becomes the fourth to achieve this double later this year. Which should be the bigger story: the win or the missed cut?

Jim C,

Neither.

Also, nothing that any female golfer has ever done matches Bubbles' missed cut at the 2004 Sony.

Those are your feelings, Jim C.

You stated exactly that when you said that Morgan Pressel's Kraft win was nowhere near as impressive as Bubbles' missed cut.

Jim,
Michelle winning would be a big story. There aren't that many non-members who have won on the lpga tour.
There is an lpga event held in Korea and some Koreans have won that event, such as Shi Hyun Ahn and Jee Young Lee and they got their lpga tour cards that way.

However there probably wouldn't be many non-members who have won on the US mainland already.

Michelle Wie's win would be a big story, but I suspect that in much of the media the focus would be on how long it took her to finally win something. If she gets her first win in a Major, she is likely to be hailed as the next Birdie Kim.

I would like to address the question of whether Michelle could win 8 or 9 times a year playing the LPGA full time. Last year, as I recall, in her first 5 stroke play events she was 1 back at Fields, 1 back at Kraft, 2 back at the LPGA after 36 holes of US Open Qualifying on Monday--but it might have been 1 back if she had not tried for the tie on hole 72, 2 back at the Women's Open, and 1 back at the Evian. I don't see that dramatic improvement would be needed to put her at a level where she might win a third of the time--and that improvement could come in her long game through using slightly shorter bu more forgiving irons. Remember at the Kraft it was the par 5s where she was beaten.

Jim
You are correct when you say much of the media would focus on the negative. They would say finally a win after 4 barren years. Much of them would try to distract from the fact of her being the youngest lpga winner should she win in 2007 and instead try to find anything negative they could.

If they actually compared her to Biride Kim that would show huge idiocy given that Birdie did little else, whereas Michelle has plenty of top 5s and proved herself as a top performer already.

I would disagree with the media focus on how long it took Wie to win - with the exception Balwin & McDonald on this website. Michelle Wie is a media darling and the majority of coverage will be praise. And rightfully so.

I don't share the optimism on the 8-9 wins/year in a full-time LPGA schedule, although I would agree the potential is there.

Notice, folks, Wie Warriors Jim C and Norman are starting to sound as though Bubbles has already won that first event, first major, and is now starting on that eight or nine per year.

Whatll they do when and if Bubbles finally wins ONE?

Shanks,
I don't know why Leadbetter would make the comments he did about 8-9 a year. Does that mean if she were to win 6 or 7 later that she would be falling short of expectations.

Mentioning those specific figures further shows that Leadbetter really didn't think out his comment properly.
Why wouldn't he just say, if she concentrates on the lpga tour, she could win plenty of titles there.

I presume that Leadbetter meant she would be a dominant Tiger-like presence on the LPGA tour were she to play it full-time. Whether that's 5-6 wins or 9-10 wins could depend on the year. But that's just my interpretation of his statement.

But surely he means that maybe when she had at least 5 years full-time experience on the tour.

Surely he doesn't mean that if she joined in 2008 full time that she would win 8-9 event then.

I don't know that he meant that. His quote in the story I linked into the article was " if she plays week in and week out (on the LPGA Tour), she'll win 8 or 9 times a year." Sounds to me like he means as soon as she takes up full time membership. But of course, he's got a lot riding on it so he may be her number one fan too.

The 8 or 9 wins were chosen to be as large as possible while still being less than the 10 wins Annika got in 2005. So Leadbetter is being at least somewhat respectful of Annika, and if Michelle does not achieve the goal, it really doesn't matter that much because there would be no arrogance on her part in making the prediction since she wasn't the one who made it. In any case, 8 or 9 wins a year on the LPGA even as early as 2008 seems like a modest goal compared to some that Michelle Wie has set for herself.

Jim C,

How about she wins ONE first?

And that one better be the US Women's Open in about a month or you'll have to turn in your crystal ball. :)

From 0 career wins in 30+ starts to 8 or 9 wins a year? I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but it seems a "Wie" bit optimistic to me.

