« Mark Calcavecchia's win at Canadian Open overshadowed by Solheim CupNancy Lopez captains U.S. to Solheim Cup win -- what say her critics now? »

75 comments

Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
Give it a rest Tim. These young players know how to be diplomats. Did you notice that Christina Kim mentioned Nancy? The only Nancy i could find was someone who didn't play a match--Nancy Lopez. Beth Daniel could have shared her insights even if she had not played--and there were 4 other players over 40 on the team who EARNED automatic spots on the team.

Beth blew a win for Creamer Daniel on the 17th and almost blew the half as well on the 18th. Unlike Beth who talked about one of Paula's missed putts, Paula Creamer knows how to speak well of a teammate. Of course Paula Creamer was quite likely the happiest player on the team to see Michelle Wie left off the squad. That way she could be the bright young star on the team.
09/12/05 @ 11:30
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
I shall not rest until the truth is out there.
09/12/05 @ 11:54
Comment from: arnie [Visitor]
Jim, you really have Michelle Wie fever bad don't you? You seem to put every discussion of women's golf in the context of how it relates to Michelle.

What Nancy Lopez proved is that she can pick and coach a winning golf team. You can speculate all you want, but she delivered. Funny, it seems that just about every discussion about Michelle Wie is just that, speculation.
09/12/05 @ 13:35
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Comment from: arnie [Visitor]
** Jim, you really have Michelle Wie fever bad don't you? You seem to put every discussion of women's golf in the context of how it relates to Michelle.**

Jim's just being a sorehead because Paula Namath is now the U.S. women's golf phenom, and not...

** What Nancy Lopez proved is that she can pick and coach a winning golf team. **

It's amusing to watch folks twist themselves into pretzels to try and explain away the victory. The New England Patriots have won three Super Bowls by a combined total of about 10 points. Two of the SF 49er's Super Bowl wins were by a combined total of nine points.

Does Jim want to take those away?

** Funny, it seems that just about every discussion about Michelle Wie is just that, speculation. **

That's all the Wie Warriors have. Speculation.

-George
09/12/05 @ 14:08
Comment from: George [Visitor]
[[James C]]

**
Of course Paula Creamer was quite likely the happiest player on the team to see Michelle Wie left off the squad.
**

Keep it up, Jim! You and the other Wie Warriors are always a reliable laugh in the morning. Or any time of day.


**
That way she could be the bright young star on the team.
**

You're just sore because Paula Namath is the toast of the women's golf town. Everyone is talking about her guaranteed victory. They're talking about how this 19-year-old demolished a great player to spark the U.S. final-day charge.

And since the talk is about Paula, Natalie and Christina, that means -- DARN -- They're NOT talking about you-know-who...

Paula, Natalie, and Christina are the faces of young women's golf in the wake of this weekend.

But not you-know-who...

Jim, learn it, love it, live it:
Paula-ni, Paula-di, Paula-ci.

-George
09/12/05 @ 14:31
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Jim your obsession with Michell Wie has clouded any semblance of objectivity. You need help with your problem of being a MW groupie. She was NOT ELIGIBLE for this competition. You should learn about the rules, history and customs of golf. Why do you feel the need to downgrade the achievements of others to build up MW. She does not need you to do that. She is young and will have her chance to show her skills in the years ahead. Give her a chance and stop annoying people with your silly statements.

Nancy Lopez did a great job and the Ryder Cup guys could learn from her. Paula told everyone her goals for this year early on and she was the happiest person because she achieved her goals. She did it with grace and class. If in the years ahead MW or someone else proves to be better I have no doubt Paula would compliment them. For 2005 Paula Creamer has achieved greatness that few people in any sport do at such a young age. Congratulations to her and the entire team. The fans of GOLF are the true winners. Thank you ladies!!!!!
09/12/05 @ 14:44
Comment from: Shana [Visitor]

George--

Don't be a hypocrite--
You're criticizing James C. for always talking about Michelle, when you're doing the same with Paula Creamer.

People are probably as annoyed with you going incessantly over Creamer as you are with others going incessantly about Michelle Wie.

09/12/05 @ 14:47
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
George

You are the one who called her Paula Namath, not me. If you will recall, that guaranteed victory was the one and only time Namath ever won a Super Bowl. This could very well be the one and only time Paula Creamer is the star of a Solheim Cup victory. There is another Joe whose last name might go better with Michelle. How does Michelle Montana sound?
09/12/05 @ 15:32
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Shana

George--

**
Don't be a hypocrite--
**
and another object of amusement joins the band of Wie Warriors!

**
You're criticizing James C. for always talking about Michelle, when you're doing the same with Paula Creamer.
**



Shana, You realize how silly you sound, right?

The difference is Paula Namath has actually accomplished something. She has won three tournaments, and she was instrumental -- along with Christina and Natalie -- in leading the U.S. to their triumph.

Michelle wasn't in Indiana this weekend, AFAIK.

**
People are probably as annoyed with you going incessantly over Creamer as you are with others going incessantly about Michelle Wie.
**

Nice try, but I'm not annoyed at you. Although I'll take your word for it on your collective state of mind and my getting under your skin.

I'm just laughing at you and your fellow Wie Warriors as you stew over the justly deserved applause directed at the three young gungslingers of American women's golf.

-George
09/12/05 @ 16:33
Comment from: George [Visitor]
James C...

** You are the one who called her Paula Namath, not me. **

Jim, you are a master of the obvious if nothing else.

** If you will recall, that guaranteed victory was the one and only time Namath ever won a Super Bowl. **

Again, the master of the obvious!

** This could very well be the one and only time Paula Creamer is the star of a Solheim Cup victory. **

Bitter Jimmy!

I realize those are your hopes and dreams. Otherwise everything you worship would lie in ruins!

**
There is another Joe whose last name might go better with Michelle. How does Michelle Montana sound?
**

Nice try, but didn't Joe Montana actually win something? Four somethings?

Until then, I'll just have to guess that you accidentally botched the spelling of Montana when you really meant to spell it Michelle L-E-A-F.

-George
09/12/05 @ 16:45
Comment from: golfwrx.com [Visitor]
Great article and better playing from the team. Congrads to Nancy and the girls!!!
09/12/05 @ 16:45
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George
*Shana, You realize how silly you sound, right?

