Easy to see why new pro Michelle Wie causes so much of a stir

What about Paula Creamer, she is the real LPGA Professional and she has proved it. Wie has not proven anything except she can hit it a long way. We have two guys in out club that can hit it longer the Tiger but they can't break par. Creamer deserves more hype than Wie because she is a champion.

There is only one reason that Wie is getting the monster hype .... because she sometimes plays against men. If she ever makes a cut against men - and I think she will eventually - the press will be insane.

Unfortunately, Creamer's stunning success as a 3-time champion has been overshadowed by the Wie hype machine.
Should Wie learn to win this year and duplicate Paula's success against the women - but at the age of 16 - then the hype will be justified. In my book, winning & playing well under pressure is the sign of true greatness. Remember Ty Tryon?

Paula Creamer has done extremely well and has gotton great credit for it.

She has got plenty of publicity for what she has done.
If you compare her to Annika she has got a fair amount of publicity.

With Michelle, she is different, that's why she gets more publicity
1. she hits the ball longer.
2. that and her extra strength help her play more competitively against the men. Obviously this gives more publicity (as Shanks said) and why wouldn't it. Isn't it a great achievement to be able to mix it with PGA tour professionals, many of whom have been out there for years .... and all this for a 15 yr old girl.
3. she is the best 15-16 year old golfer at the moment, including men and women. Paula is not near the best 19 year old. In fact she isn't even as good as Michelle.
4. she has the looks which means more dosh. That's just the way life is. Complain all you like but it won't change, look at Maria Sharapova who has made 20 million or so in endorsements in the last year.
5. she has proven a consistant performer and finished very near the top in nearly all her LPGA starts this season.

Shanks, who is Ty Tryon?
I've never heard of him. Guessing he's an American hero never heard of anywhere else.

Norman...

* Paula is not near the best 19 year old.*

So you've got from Wie Warrior fanaticism to being outright delusional.

So Norm, a few questions:

which other 19-year-old female golfers are better than Paula Creamer this year?

And which one of them won three tournaments this season?

Can you cite chapter and verse on that? Otherwise, let's just chalk it up to yet another dumb comment from you. And that's a crowded field.

* In fact she isn't even as good as Michelle. *

Norm, Norm, Norm. Your hatred of Paula is starting to spew forth yet again.

And here I thought Coulthard was the only sorehead who was in a snit over Paula's great year so far. Looks like he's got company.

I hope you didn't throw too many things at your TV during the Solheim Cup: Paula guaranteed a win, backed it up by being the best player on the team, and then led the team on Sunday with her obliteration of her singles opponent.

A grim weekend indeed for you and Coulthard. And if Michelle doesn't win immediatly -- well, let's just say I pity your neighbors and/or cohabitors.

The reason that Michelle Wie gets much more attention than Paula Creamer even though Creamer has the LPGA wins is that Creamer isn't very unique.

I think that was the genesis of all this"I love PINK", "I'm the Pink Panther", "I always wear Pink" Act. It was something to make her unique and get attention.

Before that you had Christie Kerr, Paula Creamer, and Natalie Gulbis who all seemed like interchangable blonde FEMBOT clones of each other. There was nothing unique about them, and they always go along the conformist party line.

Someone like Michelle comes along and she gets attention because there are just many things that are unique about her.

The obvious is her looks she's a 6 footer and there aren't other golfers of her height. She's probably the highest profile female Asian American golfer and that attracts attention.
She's unique to be competing in LPGA and PGA events at such a young age. I think she was 12 when she was already competitive with pros.

To be 15 and have 3 Top 3 finishes on the LPGA tour -2 of which were majors is extremely impressive. Even Phil Mickelson said it was amazing for a person of Michelle's age to come so close to making a PGA cut.

What other fifteen year old has accomplished what Michelle Wie has ?
NONE-not even when Creamer, and Annika were 15.

Its not knocking Creamer- people just pay attention to what is different and Michelle is different.

Jeff,

Ty Tryon is a teenage male who turned pro coming out of high school and earned his PGA Tour card at qualifying school for the 2003 season. Was the next big thing and VERY talented. Well, he made 4 of 21 cuts, lost his card and hasn't been heard from since.

Justin Rose is better-known example of what could happen. Finished 4th in the Open Championship at 17 years old. Turned pro coming out of high school and his game fell apart. Much to his credit, he went to one of the minor league tours, got his game together, made it on the European Tour and is now playing the PGA tour. While he has yet to win on the PGA Tour or make a Ryder Cup side, he steadily improves.

Who knows what will happen in this crazy game? Who would've guessed that Ian-Baker Finch would totally lose his game in the prime of his career, AFTER winning onthe PGA Tour and the Open Championship at Royal Birkdale.