Clearly, she is one of the best female golfers on the planet. It's not a stretch to say that she is likely the best ball-striker to play in LPGA events. But to make the leap to Annika- or Tiger-like dominance would require some improvement in her short game. Can she do that while maintaining her ball-striking at it's present level? It will be interesting to watch.

Shanks,

I saw Michelle Wie play in person only once. That was at the Publinx medal play in Lebanon, OH. We watched her for about six holes, along with a very large gallery for that event.

We were on hand to see this new and incredible young female talent. My wife especially wanted to witness the 300 yard drives by this young girl. One newspaper blurb had her driving 330 yards.

While she showed excellent coordination and a fair knowledge of course management, her game was simply not anywhere near as awesome as we were led to believe it would be

She sprayed her shots quite a bit. Her short iron game was so-so. I'd say her game was the equivalent to the bottom third of this field of true amateurs.

Nowhere did we see the ball-striking ability that would make her the best on he LPGA circuit.

What I saw of her was in no way great.
Fair to good would be a more accurate assessment.

But, I would have to say that in my opinion, she was playing much better then than she has been in almost a year.

As has been discussed ad infinitum on these pages, Wie has a tremendous record in limited appearances despite some weak efforts on and around the greens on the back nine on Sundays. She's not reminding anyone of Ballesteros or Mickelson. Yet she's finishing near the lead in most tournaments and that's because of her ball-striking.

I saw her last year at the LPGA Championship and there is a clear difference between her and most of the others in the field. I saw her knock it on the 600 yard par 5 in two shots (although downhill). Much like Tiger, most observers will say the ball makes a different sound when she hits it. And it's not just length either. Otherwise Brittany Lincicome would have been getting the same results tourney after tourney, as she hits it similar distances. No, Wie consistently hits it as well as anybody out there, if not better.

I personally think that with consistent participation in LPGA events alone, her short game will improve a bit. Now, whether that's enough to translate into dominance, I won't pretend to know. But the potential is there.

Shanks,

Just one more comment.

I've been present at quite a few of Tiger's tournaments.

I've listened for that "different sound" when he drives.

That "different sound" is an urban myth that has been repeated so often that even golf writers such as you are starting to believe it.

Wie's ball makes the same sound as any other when struck.

Or, perhaps, your hearing, is not what it once was. Your comment reminds me of a great David Feherty story about Woods, when it was suggested that he kisses Tiger's butt too much:

“18th Fairway at Firestone Country Club- Tiger and Ernie are tied- Tiger pops a three-wood 40 yards behind Ernie into wet, nasty, horrible, six inch rough. Tiger’s ball is truly buried. Tiger’s got 184 yards with two big red oaks overhanging the green. With a stick of dynamite I might be able to move the ball 50 yards. Steve Williams tells me that he’s using a pitching wedge. Tiger takes his swing. Every muscle in his body is flung at the ball. It looks like he’s torn his friggin’ nutsack. The
f**king divot went as far as I could hit the ball!

The ball sails over the trees, lands behind the hole and backs up to six feet from the flag. I open my microphone and Ernie turns and says, 'F*ck me!'
My producer asks, 'Was that Ernie?'
I say 'Yes.'
He says, 'Fair enough.'
This was the second best player in the world talking, and you wanna know how good Tiger is? Ask Ernie Els!”

Shanks comments about Wie's ball striking are correct.

If someone was to believe the critics who say, she has a terrible short game around the greens, terrible putting, very wayward off the tee, Alex is even saying that her irons are so-so. The question would be how did she get within 2 shots of the lead in the first 5 lpga tournaments of 2006, which included 3 majors.
How would such a bad player, with bad irons shots, bad driving, bad putting, bad short game in general shoot such good scores?

Shanks

I'll give you a quote from an agent, made in a recent article, that says a lot about where people like Alex are coming from. See if you can figure out the signifigance.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/sports/uga/stories/2007/05/09/0510leon.html

"Taylor Leon brings a lot to the table," says Sam McNaughton, a sports agent for SFX Golf who calls himself a friend of the Leon family. "She's young, has blond hair, blue eyes, she's from Texas and her golf game is tremendous. Her greatest strength may be that she can still improve."

=========================================

Norman, it's called selective vision. Alex doesn't want Michelle to be any good so she isn't. Blindness isn't always in the eye.