The difference is Paula Namath has actually accomplished something. She has won three tournaments, and she was instrumental -- along with Christina and Natalie -- in leading the U.S. to their triumph.*

Well, one thing Michelle Wie accomplished was to beat Paula Creamer in nealy every tournament they have played together. Michelle has something like an 8-3 lead over Paula in tournaments they have been in together. Nice accomplishment!!!!
09/12/05 @ 18:47
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
Michelle LEAF? As a 15 year old Michelle Wie has already proven herself the best American born pro in the Majors. As a 15 year old, Michelle has already far surpassed everything Ryan Leaf ever accomplished in his entire career. Michelle Wie has already accomplished a great deal against the pros, including a 4-2-1 record against Paula Creamer in 7 tournaments.
09/12/05 @ 18:48
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Norman

***
Well, one thing Michelle Wie accomplished was to beat Paula Creamer in nealy every tournament they have played together.
***

So are you saying that Michelle came in first in those tournaments and Paula came in 2nd, or something along those lines?

** Michelle has something like an 8-3 lead over Paula in tournaments they have been in together. Nice accomplishment!!!! **

Umm, did Michelle win any of those tournaments?

-George
09/12/05 @ 19:11
Comment from: George [Visitor]
[James C]

James, again many thanks. You are just one of the numerous Wie Warriors who can be counted on to reliably be an object of laughter, as sure as the sun comes up every day!

So let's see what we've got here...

** Michelle LEAF? **

That was closer to the mark than Joe Montana, who actually won four world championships. Ryan was a nice boy with nice potential who didn't amount to much. That's where we're at at this point.

Paula is akin to Joe Namath in that she guaranteed a victory and then backed it up.

***
As a 15 year old Michelle Wie has already proven herself the best American born pro in the Majors.
***

I thought Michelle is still an amateur. Did she turn pro already? Or is this just more nonsense from you?

**
As a 15 year old, Michelle has already far surpassed everything Ryan Leaf ever accomplished in his entire career.
***
Don't you DARE insult Ryan by comparing him to Michelle!

Ryan started some professional games -- and WON them.

Did Michelle?

**
Michelle Wie has already accomplished a great deal against the pros, including a 4-2-1 record against Paula Creamer in 7 tournaments.
**

Could you name the ones in which Michelle came in first?

-George
09/12/05 @ 19:23
Comment from: John D [Visitor]
Well now Paula has accomplished 2 things that Wie has not. Participating and contrbuting to a Solheim victory AND winning on the LPGA.
09/12/05 @ 20:06
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]

George--you sure are bitchy!

09/12/05 @ 22:18
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]

George--its spelled gunslinger not
gungslinger...
09/12/05 @ 22:20
Comment from: Al [Visitor]

Give George a break-- he's in a bad mood because Paula Creamer took out a restraining order on him...

09/12/05 @ 22:23
Comment from: George [Visitor]
** Comment from: Chris [Visitor]

George--its spelled gunslinger not
gungslinger... **

Chris, when you're being silly enough to whine about a typo (rather than make any substantive point, which apparently you can't) at least come to the gunfight armed with more than a knife -- or at least armed with the skill to know when to use "its" or "it's."

-George
09/13/05 @ 00:50
Comment from: George [Visitor]
** Comment from: Al [Visitor]

Give George a break-- he's in a bad mood because Paula Creamer took out a restraining order on him... **

You know, Al, when you and the other Wie Warriors keep chanting that Michelle is "only 15," that starts to sound somewhat disturbing -- but not surprising.

-George

09/13/05 @ 00:57
Comment from: Jillian [Visitor]

You amuse me George since you can't make a point without insulting someone.

09/13/05 @ 05:40
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
A job well done, Captain Nancy. Just the right blend of everything wins the Cup for the U.S. All you Lopez-bashers ought to just put a sock in it and give her her just due. Picking & poking now looks like sour grapes. Try to show a little class for once in your lives. Fussing about the details and the margin of victory is just plain ignorant.
09/13/05 @ 12:37
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George**********
*So are you saying that Michelle came in first in those tournaments and Paula came in 2nd, or something along those lines?
Umm, did Michelle win any of those tournaments?
-George
***********

Who ever said Michelle came 1st and Paula 2nd. What I actually said was Michelle beat Paula and yes she did, her score was better. Learn to READ.

As regards Michelle winning any tournaments that is just ridiculous talk. She is 15, and plays in a few tournaments here and there. She has done remarkably well in the 7 LPGA events which she was permitted to play in.

Paula has won two events, but she gets to compete as much as she likes week after week.

The only thing you can objectively compare Paula and Michelle in, is the tournaments they both play in toghether because they are playing the same courses at the same time. In those events Michelle has a big lead over Paula. Sorry if that upsets you but that's just a fact.
09/13/05 @ 13:44
Comment from: Randy Hebert [Visitor]
I'm not getting into the Creamer/wie debate, both are great young talents. As far as nancy's job as captain i rate it so-so. Rate it bad for her two captains picks who were 0-4-2. Rate it good for realizing the rookies were the best chance this team had and giving them plenty of playing time. Also kudos to Julie, Meg, and Rosie for proving some veterans can still contribute.
09/13/05 @ 14:34
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
It's funny how people want to knock the Wendy Ward selection now, since she went 0-3-0. Nobody said a thing about that before the Solheim Cup because coming down the stretch she was playing better than all of the eligible wild card contenders. In fact she was playing better than a few who were automatic picks. Please stop with the 20-20 hindsight criticism, unless you had the nerve to make a statement beforehand.
09/13/05 @ 15:02
Comment from: George [Visitor]
----Norman----

** Who ever said Michelle came 1st and Paula 2nd. What I actually said was Michelle beat Paula and yes she did, her score was better. Learn to READ. **

Norman, you've really got to get a sense of humor.

Obviously, Michelle didn't come it first

That's 'cause Wie's never won anything!

Paula has. Three individual victories and 1 team victory as a pro in her rookie year.

BTW, check the other thread, Norman. Looks like you've got the comprehension issues.

** As regards Michelle winning any tournaments that is just ridiculous talk. **

Why?


* Paula has won two events *
Best check your facts.


but she gets to compete as much as she likes week after week.

** The only thing you can objectively compare Paula and Michelle in, is the tournaments they both play in toghether because they are playing the same courses at the same time. In those events Michelle has a big lead over Paula. Sorry if that upsets you but that's just a fact.**

It doesn't. Know why?

Look anywhere on the Web or the newspapers regarding the Solheim Cup. It's pretty clear that the emerging star of women's golf is Paula. She's getting her just accolades - for actual accomplishments - and that's great. Creamer, Kim, Hurst and Gulbis are all from the S.F. Bay Area or nearby, and I'm very happy for them.

We should celebrate her achievements. We should celebrate the great victory of the American women and hope the American men can learn from that.

The hosts on the relatively sane Golf Blog believe Creamer is already a historic figure in women's golf.

Look at the record. Do you disagree?