Shanks,

Well, you can give all the credence you want to David's bit of blarney and all the other urban myths surrounding Tiger.

The facts are that Woods doesn't drive the ball as far or as straight as some other pros on the PGA tour.

He also isn't the best in fairways or greens hit over his career.

And although his putting is probably the best part of his game, a few others have slightly better stats at putting.

What Woods has is the best overall game on the PGA circuit. That coupled with bulldog tenacity, the ability to grind like no other, and the fact that he never bags it account for his remarkable record and consistency.

Wie, for the edification of Norman, hasn't displayed any of Tiger's trademark attributes as yet.

Incidentally, my hearing is excellent

For the edification of Alex, Tiger didn't
diplay much of anything till he was
well past 17 either, so what's your point?

Attention all Canucks, Brits, and Wie-wee's everywhere!

Be it known by these presents that I don't want Bubbles to fail.

I'd like her to win something, anything, to give some hope to her cadre of admirers.

I don't think her golf game is BAD in any stretch of the word. Of course, neither do I believe she's as good as many Wiebots would have me believe.

I can asure you that when Bubbles wins the Women's US Open next month, as your compatriot Jim C vows she surely will, I will congratulate her by saying she has won a MAJOR and now is in the same category as Morgan Pressel.

I will save my plaudits for when that happens.

Alex, I believe you are incorrect about Tiger Woods' iron play, which is fabulous. Woods is nearly always at the top of GIR stats. And as he's also nearly always at the top of putting stats (putts per GIR only), that likely infers that he hits it a little closer than most. When you combine that with his world's best all-around short game and other attributes you mentioned, it allows him to still dominate despite being relatively poor with his driver.

Hey Alex, I had another typo and ya missed it.

oh btw, did you get the signigance of the quote? Hmmmmm?

When you can't refute a post by others, your immediate response is always the same, "PUERILE" ( notice the spelling, Alex?)
attempts at put downs.

For a man that likes to brag about how well he and others in his family are educated, you an seldom make a return in a discussion with logic or sanity.

Just watching Jim C, Norman or Shanks comment on your posts is the biggest source of amusment. They make your posts look like amateur night in those community colleges that you should attend more often.

I love needling you, you always respond in the same manner. ROFLMAO.

Shanks,

We are in agreement, then.

As I said before, even though Tiger's stat on any one facet of the game might not be at the very top, his overall, i.e., his all around game is better than any other on the PGA tour.

When Alex said bottom third, perhaps he meant that she played at a level that would put her score among the lowest third of the field, which it did, and which qualified her for match play in the event. People who don't know much about golf can become confused by the fact that in golf, unlike most sports, the lower the score, the better.

Alex, can you please get my prediction correct. LPGA Championship not US Women's Open.

putt4par,

Master Woods, as a teenage amateur, dominated the junior and amateur ranks for six consecutive years starting at age 13.

The fact that you consider his juvenile record as "nothing much" is indicative of your abysmal lack of knowledge of the real world.

I feel sad that you see a need to display hostility toward my level of education aand that of my family members.

You see, my parents were immigrants to this country from Slovakia. To these fine people, education was unattainable in their home country. Therefore, they placed great emphasis on education.

I continued this tradition with my progeny.

It is obvious that you didn't give the same attention to education as I and my family members did.

In fact, if your writing is any indication, you could weel be a microcosm of what happens when one doesn't attend school very long or very often.

But it is probably just as well.
Ditchdiggers are still needed in Alberta.

Jim C,

I stand corrected.

Has your prediction been altered or amended?

Am I correct in my assumption that you flatly predict that Bubbles will win the next women's major?

Again, that would be WIN, not place top five, top ten, and definitely not "play well", or "have fun."

LOL, no hostility, Alex. Just pointing out your sad lack of understanding that education means being able to communicate with others sans the need to put them down. I take it your own self esteem is very low, and that is your way of being superior.

The one thing we do not need in Alberta is another lawyer. We have way to many of them running our country now. Please reassure me that you will stay out of politics in your country or mine. No more lawyers needed, plz, thanks.

putt4par,

Of course, no hostility.

I can assure you that no Chicago attorneys will be opening an office in Edmonton in even the distant future.

Actually,p4p, my self-esteem is right where it should be, very high and likely to remain there.

After all, I'm cute, witty, brilliant, well-to-do, and a member of a private country club.

What more would anyone want?

Jim,
Good bet for Michelle. The lpga championship sets up very well for her. It is very soon after coming back from injury though.

Shanks mentioned Michelle hitting a 596 yard par 5 in two at the lpga championship. It's actually on Youtube. Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQqAqGr7Njo

Wow... I'm impressed. You are wealthy... woopy.

Educated? Questionable, considering the rambling dispatches posted by you in these blogs

I would hazard a guess that many of the folks posting here are also well to do, have good educations and are members of some nice Orgaqnization.

None of them feel the need to brag about it. No self esteem problems there.

Now you on the other hand have this unhealthy need to tell all and sundry how important you think you are, etc.,etc..

Like I said, sure signs of low self esteem.
You feel then need to be better than anyone else, so you put them down, mock them and belittle them...

Yup, sounds like a problem with self esteem alright.

Norman

Pretty impressive. 342 yard drive .
Lots of the grinders on the PGA would love to be able to hit like that.
240 to 250 yd drive onto the green on the second drive.
Of course, the naysayers all maintain those stats are fictional.

Riiiight!

putt4par,

You're really not that dense, are you?

I was being facetious, jocular, for goodness sake!

I knew you Canucks were somewhat dour, but have you no sense of humor at all?

I have no doubt that Bubbles could hit a 342 yard drive, but it would have to be down wind, and down the side of Pike's Peak.

Putt4Par,
Did you also notice that she didn't even need to hit 3 wood into the green. A 5 wood was enough.
That's pretty impressive to hit a 596 yard par 5 in two, with a driver and 5 wood.

And Alex, yes you are right, her hitting it 342 yards does require the proper conditions, but please be assured, there is player on the pga tour who could hit a 342 yard drive uphill and upwind either. Yes Alex, conditions are a big factor in driving, but whatever the conditions, she is one of the longest hitters on the lpga tour.

Yes, I saw that 5 wood too. I grinned at some of the comments that accompanied the piece.

Alex, sorry old sod, you always bite so well. I needle you a bit and you just jump right into it.

ROFL, talk about anal. I'll bet you rarely leave the cushions behind when you get up off the couch.

putt4par,

You're sharp all right.

Sharp as a bowling ball.

Alex made a Haiku. :-)

She hit a 5-wood from 243 under downwind conditions. Sorry, I'm not impressed. Oh, I also should add that the ball didn't even get close to pin high, so she probably hit it more like 223-230.

I should correct myself: It was 243 to the front. Again, though, downwind conditions -- not impressed.

So Judge, just how far do you hit a five wood? The best I can get out of a three wood is 250 when I hit it flush. When I see a 16 year old girl hit a five wood 240 plus, it impresses the hell out of me.

One-putt,

Once again, it was downwind and there was a least decent roll. Moreover, I have no idea whether or not that second shot played downhill; I know the tee shot did.

Any golfer knows that the conditions have a tremendous bearing on distance. A few years back I hit a drive 356 at the Ocala Golf Club in Florida; I can also show you a hole at Shepherd Hills G.C. in upstate NY where I can hit a 3-iron more than 300 yards. Does that impress you, too?

Smails, you're reaching a bit there. What makes something impressive is relativity. As for your 300 yard 3 iron, it might not be impressive if everybody else was hitting it 350-400. I saw Wie hit the 11th green in two. Believe me it was a rare event that week. I have played that hole myself from the same teebox the LPGA used - several times - and that is an impressive feat for a woman to hit that green with a 5W second shot. Hell, I'd have impressed myself if I could've done it.

Shanks,

I like you, I really do. But, please, don't use yourself as a measuring stick. A somewhat aged golf blogger who hacks it around once in a while should not be used as a comparison.

The fact that Bubbles can outdrive the Lilliputians on the LPGA Tour impresses me not a whit.

I guess you had a 60 knot tailwind on that 300 plus yard three iron Judge. Heck Judge, Tiger would have been impressed with that shot.

I'm feelin' the love, Smails.