I know you can celebrate this great weekend, Norman, because I sense you are not naturally a sorehead like James C.

James is simply reeling from how well Paula & Co. did over the weekend, because they won without any help from another teenage golfer he drools over. The Solheim results upset James' expectations and hopes, so he's having trouble coping. That's sad, but it does happen sometimes to sports fans. But you don't have to be like the other Wie Warriors and sink into that mire.

I know you can do better, Norman. I invite all others to do the same.

-George
09/13/05 @ 15:13
Comment from: George [Visitor]
** Comment from: Jillian [Visitor]

You amuse me George since you can't make a point without insulting someone. **

Two for the price of one, Jillian!

I set people on the straight and narrow path of correct logic, and you can get a Don Rickles comedy routine thrown in for no extra charge!

-George
09/13/05 @ 15:15
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
George

Like a lot of other golf fans I believe Michelle Wie has had a better year than Paula Creamer. We have our arguments to support us. If Michelle had been eligible for Solheim Cup points, she would have earned more per tournament than Paula--and that is true whether you count each Major as one tournament or two(since there are double points awarded for Majors). Michelle also would have earned more Solheim Cup points in the 7 common tournaments even though those include Paula's Evian win. Indeed, Michelle would have won more points for those two European tournaments back to back than Paula did.

Try median finish. The one with as many finishes better and as many worse. Michelle's is a T3, Paula's is a T16. Paula has more wins, but also more inconsistency. Paula's first win was sandwiched between a missed cut and a T62. Michelle has nothing worse than a T23 on the LPGA all year.

Michelle is ahead of Paula 5-2 in those 7 tournamnents--and she leads in the combined score for those tournaments. But Paula did win one weak tournament with Anika and Michelle absent--and she did have one brilliant week in France. If you wish to give the nod for the best year to Paula based upon those two points,we can have a legitimate difference of opinion.

But there remains the fact that Paula is an adult pro, whuile Michelle is a 15 year old amateur. How do you explain the fact that your great adulat pro finished behind a 15 year old amateur in 5 of 7 tournaments tthis year.
09/13/05 @ 20:48
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
James C

Your continued obsession with MW continues to block any objectivity toward ladies golf. You and your "Wie cult" can keep your silly stats but where the REAL world of golf records are kept it will show that Paula Creamer has had a spectacular year. For 2005 MW will not even be a footnote in record books. As long as she persists in her unorthodox career path she will be a golfer with no home. Her attitude suggests that the Wie family does not respect the LPGA. Her pursuit of PGA status or some independent status wil result in the same thing that has happened to her Junior and Amateur career. It will have little to show other than people like you keeping some kind of scrap book of perceived achievment.

Others who chose the more traditional path have achievments to show in the record books. They did not have a superiority complex and won at various Junior levels before turning pro. This is where Tiger learned to win. The best recent ladies examples are Paula Creamer and Morgan Pressel. They learned to handle pressure and FINISH the tournament. There are many very good golfers who are on the PGA and LPGA tours who have not learned to FINISH but they have made money and can show top ten finishes but few people will remember them.

I wish Michell Wie had pursued this path because I think it would have helped her mental game get stronger. The funny part of this is that the big story next year will be Morgan Pressel along with the good rookies from this year. MW may still be wandering around looking for her place in the golf world. I hope I am wrong.

I still do not understand why you think you have to tear down other golfers to boost MW.

Joe
09/13/05 @ 22:23
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Joe,

That was a terrific post. I second every word. Michelle has incredible POTENTIAL. But right now, that's all it is. She clearly did not qualify for the Solheim Cup, but if she had, it would've been interesting to see what she would do in that pressure cooker. Based on her recent tendency to fold when the heat gets turned up, she could have received some mental scars that would never heal (like Thomas Bjorn, for example).

Having said that, I believe that she will overcome her failures to close a round or tournament at some point in the next few years and become one of the bright stars in golf.
09/14/05 @ 08:11
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
Shanks

I agree and look forward to Michelle having a great LPGA and golf career. Word is that Julie Inkster's caddie will work for Michelle Wie next year so turning pro should happen soon. Together with Paula, Morgan, Natalie and the others it should mean that the best years of women's golf are ahead. Real golf fans will be the winners. Let it all happen!!!
09/14/05 @ 08:34
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Joe & Shanks.

Excellent perspective on Paula Creamer's great accomplishements this season, the bright future of American women's golf thanks to tough young stars like Paula, Christina, Natalie & Christie, and the potential offered by Morgan and Michelle.

-George
09/14/05 @ 09:59
Comment from: alan metcalfe [Visitor]
Shanks
People were criticizing Wards selection before the cup.
Her performances leading up to the cup were 32 cut 48.
I don’t call that impressive.


Alan M
09/14/05 @ 13:12
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Alan,

Wendy Ward also WON one tournament and had three other top 5s this summer. She's currently the 4th-ranked American on the LPGA money list. What moron would criticize that?
09/14/05 @ 15:12
Comment from: alan metcalfe [Visitor]
WELL MORON
She averaged 27th position in the events she managed to qualify in.
She missed the cut 3 times. In my books that isn't very impressive.
She had a couple of lucky rounds mixed in.
If she is ranked 4th this highligts how weak the American golfers are.

Alan M
09/15/05 @ 13:04
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
JOE If Wie had been awarded Rolex Player of the year points this year, she would rank as the 3rd highest American and 6th over all based upon just 7 tournaments. The 1st 5 are Annika 282, Kerr 143, Creamer 122, Jang 118, and Ochoa 112. Wie would have 66. As a percentage of the points available for winning the tournaments in which she played Wie would rank 3rd with 20%, behind Annika 55.3%, Kerr 21.7%, and just ahead of Creamer with 17.7%.

In 2005, it has been Annika who has had the best year, but she does that a lot. 2005 has been nothing special for Annika. Up to now, Kerr also leads Creamer, but by a narrow margin and fairly or unfairly it will be Creamer who will be best remembered.

Now consider Wie. In 2003 at age 13 Wie finished 9th in the Kraft Nabisco, an LPGA Major. In 2004 at age 14 she missed the cut at the PGA Sony by a single stroke and finished 4th in the Kraft Nabisco.

In 2005, Wie has made continued progress. But 2005 has not as yet been a breakthrough year for Michelle Wie. Three 2nds and a 3rd in LPGA Tournaments are impressive, but not as exciting as wins.

With all the advantages of being a full time professional, Creamer has made greater progress than Wie this year. That is why up to now this would be remembered as Paula Creamer's year.