Pardon me for taking editorial liberties with an old chunk of wisdom but, a one-eyed king in the land of the blind is impressive in that kingdom.

If Shanks played the hole and he said it's a good achievement to hit it in 2, then that should be good enough. He obviously has enough experience of playing enough courses to know what he is talking about.

Stanley,

Before you embrace that position, don't you think it wise to ascertain Shanks' handicap? Remember, hitting ANY par five in two is an accomplishment for virtually all golfers. If you did it, Stanley, you'd probably wet yourself.

Judge,
Shanks has displayed a knowledge about golf and various courses.
It doesn't matter what his handicap is, he would still know what was good for a really good player.

Let me spare you the back and forth about my golfing abilities. My handicap index is currently an honest 11, although I am playing better than that so far this year. Excluding a few golf trips each year, I play only 2-3 times a month on average. I tend to lose shots from inside 100 yards by not playing more regularly. I hit the ball a little longer than the average golfer with my normal solid drive in the 260-270 yard range.

Since I live in the Washington DC area, I have been able to attend countless professional tournaments in person - both PGA & LPGA Tours - over the past 30+ years.

Hope that helps.

Shanks,

While you're better than most, your description of your game vindicates my assessment. Of course hitting such a par five in two would be an accomplishment for an 11 who hits it about 265. However, we're not talking about recreational golfers, but professionals.

According to Shanks, Michelle Wie choked when she didn't get down in two in last year's Kraft. Somehow I don't believe he would have made that statement about a recreational golfer. Just because he has an 11 handicap does not mean he doesn't apply higher standards to professional golfers when he covers the sport.

Of course if Judge wants the views of a Professional GFolfer on these issues he might want to read what Norman has to say.

Jim C,

In no way did I imply that Shanks' commentary is invalid because he isn't a professional golfer. My only point is one so simple that it could only elude the most obtuse of Wiebots. To wit: The fact that Bubbles accomplished something on the course that is generally beyond Shanks' capabilities (he is a RECREATIONAL golfer; I hope you understand the difference) carries no weight whatsoever. She has dedicated herself to the game since she was a "wie" lass and is a professional, albeit one with an unusually empty trophy case.

Michelle Wie played with Camillo Villegas at the 2006 Sony Open.

Michelle outdrove Camillo on 8 holes.
Camillo outdrove Michelle on 19 holes. They hit same distance once.

Camillo is a very strong guy and a very long hitter, averaging over 300 yards in 2006 on the pga tour.

For Michelle to outhit him on 30% of the drives shows that she is very long for a woman. So Judge, if you aren't willing to accept that hitting that par 5 was good, then consider her driving versus Camillo, who is very long off the tee.

Stanley,

No, I don't accept it; first I would need to know if Villegas hit driver on those holes or, like so many PGA Players, was playing for safety and position with a shorter club. I would also need to know where he hit his drives on those holes; if he hit a few sideways, it makes a big difference.

Since Villegas averages over 300 yards and the Bubbles only seems to average about 270, no, I don't believe she could legitimately outdrive him.

Don't feel bad Stanley; it's just that factors that would elude a neophyte such as you are considered by an erudite man such as myself.

Ok Smails, I get it. Only the very best PGA Tour pros impress you. You are refusing to make alowances for the physical performances of the fairer sex.

However, I do make those allowances. Any woman who can smoke it past me I find impressive. If I were to hit my normal drive AND get an extra 50 yards because the 11th hole at Bulle Rock plays downhill (which you don't but let's just suppose), I'd still have 275 left. Think there's any chance I can get there with a 5 wood? Nada.

I know you have this axe to grind with Ms. Wie because of your unusual world view, but c'mon man, this young lady can hit it.

Shanks,

First of all, she had 243 to the front, a significant yardage for a woman but not something that will knock my socks off. Secondly, I never denied that Bubbles was long for a woman, but so is Laura Davies and a few others. My only point is that she pales in comparison to the hype that developed around her, and you full well know this is true.

If what she and others led us to believe about her abilities were true, she would have been attacking that green with a 4-iron.

As you already know by now, I don't concern myself with what what anybody else says. It's me that is impressed with the way Wie hits the ball. Relative to her competition, it is simply fantastic. And if any of the LPGA members are hitting a 5-wood to the middle of the green when they have 243 to the front - I'm very, very impressed by that too. Frankly - and I'm not saying she belongs there - that sounds more like a PGA Tour quality shot.

Shanks,

The title of this blog contains the phrase "Wie to play against women full-time."

Really? Is she planning on joining the LPGA tour as a regular? How will she secure her playing privileges? "Q" school? Exemptions? How?

She supposedly is to enroll as a freshman at Stanford in late summer.
Being a freshman at such a university is a full-time job.

I don't see how it's possible to be attend Stanford with the number of hours required of a freshman and at the same time play the LPGA tour full-time.

But I'm sure that some Wie-wee out there has all the answers. Maybe Stanford will give Bubbles an exemption.

Some of those are good questions. The article I linked to my blog did not say how she planned to marry being a student and Tour member. But as far as her qualifying, she can easily win enough in her limited appearances this year to qualify for membership next year, assuming her level of play is somewhat similar to 2006.

Shanks,

Bubbles may have a hard time meeting the assumption that her play will be equal or similar to that of 2006.

And which part of 2006? The latter part of her year was abysmal. And her play in the first five months of this year has been non-existent, except for her ill-fated outing at the Sony

She might have lingering troubles from the injury, but I doubt it. I don't remember the exact numbers but I think Wie made about $700-800K in her limited number of events last year.

Shanks,

Let's see. Bubbles injury was severe enough that it kept her from actively competing for five months.

But, in your opinion, it won't have any lingering effect on her game.

That sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

To my knowledge, long layoffs from golf have always affected a golfer's game.

Alex,
You don't have that long to wait to find out. Thankfully then the discussion can move on.

You are likely correct that there will be some rust the first couple of events. But I would still expect her to have some good showings come July & August.

Shanks,

Bubbles was laid waste by perceived "heat exhaustion" at the 2006 John Deere.The temperature that day was in the 87-88F range with 50-60 humidity.

I wonder if she and her handlers realize that temperatures in the mid to high 90's with 80% humidity are quite common in the Charleston, SC area in early June.

I can see the excuses already. Too hot, too humid, not enough practice, rusty, just graduated from high school, wrist still not fully healed, etc., etc.

Alex,
Whatever conditions were at the Deere caused Todd Hamilton to look like he had wet his pants, so it obviously wasn't nice weather.

As regards the temperatures themselves, Wie went to the Evian Masters for her next event and played in warmer conditions and got through it fine, and indeed played 4 full rounds and got a 2nd place.
Obviously they learned the lessons from the Deere, so please stop your fretting about what might happen if she plays it again. Your concern is very good though Alex and shows what a kind and caring individual you are.

Stanley,

Thank you.

But tell me, Big stan, how in hell did Todd Hamilton get into this discussion?

Man, we're talking about Bubbles here!

Alex,
You were discussing the 2006 John Deere Classic and how Michelle withdrew and you were trying to make light of the conditions.
The fact that Todd Hamilton looked like he had wet himself from so much sweat in that area told a story about the conditions. It wasn't just Todd either, several of the other players were suffering from sweaty backside syndrome as it could be called.

Stanley,

This may come as news to you, but that is what men do in warm, somewhat humid conditions, they sweat.

But somehow I don't remember any of them being carted of the course on a stretcher and being taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Do you?

No, Big Stan, that treatment was reserved solely for Bubbles, the crown princess of golf theater.

Alex,
As you said they were grown men, men with experience having played the game in a variety of conditions.
She herself stated that she wasn't drinking much because she felt like she would throw up if she drank more. You could call that naive, even call it stupid if that makes you feel better. The fact is it was a mistake that was made and a lesson that was learned.

Stanley,

The first mistake she made, the one which trumps all the succeeding mistakes, was attempting to compete with men at the game of golf, or any other other physical pursuits.

Knitting and petit point are not physical pursuits, although I doubt if she could do them very well, either.

Point of clarity here: Wie did not "attempt to compete" with men. She competed. What may be argued is how well she competed.

From my point of view - which is neutral compared to most posting here - she competed well on a few occasions. I say that because the cut line is typically a little less than half of the field and she has been very close more than once. Being in the middle of the pack seems to be competitive to me.