If we ignore age, this is Annika's year. If we take age into account, Wie's 2nds and 3rds for a 15 year old amateur are a lot more impressive than Paula's 2 wins as an 18/19 yr old professional. And if you want to argue that all Wie has shown is POTENTIAL, then we are back to Annika since compared to Annika that is all Paula has shown. What tips the scale in Paula's favor is expectations. Annika and Michelle have pretty much done what might have been expected. Maybe better, maybe worse. Paula has far exceeded expectations.

On achievements Paula has 2 wins to 62 for Annika. On POTENTIAL since Paula is performing about on a par with a 15 year old amateur she falls short there as well. Pick your poison, but Paula is definitely second place to someone.

Oh, and who will be remembered as the biggest story in women's golf for 2005. Sorry to disappoint Paula Creamer's fans, but the answer to that question lies entirely in Michelle Wie's hands. Michelle Wie will be the biggest story of the year if she chooses to turn professional. She will also be the biggest story if she wins the Samsung. If she dioes neither it will be either Paula or Annika.


09/15/05 @ 19:52
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
OK guys. Ever hear of the word RACISM or the word RACIST. I am white and I am from the Bay Area. I am far more impressed by what Michelle Wie HAS ACCOMPLISHED than by what Paula Creamer has accomplished, although Paula Creamer's accomplishments are impressive. If George's views are anything more than just RACISM, it should be possible to find a Korean American from Hawaii who shares them. Good luck with your search.
09/16/05 @ 01:03
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
To Alan M,

When someone wins a tournament and has two 3rd place finishes and a 4th place finish in the same year, that's more than a few lucky rounds. So before you make any more ignorant statements, have a look at everyone else's track record that played in the Solheim Cup. Only 3 of the Americans are ahead of her on the 2005 money list (Kerr, Creamer, Gulbis) and only ONE European (Sorenstam). Only 5 of the other 19 contestants in the Solheim Cup are not full-time LPGA members, which means that 14 of the Solheim Cup contestants have not done as well as Ward this year. And you wonder why she was selected? Puh-lease.



09/16/05 @ 13:05
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
Shanks

Truce? Can we both agree that both Wendy Ward and Michelle Wie have impressive accomplishments this year? Wie did not win any money as an amateur, but if we credit her with the same money the pros who tied with her earned in 6 tournaments, and then shortchange her for the LPGA Championship by crediting her with the money Paula Creamer and Laura Davies earned for 3T two strokes behind Wie--then Wie would stand at $686,411 about $80,000 ahead of Wendy Ward--but call it even. Wie had the LPGA 2nd, two other T2s and a T3, with a T3 median finish in 7 tournaments and a worst T23. Will you agree that Wie has shown real achievement this year and not just POTENTIAL but nothing in the way of accomplishments.

I wanted Wie on the team, but if that was not to be, when I saw that Ward had a win, and Dorthy Delasin had what I thought were 5 MCs but are actually 6--and these 6 include 3 in a row culminating at the Wendys--that perhaps it would make sense to skip Delasin at 11 and put Bowie and Ward on the team in the 12 and 13 positions.

Nancy made such a fuss about not giving a spot to an amateur, but to LPGA pros who earned the honor, it bothered me that she made picks that did not seem to be the pros who did the most to earn the right to be picks. It turned out that Ward fared worse than Daniel did--but I think the long hitting Bowie who only trailed Ward slightly on the money list would have been more successful than Daniel.

You seem upset that Ward has essentially been called No Win Ward, well I'm upset about the No Win label applied to Wie, or the potential but no achievement label which is just another way to say the same thing. I have said Nancy's picks had no wins in response to people who want to lecture Jennifer about her audacity at suggesting Wie as a choice--but I mean nothing against Ward. I still believe Wie should have been made a part of the team, or at least that an effort should have been made to try to do it. Or at least Nancy saying she would love to be able to consider some of the great American amateurs, instead of her snotty unfair to LPGA members who earned the right comments.
09/16/05 @ 14:51
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]

*****
OK guys. Ever hear of the word RACISM or the word RACIST. I am white and I am from the Bay Area. I am far more impressed by what Michelle Wie HAS ACCOMPLISHED than by what Paula Creamer has accomplished, although Paula Creamer's accomplishments are impressive. If George's views are anything more than just RACISM
[...]

*****
One always wonders whether to dignify moronic comments like yours, James, when you fall back on the racism charge.

But you did say you are from the Bay Area, which is where I'm from and where I currently live.

So I figure, since you're from the Bay Area, that you're just falling back on the old liberal standby that dominates my home region.

To wit, (or in your case, witless) when you lose an argument, you call somebody a racist, or a bigot, or anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-teenager, etc.

It seems as if you view things through the prism of Michelle Wie being Asian, or Paula Creamer being white. And you are the one who vomits the racism charge?

A few weeks ago I posted this:

-----
among the young phenoms, I first and foremost root for the Northern California ladies, Ms. Creamer (of Pleasanton and Mountain View), Ms. Gulbis (of Sacramento) and Ms. Christina Kim (of San Jose State), along with Dorothy Delasin and Pat Hurst.

That's the same logic for rooting for Tiger and Phil, who have strong California and in the case of Woods, strong Bay Area connections, via Stanford U.

Then come the out-of-state ladies, Ms. Pressel and Ms. Wie. Then toss in a tour veteran (Christie Kerr) who has won sporadically and is still hungry because she has yet to win a major.

And after that, I'll root for any American over anyone from another country, on both the PGA and LPGA circuits.
-----
So James, when Tiger Woods or Dorothy Delasin tee off, what color do YOU see?

James, I hope Michelle wins a tournament soon -- for your sake, and the sake of the taxpapers of California.

Because if Wie doesn't win, I fear, James, you'll wind up as a ward of California in some state mental or prison institution.

-George
09/16/05 @ 16:12
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
What makes you think you won any argument? "I fear James, you"ll wind up as a ward of California in some state mental or prison institution." Does that sound like someone who uses rational arguments.

I don't object to your rooting for Creamer--and I don't ask you to root for Wie 2nd. 3rd, or at all.

You say you root for Wie, but you also say in reference to Michelle Wie and Ryan Leaf earlier in this blog--"Don't you DARE insult Ryan by comparing him to Michelle. Ryan started some professional games and WON them." Does that sound like the kind of thing a fan of Michelle Wie would say?

I take back my RACIST comment. What you are is an extreme JINGOIST. You might very well root for Wie over a non-American, but right now you are obsessed with tearing down Wie in a most unsportsmanlike manner in the hopes that doing so will build up someone with a Bay Area connection.