Shanks,

Come on, man.

A golfer that misses the cut is does not finish in the middle of the pack.

Such a golfer is only playing half the tournament.

Ask any journeyman pro who is packing his bags and clubs after missing the cut if he thought he "competed well", or if he played competitively.

I don't know about that Alex. Seems to me if you take 144 or 156 professional golfers and you finish at the halfway point through 2 rounds, that is competing well. Is it great play? Relatively speaking, no. But when a shot or two is all that separates making the cut or not, yes, I'd say that was competing well. In fact, if you look at the Open Championship, which is the world's oldest, they have the 10 shot rule. Anyone within 10 shots of the lead at the halfway point makes the cut because they are considered in contention to win, not just competing well.

Shanks,

It's only a matter of semantics, but no realist would consider a golfer that is ten strokes from the lead after two rounds of the Open to be in contention to win. Maybe such a player would have "an outside chance" to win.

Be that as it may a missed cut is exactly that, designated in the line score as "MC."

To assuage the sensibility of Bubbles and others who may have come close to the cut at one time, maybe another notation could be put in the line score: ALMDC, almost made cut,

Well, Alex, apperntly you have a different idea of what competitive means than do I. Thrill me with your acumen.

Shanks,

Here's a hint: A golfer who has missed the cut is not competitive at for the final two rounds of the tournament since he isn't playing

Maybe one could stretch a point and say that such a golfer was competitive with those who missed the cut by the same number of strokes, and better than those who missed the cut by more. Does any tour keep stats on which golfers missed the cut by fewer strokes than others? Does anyone except Wie Warriors and metrosexual feminists care?

Ahhhh, back to name-calling, I see. It was a simple question, really. Myself, I'll stick with the R&A and say that anyone within 10 shots of the lead after two rounds is - at a minimum - competitive.

I guess according to Alex people are wrong to say Michelle Wie finished dead last at the 84 Lunber or missed the cut by so many strokes. No records are kept that would tell us whether this is true or not. All we can say is that she missed the cut along with about half the rest of the field.

Good point Jim. Of course there is a huge difference between missing the cut by 1 and missing it by 15. Surely Alex can understand that.

Alex,
Annika is going to play the Ginn Tribute as well. Perhaps you should give up your other event and watch Annika, Michelle and the other girls.

There is no difference between missing a cut by one or 15 strokes. The notation is still the same: MC.

And the amount of prize money is the same: Nothing.

Stanley, perhaps I'll pass on that possibility. I can watch paint dry any time if I so choose.

Wiebots,

Let's talk a bit about what constitutes being competitive. Golf is a game in which one's play can vary greatly from day to day; this is because the nature of the sport makes it difficult to achieve consistency, because the penalty for one bad shot is so severe, and because of the small sampling of shots that a round comprises. As to the last point, something called "sample variance" comes into play. This pertains to the fact that the smaller the sample of a whole is, the greater the chances are that it will not reflect the characteristics of the whole.

This pertains to golf because a round consists of only about 65-78 shots. Thus, it's very common for a given round to not truly reflect one's abilities; sometimes you shoot lights out and beat the odds, and sometimes you leak oil and the odds beat you.

As to this, back when I was a 12-handicap, I shot a 68 on an extremely tight local course. Everything was clicking that day; five birdies, three bogies, for a two under par score. After that I resumed shooting my normal eighties golf. A couple of years before or after I played golf with my father, who is now deceased, and shot a 75. Being the proud dad, he rendered the opinion that I would never again shoot in the eighties. Alas, his prediction soon proved to be something less than prescient.

The point, Wiemen, is that, given the aforementioned, it's unreasonable to label someone competitive based on a couple of relatively strong performances. Bubbles 68 at the Sony when she was 14 was much like my 68: A great performance given the player's LEVEL, but a fluke nontheless (Bubbles had only 23 putts that day). The only true test of competitiveness on the links is one's performance over a long period of time. For, golf isn't arm-wrestling, running or tennis.

Now, if we look at the big picture with the Bubbles, we'll see that she has never made a PGA Tour cut and has performed abysmally a good percentage of the time. Moreover, she also failed to make a cut on the Nationwide Tour. Thus, not only would she be unable to maintain a PGA Tour card, it isn't difficult to deduce that even making a dent on the Nationwide is beyond her capabilities. She would not be able to make a living on either tour, and, were she required to live off winnings, she would not long be in circulation.

If that, my fine feathered friends, constitutes competitiveness, I would hate to have to witness abject failure.

Judge Smails,

Back in the fifties, a young pitcher by the name of "Bobo" Holloman came up with the old St.Louis Browns.

In his very first game, he tossed a no-hitter, the first and only time in Major League history that this has been done.

After that amzing debut, several sports pundits predicted more miracles for Bobo.

Alas, the miracles never happened.

Bobo never won another game and was back in the minors before half the season was over.

Bubbles threw her "no-hitter" in that 23-putt 68 when she was 14 years old.

A little more trivia: that St. Louis Browns franchise moved to Baltimore and is now the Orioles.

I appreciate that long dissertation Smails, and the flash-in-the-pan reference Alex. In his long term analysis Smails is 100% correct, so far. Further, I agree it is very unlikely that Wie will ever be competitive enough to achieve or retain membership on the PGA Tour. But that does not mean she has not or cannot be "competitive" in a single event. My contention is that after 2 rounds if anyone is within 10 shots of the lead - or even within 1 shot of the cut line - they are playing "competitive golf" that particular week.

In Smails example of his unbelievable rounds, he would have been playing competitive golf against much better players than he on that particular day.

As far as Alex's example, one could also point to Ben Crenshaw, who won his first tournament on the PGA Tour. He went on to enjoy some great success including 2 Masters wins. Point is, nobody knows for sure. Only time will tell.

Shanks,

I've got to hit the road for Lexington in a few minutes, so this is my last post for about two weeks.

To refute your assertion that even anyone who misses the cut by a single shot os being competitive, here's some food for thought.

Just last week on Friday at the At&T, one golfer whose name escapes me eagled the final hole but still failed to make the cut. In your opinion, would you say that that golfer was competitive in that event?

If he just missed the halfway cut by one shot, yes, he was competitive. It is a 36 hole score, not who played the best on what holes. Had he made eagle on the 36th hole to make the cut on the number, you wouldn't say that doesn't count either, would you?

Have a good trip.

Smails,
You talk about that 68 as a 14 year old as if it were a one off. It was not. I agree with you by the way about the fluke included in that round. She knocked in two 50 foot putts. That says a lot about it.

The 68 she hit at the Sony Open in 2006 was in fact a far better round.

For starters the 68 she hit in 2004 was against a field average of 69, only 1 shot better.
The 68 she hit as a 16 year old in 2006 was against a field average of 71, so obviously it was a much better score versus the field.

To explain even more clearly, 40 players beat her 68 in 2004.
In 2006, only 11 players beat her 68.

So that satisfied that the 68 in 2006 was a far better round from a general point of view, but there is more to it as well.
The 68 in 2004 contained two 50+ feet putts, obviously luck involved in those.
In 2006 her longest putt was under 14 feet, showing she made the score more by iron play then by just knocking in monster putts.

Other very good pga rounds include the JD in 2005 where she shot Even and -1 for the two rounds. Then there was the Asian Tour rounds, the first attempt at the Casio where she missed the cut by one shot, and some good rounds in US Open qualifiers.
So Judge, maybe you would be better off not comparing it to your one very good round that you hit, because she has produced good rounds far more often than that.

SHANKS

I hane an LPGA question. I noticed from 2005 to 2006 both Creamer and Gulbis had a 30 per cent decrease in earnings. But each showed a significant improvement in their stroke average: 70.98 to 70.62 for Creamer and 71.24 to 71.00 for Gulbis. Do you think scoring was easier in 2006 or did the level of competition improve?

Good question. But there are so many variables to your question, I don't think there is an easy answer. Could be they played better on easier courses and when they missed cuts, could have something to do with weather and/or course conditioning, could be the improved level of play ... most likely it is a combination of a lot of things and not necessarily the same combination for both of them.

Kerr showed something similar. A modest increase in earnings of about 15 percent--and a dramatic drop in average from 70.86 to 70.07.