You may be a JINGOISTIC UGLY AMERICAN fan of Michelle Wie, but you are not a true fan of WIE. NOR ARE YOU A TRUE FAN OF PAULA CREAMER--Unless you can find recent Creamer Quotes similar to your comment that you are offended on behalf of Ryan{leaf} with a comparison between him and Michelle. I, for one, am quite certain that Paula wants no part of such verbal attacks on Michelle--although I do believe, as I said, that she was happy Michelle was left off the Solheim Cup team.
09/16/05 @ 21:29
Comment from: George [Visitor]
--James Coulthard [Visitor]--

James, I'm going to type slowly so that even someone as thick as you can keep up and catch my drift. I'm going to try to see things the way you see them.

**I take back my RACIST comment.**

Wie knows, you should take it back. I have no idea where on Wie's green earth you got the idea I'm a racist. I assure you, I don't have a Wie-darned racist bone in my body. Surely, you have to know that the vast majority of people in our country believe that everyone is equal in Wie's eyes, that people believe in our Wie-given inalienable rights.

Wie darn it, James, I have no idea where you got the notion this whole debate was racist.

I know you believe that Wie is watching over all of us and would not appreciate your behavior.

**What you are is an extreme JINGOIST.**

There you go again, James. You prefer to call names instead of be logical.

Look, I love my country, the good old US of A. But I also respect the rights of people to prefer other countries.

For example, if you want to sing the U.K.'s "Wie Save the Queen", that's just fine. I only hope that you are not some Wie-less communist. Wie forbid!

In the same vein, I expect you to respect my right to sing "Wie Bless America."

**I do believe, as I said, that [Creamer] was happy Michelle was left off the Solheim Cup team.**

Can you read minds, James? Is that a Wie-given talent you have?

Ultimately, only Wie knows what is truly in your heart, James. You really need to pray to your Wie and ask forgiveness for your mindless comments, James.

-George
09/18/05 @ 13:46
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
GEORGE. From someone who can't even get a single kletter of the Word God correct, I take it as a compliment to be called mindless, since you obviously have no idea what a mind is.
09/18/05 @ 16:21
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George wrote
*******************
We should celebrate Paula's achievements. We should celebrate the great victory of the American women and hope the American men can learn from that.

I know you can celebrate this great weekend, Norman, because I sense you are not naturally a sorehead like James C.

James is simply reeling from how well Paula & Co. did over the weekend, because they won without any help from another teenage golfer he drools over. The Solheim results upset James' expectations and hopes, so he's having trouble coping. That's sad, but it does happen sometimes to sports fans. But you don't have to be like the other Wie Warriors and sink into that mire.
************************

Firstly, I am not an American, I am European so I won't be celebrating the American victory. I instead celebrate all the thrashings Europe give US in the ryder cup.

What I do agree with you in celebrating is great play from young talent. I do like Paula Creamer alot. I like her golf talent and I like the fact that she has looks to match WHY you may say. The simple fact is that if there are good looking girls battling out in golf, that will help improve ratings no end, and that will help womens golf.

For Wie, I see her as a really sweet kid, from interviews, I don't think she displays the cockyness that others sometimes display. I greatly admire Wie's ambition. While most girls are happy to play in there own tour, she does not look at herself as limited by this.
She wants to take on the very best of the best and that means the best men. Some people think this is insulting to the LPGA. I simply believe that this means she has great ambition. Whether she succeeds or fails in her ambitions I will greatly admire her determination and her ability to try something new. I was disappointed with Annika's reaction to her one try at the mens tour. All that stopped Annika that weekend was her putting. Being a woman does not make you a bad putter. There is no strength involved in putting.

Most people don't care about woman's golf. It is Michelle's attempts in mens tournaments that make people aware and interested in her. That will ultimately help womens golf hugely. I think it is already helping.
09/18/05 @ 18:30
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
James,
Regardless of what we think of the captain's wild card selections, we must acknowledge that Lopez - overall - did a terrific job in order to reverse that 7-point thrashing of 2 years ago. In my view the Ward selection was a slam dunk but the Daniel pick was debatable. However, given the result of the Solheim Cup, criticism at this point is ridiculous.

I presume that your insistence on including or trying to include Michelle Wie on the Solheim Cup team is because you lack a sense of history about the event. The Solheim Cup is modeled exactly like the Ryder Cup and is intended as a celebration of professional golf. The first matches were in 1927 and throughout their history there have been some incredibly talented amateurs who did not play - from Bobby Jones to Jack Nicklaus to Tiger Woods and many others in between. Just because someone shows a lot of promise does not mean you change the nature of an event. I personally think the world of Michelle Wie's game. If she matures enough emotionally to handle pressure - and I think she will sooner or later - she could well be the dominant player in the LPGA. But the fact is that she's an amateur still, and did not belong in the event.
09/19/05 @ 11:41
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks said:
******************
I personally think the world of Michelle Wie's game. If she matures enough emotionally to handle pressure - and I think she will sooner or later - she could well be the dominant player in the LPGA. But the fact is that she's an amateur still, and did not belong in the event.
***********************
I agree that she should be in the Solheim Cup simply because she is not professional. Simply as that.
However your comments about her not being mature enough emotionally have no basis. What are you talking about?
She's more mature as regards taking the pressure than most of that team. Her results prove that.
The only women's tournament she had a bad final day this year was the US Open. In every other tournament she finished strongly. Do you only remember one tournament or what? Retief Goosen has had some bad Sundays, but in the last couple of weeks he's won two tournaments. One bad day at the office does not make you a bad finisher.
In the US Womens Open she was in contention along with about 25 other players. It's not like she scuppered a 5 shot lead or something.
09/19/05 @ 17:15
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Until this year no amateur had played in the LPGA Championship, but that was changed to allow Wie to play. I heard McDonald's threatened to withdraw sponsership if that wasn't done, since Wie's presence greatly enhanced the interest in the event. I do not see that it hurt the LPGA Championship to allow her to play. Once professionals were allowed to play in the Olympics, I think it was time for professionals to stop excluding amateurs who were good enough to play in their events.

Mostly, however, my concern is not with how played on the Solheim Cup, but what I see as Wie-bashing often couched in the form of unwanted and unsolicited advice on how Wie should pursue her career. I will say more about this in my next post.


09/19/05 @ 21:00
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Basically it has been argued that Michelle Wie should have followed the path that Tiger Woods took learning to win against players her own age. But that is not really what young Tiger Woods was doing. Young Tiger Woods was competing against Jack Nicklaus. For Tiger, 3 US Amateurs meant he surpased Jack Nicklaus. For Michelle Wie or Morgan Pressel it would mean tying Juli Inkster. Juli Inkster is a fine golfer and a wonderful human being-but tying Juli Inkster is not exactly the same thing as surpasing Jack Nicklaus. Without the added spice of the competition against Jack, Tiger's amateur career would not have been the same--and it would not have been the same for Michelle.

Does playing against ones own age level prepare everyone to be like Tiger Woods? No. Except for Tiger with his special competition against Jack Nicklaus has it worked for anyone? No.

Paula Creamer has been given as an example that Michelle Wie should have followed. In 2003-204 Paula played in 10 LPGA Tournaments--not so different from the number that Michelle Wie played. It would have been very expensive for Michelle Wie living in Hawaii to follow the usual amateur route.

Paula Creamer has won twice as an LPGA rookie--but she has won like a rookie. She lets leads slip away from her in a way that the veteran Annika does not do. This past weekend, Paula gained 4 shots on Annika on the final day--but Annika still won. By contrast, Paula has twice lost leads on the final day.

It seems to me that there is a vast difference between Paula's rookie year and Tiger's. Paula knows how to win in the sense that she has twice had the experience of winning on the LPGA--but she does not know how to win in the sense that Tiger does. And that is what a lot of people seem to be pretending is true.

There are people who call Paula's first victory historic because she was the youngest to win a multi-round LPGA event. But these people should not claim that makes Paula better than Michelle as long as Michelle still has about two and a half years to break that record.
09/19/05 @ 22:07
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman ... Chill out, dude. You must not have watched Michelle finish her second round at John Deere. She played very solidly for about 30 holes to be in position to make the cut, then chopped it up on the last few holes. Don't get me wrong, I admire the girl, but in her biggest 2 tests (also started final round tied for the US Womens Open lead) she has come unglued. It's one thing to play well, or come from behind, but it's a whole new ballgame when you are in position to win. (See what happened to Jason Gore this past weekend - almost blew a 4 shot lead on the last few holes.) However, I believe Michelle will overcome this as she matures.
09/20/05 @ 08:25
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Jim ... the LPGA got a lot of criticism from within it's own ranks after that invitation. Michelle did not belong in that tournament either. The front office blew it on that one and should be ashamed of itself for cowtowing to sponsor pressure. Unfortunately, it shows how desparate the LPGA is for attention. Another dead giveaway is that they have a sponsors name associated with a supposed Major - McDonalds LPGA w/Coke, Weetabix British Open, Kraft Nabisco). Only the US Open maintains its dignity as the premier event in womens golf.

You'll never see an amateur in the PGA Championship. If they didn't invite Jones, Nicklaus & Woods - the greatest amateurs ever - I think it's safe to say no amateur will ever get in. And you certainly will never see the Buick Masters or Viagara PGA. (I know you see me smiling as I wrote that!)
09/20/05 @ 09:26
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
The John Deere.

Michelle did not come unglued. She hit a bad tee shot on 15, and tried too hard to save par. She wound up with a double bogey. Trying too hard to get a shot back on 16 she bogeyed the hole, but then played well on 17 and 18 with pars that could have been birdies on both holes. She made rookie-like mistakes which experience or even a good caddy could correct, which I consider to be very different from coming unglued.
Her length off the tee is exagerated. I think she may have been just slightly shorter than the shortest guy out there--definitely not in the middle of the pack. That puts a lot of pressure on the rest of her game, and that is why she wants to add 10 or 20 yards to her tee shot--so she doesn't have to be so nearly perfect in everything else to make a PGA cut. I doubt the added length would be that important on the LPGA where she is near the top.


As far as the Open is concerned, Michelle was not alone. Paula Creamer started the day only one shot back tied with Birdie Kim--and then Paula shot a 79. Paula also lost leads on the last day twice. The tournaments she won involved coming from one shot back at the Sybaree, and then the Evian where she had a 7 shot lead and no challengers on the final day. Neither Michelle or Paula are particularly strong finishing off a win or a PGA cut. But it doesn't seem a matter of great concern in either case--and it does not seem to provide the basis for an argument that one of the two had better preparation for winning than the other.
09/20/05 @ 13:39
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks .... for the John Deere, all Michelle had was a one shot cushion for the cut. This is not comfortable for anyone. If I remember correctly Iam Woosnam (a great player) did pretty much exactly the same thing as Michelle to miss the cut. Maybe he won't do that in future as he MATURES!!!!

As regards the LPGA, how can anyone possibly argue that she wasn't there. SHE FINISHED 2nd. Only behind Annika and she was 2 shots clear in 2nd place. If that doesn't prove that you belong there, then what does?

In the US Womens Open, as I and James both said, there were lots of girls in contention on the final day. Both Michelle and Paula were in contention and both hit bad final rounds that saw them finish down the field. One bad day, is not something that should discourage either of these great young talents.

About the LPGA Championship again, if Michelle wasn't there Annika would have won by even more!
09/20/05 @ 16:21
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks said:
Don't get me wrong, I admire the girl, but in her biggest 2 tests (also started final round tied for the US Womens Open lead) she has come unglued.
*****************************
Who is to say those were her two biggest tests. YOU?
Here is my defintion of her two biggest tests:
1. the LPGA, where lots of people including some OLD players, were saying that Michelle didn't belong there, because she was an amatuer. If she had a bad finish they would have gloated. Michelle was under huge pressure to perform.
RESULT: She performed magnificantly and finished 2nd well ahead of her detractors.
2. Mens Amatuers: Again people were saying she didn't belong there, even some players said this, despite the fact that she qualified just like everyone else. Once again she was under pressure to see if she could cut it against the best amatuer male players.
RESULT: She got out of stroke play, which surprised many. She then went on to beat 3 very good players, and got bet in the quarter final against the eventual winner. This was an excellent result and automatically qualifies her for next years championships.

Hmm, she has done well on her biggest tests, I think.
09/20/05 @ 16:26
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Jim & Norman are in denial - making excuses instead of acknowledging the truth - that Michelle has faults to work on. They point to others failures instead of seeing what's actually going on. What is it with these guys that they can't take legitimate criticism? Woosie is a horrible example as he is nears 50 and has long ago lost his nerve to compete at a high level. Creamer had a bad last round at the Open? Yes, and she is learning too, but she also WON three other tournaments. Nobody wins every time they get in contention.

I think Michelle is in the normal learning curve, figuring out how to handle her emotions when the pressure is greatest. If & when she does this, she will be a (perhaps THE) formidable force in womens golf. The golfing talent is obviously there.

Some are pointing to the LPGA where she finished 2nd as evidence that she can handle herself emotionally. Wrong. She started the day 7 shots behind the greatest female golfer on the planet. She had zero chance of winning so that pressure was not there. She was able to free-wheel and her immense talent shone through. But doing it with the victory in sight, especially head-to-head, that's a whole other ballgame. And please don't downplay the pressure of her trying to make the cut in a PGA event. It was a highly public endeavor with extra-long tv coverage. With her oft-stated goal of playing with the Big Boys, you don't think it meant the world to her to be the first woman since Babe Zaharias 60 years years ago to do it? She was playing very well, then folded under the pressure. It's a crying shame that some people won't accept the obvious truth.

Usually people get defensive when they have something to fear. So what fear is driving this don't-you-dare-criticize-Michelle hysteria that a few people seem to have?
09/21/05 @ 07:13
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks posts, are getting sadder by the day. They are so easy to find fault with.

First of all, yes Michelle has faults to iron out. Who hasn't? Tiger.... yes Tiger has faults, he really needs to sort out his driving, but he is still excellent. Knowing you, you probably think he's useless!

As regards Woosie, since you don't rate him, what about Goosen. I don't need to tell you about this great players odd bad final day, amongst many great victories.

About the John Deere, you say "She was playing very well, then folded under the pressure". That is more fantasy land stuff.
She had a ONE shot cushion for the cut. Just one shot. She made a mistake at one hole and tried to hard the next. She missed the cut by two. For the final two holes she nearly made birdies scraping the cup on both attempts from long putts.

If she had a 5 hole cushion with 4 holes to come, then you could say she cracked. One shot is not enough to be making those ridiculous statements. The John Deere was a great tournaments for her and she finished UNDER PAR.

As regards playing with the big boys, yes that is a goal, but she has also stated that at this point she has no chance of winning. She readily accepts this. What she is trying to do is make a cut. IT TOOK TIGER ABOUT 9 events to succeed in this goal.
HOW MANY? 9.
And you think Michelle is a failure because she hasn't done it in 3.

Wake up and smell the coffee. To be out there competing in a tournament and finishing ahead of many seasoned pros is great!!!!

She is 15 years old. Why do so many people think that she should be winning LPGA events and making cuts in PGA events.
To me, her achievements thus far are astounding.
09/21/05 @ 16:05
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, your obsession borders on psychotic. And I realze that if I say anything regarding that is not totally positive you will argue about it. But here goes, one last time:

Wie has incredible talent and is doing extremely well for someone her age. I have said this many times in previous posts) and have NEVER said she is a failure! But you refuse to acknowledge the fact that she plays poorly when the pressure is greatest. It's something she will have to grow through emotionally - and I have no reason to think she won't. But until she comes through in the clutch, don't tell me that she has no problem in this area. Yes, even the best players goof from time to time, but they also don't and WIN.

So what I'm really saying is this: Michelle Wie (right now, at 15 years old) has the talent to win any tournament on the LPGA Tour AND make a cut on one of the lesser PGA Tour events, BUT she is not emotionally equipped to do so yet.
09/22/05 @ 08:27
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
You really are deluding yourself.

She has not been in enough tournaments to decide what you have already decided in your head.

She has done well in practically every tournament she has played in. She has not played enough to consistant golf to expect a win at this stage.

She has not been in contention enough times to say she should have closed it out.

Jack Nicklaus won 18 major tournaments .... but he also finished 2nd 19 times. He also had a whole bunch of top 10's. These were all achievements. Many of the people here seem to think that those 19 second places were a result of mental inability. That is just rubbish. Even Jack couldn't win every time he was in contention.

How many times was Wie in contention to win a tournament? The US Womens Open. That is the only tournament I have heard referred to here. What people seem to forget is that she was in a 3-way tie for the lead. Also there was about 15 players within a couple of shots.
.... and people think she threw it away. I think people are getting confused thinking she had a five shot lead or something.

If Michelle Wie is near the lead people expect also, Paula Creamer was able to join Wie that day in falling down the leaderboard, but that has got no coverage on these boards.
Why? Because there isn't the same anti-creamer here.

IMPORTANT: this thing where you and others mention WIN in capital letters all the time is getting old.

Lets not forget she won the US womens amatuer at 13, 4 years earlier than Morgan Pressel, and do we see anyone dissing Morgal Pressel here?
09/22/05 @ 19:18
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks says:
***********
But you refuse to acknowledge the fact that she plays poorly when the pressure is greatest.
***********
Of course I refuse to acknowledge it because it is not true.
I've listed examples where she has come through the pressure brilliantly.

All you've mentioned is the US womens open, and I think you have well and truly lost the arguement on that one. Go on admit it.
09/22/05 @ 19:23
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
As I read through comments here, it seems clear to me that if Wie were to have qualified for the mens british open and finished 2nd to Tiger, many people would have started shouting LOSER.

Shanks, George, Chris Baldwin and others are living in cloud cookoo land.

If Wie, won a mens major, they would be shouting, she's useless, she never won a grandslam, she's crap unless she wins a grandslam.
09/22/05 @ 19:34
Comment from: alan [Visitor]

Shanks
You said "In my view the Ward selection was a slam dunk but the Daniel pick was debatable."
Not being American I am not familiar with this phrase Slam Dunk.
Am I correct in assuming that you thought her selection was the obvious one for Lopez to make?
Just checking
Alan
09/22/05 @ 21:05
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Alan - your interpretation of my usage of slam dunk is correct. It comes from basketball, meaning virtually impossible to miss or, very easy to make.

Norman & Rodney - get some help, now, please. Your refusal to look at the truth is sad. I said Michelle is great in many areas but still needs to learn how to handle her emotions (which EVERYONE including Nicklaus & Tiger needed to do at some point) to become a great champion. And somehow you think I mean "failure", "loser", etc. The reason I mention WIN is because that is validation that one has learned the lesson. You need to accept that she came apart at the US Open exactly the same way Jason Gore did at Pinehurst. Neither was able to handle the mounting pressure and totally came apart - they both shot in the 80's playing in the final pairing. You also need to accept that Michelle was playing BEAUTIFULLY for 32 holes at the John Deere, but knowing she was close to the cut line, started feeling the pressure (probably tried too hard) and all of a sudden plays the last 4 in 3 over. She has to learn how to deal with the emotions of those situations - and I expect that she will, maybe even soon. Every great player will tell you that they have had to learn these lessons to be able to win.

I'm thinking that you guys probably went to a school where they have that new age gym class in which the kids jump rope - without the rope.
09/23/05 @ 08:49
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I don't agree that she has a lesson to learn. You are looking at ONE tournament and jumping to conclusions. What you need to do is judge someone over a series of tournaments. Through this season Michelle has done brilliantly. She would have made a bucket load of cash, had she been professional.

She has done better than everyone except Annika in the tournaments she has played. That is not an argument that is simply a fact.

Shanks, you really need to pick your viewpoint and stick to it. Your latest "angle" seems to be that she can't handle the final group. Well in the 2004 Kraft Nabisco, she started in the final group, playing with Annika (intimidating) and still managed to finish 4th. That's dispelled that little fantasy of yours!!!!

Next you mention the John Deere, where she played the men. The mistake she made 4 holes from home is a mistake that she could just have easily have made on any other hole. It was just a matter of bad timing. You cannot legislate for it. The fact is she only had one hole to spare. Coming in to the final few holes before the cut, ANY player needs to have a cushion. Even Tiger missed a cut this year. It does not matter who you are, things can happen like that in golf. One shot simply is not enough of a cushion.

You've named 2 tournaments so far, and completely ignored every other tournament where she has been under extreme pressure many times but come through so well.

It really is sad how you basically look at only what you want to see and completely ignore all the other tournaments which show your arguement to be muck!!!!
09/23/05 @ 13:44
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Your proof of her emotional maturity is a tournament where she's in the final twosome - indicating she started the day in 2nd place - and goes backward? Good pick. But you did say that she needed a choking cushion for those last 4 holes at John Deere. Not exactly a full submission, but it's a start.

09/23/05 @ 15:18
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
haha. You really are funny.
.... in a saddo kind of way.

My point was, you said that in the position of a final grouping she would hit in the 80s.

What I actually said about a cushion was, everybody needs a cushion from the cut, if you go into the final few holes, on or near the cut line, all it takes is a bit of bad luck and you can be punished.
I don't know if you ever watched a game called golf, but in it sometimes, a player can hit a very bad shot, go way off to the left into a hole bunch of trees, bang off in a certain way and actually end up with a good lie and in not a bad position. Then other times someone can hit a shot slightly off and get punished in the cruelest of manners.

As I say, from your previous posts I'm not sure if you have watched or played any golf, but these things happen. That is why you need a cushion, because one day you can get lucky, or another you can get very lucky and get punished without barely making a mistake.

If you want proof of her emotional maturity, I'll use the example of the LPGA Championship where she finished 2nd. This was with the pressure of many of the professional players saying an amateur didn't belong there and shouldn't be allowed. Despite all that she beat everyone by two shots bar the greatest ever female player.

NOTE: She also soundly beat one of your idols there that week (Juli Inkster). Juli was insulting to Michelle, claiming she didn't belong there, but Michelle had the last laugh.
09/23/05 @ 17:48
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
Forget about Shanks, he just started an argument, he probably knows he is wrong at this stage, but he has dug himself a hole now and feels he needs to fight it out, because he doesn't want to lose face.

People can't decide how good she is anyway until she has a full season. Only then can someone judge.
09/23/05 @ 18:36
Comment from: Rodney [Visitor]
By the way, I think Shanks likes Michelle anyway. He will support her.
He's just got it into his head that she can't finish, for some reason, even though she's only allowed to play maybe 7 events or so a season. Everyone here should calm down, we need a full Michelle season to decide how good she is. Although she's done great in her part season this year. Brilliant in fact.
09/23/05 @ 18:38
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Rodney, how can you say Shanks likes Michelle. He might say he does, but then the next thing he starts calling her a choker. If you like someone you don't do that to them.
09/24/05 @ 12:02
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Guys, you really need to get a grip. I like Michelle a lot. She has amazing talent. She looks to be a great bet to become the best female golfer alive. But she not the finished product yet, primarily because of her youth and it's accompanying emotional immaturity (although greatness is not guaranteed). You are reading things into my comments that I am not saying.
09/28/05 @ 08:27
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
but you keep saying the same things!

"She is emotionally immature".
That is basically a direct insult.
.... and a comment made where all the facts point in the opposite direction .... but we've had that argument before.

I agree with you that she is not the finished product. I think her putting needs alot of improvement for one thing. However I think the mental side of her game is one of her strongest assets. She's proved time and time again that she can handle the pressure against the odds.
For instance when she plays a bad hole she seems to be able to regroup in a way that defies her youth.
09/28/05 @ 19:03
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
You see what I'm saying as an insult, but it's not. It's just a fact of life, a statement of truth. Do you really think that ANY 15-year-old doesn't need emotional maturity??? C'mon!

(And these are my last words on this tedious subject.)
09/29/05 @ 07:52
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Some others who are saying what I have been saying ....

Phil Mickelson says "It's just a matter of another couple of events before she makes a cut on a men's tour event. She should have made it at the John Deere (in July)."

Vijay Singh agrees. The No. 2-ranked player in the world rooted for Wie to make the cut in the John Deere Classic. "It would be a great feat. She's a good enough player," Singh says. "She has a lot of ability. She has to learn how to win."

USA Today 9/29/05
09/29/05 @ 08:19
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Glad you followed your last words on the subject, by another few words on the subject.

I don't know what putting in a few random quotes are for. These guys do so many press conferances, you could find quotes to back up any point of view.

As regards Phil's quote. He says she should have made the cut. Maybe he means she should have made it had it not been for a bad run of the ball.

As regards Vijay, all he says is she needs time. Vijay is well able to win run of the mill events but, his major wins (3) are a pretty poor return for his talent. He should have at least 7-8 with his talent and maybe even more. But I still think he's pretty strong mentally, even if others disagree.

Just one final important question for Shanks:
Before Phil won the US Master's did he lack emotional maturity?
09/29/05 @ 14:22
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
1. Those are not my words.
2. They mean exactly what they said.
3. No, Phil was a proven winner in 20 PGA Tour events before he won the '94 Masters. He was just plain wrong in the manner in which he chose to play. He freely admits that now.
09/29/05 @ 15:16
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Wow, what a long topic. So long to read all this stuff.

For my two-pence worth, I think in those last quotes:
I think Phil meant she should have made the cut, meaning that something went against her, like she got a bad rub of the green. ie it wasn't her fault.
As regards Vijay, he doesn't think she can win yet. I think that's probably Vijay's gender bias. Wasn't he giving out when Annika was let play at the Colonial.
He said he would be embarrassed to be bet by a woman, so he is no fan of women golfers. He will always take a dig at them.
09/29/05 @ 15:52

Comments are closed for this post.

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

Dates: June 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
Experience the thrill of competition at The K Club. Golfers will enjoy overnight accommodation with Full Irish Breakfast, a Four Course Evening Meal in The River Room Restaurant & one round of golf on one of our Championship Courses. The choice is yours.
Price range: $350