My point in mentioning all this that nothing is guaranteed just because somebody has a period of good play.

I do not understand how Michelle Wie "declared" she is turning Pro, while Morgan Pressel was denied. Don't they have to go Qualifying School to officially turn "professional"?

Mike, Morgan Pressel can turn pro in the morning, just like Michelle is she likes.

You are getting confused between going professional and joining the LPGA tour.

You don't need to go to qualifying school to turn professional. You need to go to qualifying school to join the LPGA.

Morgan was denied entry to the LPGA tour until she is 18. She has to go to qualifying school, and if she qualifies she can then join the LPGA as soon as she turns 18.

Michelle, despite going professional has not applied to join the LPGA. By the way, you need to be 18 to join, but you can petition to join earlier and they will make a judgement.

Michelle says she has no plans at this time to petition to join the LPGA tour. She will simply take sponsors exemptions to some events. She can accept a maximum of 6 exemptions per year, as well as playing in the US Womens Open and the Womens British Open.

George said:
***********************
* Paula is not near the best 19 year old.*

So you've got from Wie Warrior fanaticism to being outright delusional.

So Norm, a few questions:

which other 19-year-old female golfers are better than Paula Creamer this year?
**************************

George, you obviously didn't read my comment properly.
I said Michelle was the best 15 year old male or female.
I then said Paula was not the best 19 year old. That means male or female.

I do consider Paula to be the best 19 year old woman at this moment. However, she is not the best "19 and younger" woman.

As regards, detesting Paula. I quite like her. I like her looks, I like her style and I like the way she plays golf. I took great joy in watching her playing well at the Solheim Cup. I was delighted to see her playing so well there. I have never said anything bad about Creamer.

All I have said is that Wie is better than Creamer. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it. Stats prove it. Wie has a better record in tournaments they have played together and Wie has the far better major performances, despite the fact that Creamers extra experience should have her better able to handle major pressure.

Had Wie won just once in those 7 tournaments you might have a decent argument .... but by your own admission she was near the lead in every event, yet never came through. Creamer did 3 times, so she had the better year. Have you ever seen Player of the Year voting? If you took Annika out of the mix, guess who would get the most votes? That's right, it would be Creamer. And certainly not a player with no wins (but really good finishes!!). Puh-lease.

Why do you keep bringing Michelle into the mix for Player of the Year. She has played 7 tournaments, even if she won all 7, she isn't a memebr of the LPGA anyway and they would be voting the the LPGA player of the year I assume so that arguement is useless.

The only arguement is of who has done better. The only marker to be judged by is how they did in the tournaments they both played in, and Michelle wins hands down.

Suppose you put a competitition between Tiger and Vijay.
Let Tiger play 20 tournaments and let Vijay play 7. Then set the criteria for best player as "who has the most wins". Do you not think this would be just a little bit unfair to Vijay? Please think about this and realise comparing win counts is a joke.

I don't know why so many people knocking Michelle for not winning tournaments even though she had had what 8 top 10 finishes in LPGA tournaments so far, 4 in majors. Tiger Woods didn't win a tournament on the PGA until he's 20. He didn't finish nearly as high or performed as well as Michelle did in pro tournaments before that. His highest finish in pro majors before then was 22. Michelle is 15. She has 5 years to best Tiger's record in winning tournaments.

As for Paula Creamer, she seems to be a nice gal and all. But she has 3 to 4 years more of experiences than Michelle. Wie will best Creamer's record by the time she turns 19. I'll bet money on it.

Chad is right that Michelle stands out. She stands out not only because of her height and looks. She stands out because of the way she plays and her athleticism. She's learning various shots from men when she's playing in the PGA tournaments. I've heard many times golf commentators marvel at the shots she made and how no other women golfers had that shot. In other words, she "doesn't play like a girl".

Of course, she has charisma galore. I like the way she handled questions from the press. She never acted defensively even facing tough questions. She also avoided all opportunities offered by the press to complain about her competitors or fight back at criticism from other golfers. That's impressive for a 15-year-old. Morgan Pressel should take a lesson. Being competitive is one thing. Being catty is quite another.

I also like the fact that she aims high and is fearless of failures. It's reviting drama to see her pursue her stated dream of playing in the Masters. So what if she never gets there? No other women has. But the improbability of it adds to the drama.

I never sat down to watch a PGA tournament until Tiger arrived. And I'll watch an LPGA event because of Michelle Wie. No other golfers has that kind of draw. Not even Annika.

First if we take Annika out of the mix, let us remember that Michelle would have won the LPGA Championship. Why is it aceptable for Paula's fans to take Annika out jof the mix, but not acceptable for Wie's fans to do the same? Actaully Paula would not be first even if Anniika were out of the mix--the latest list has Cristie Kerr in 2nd and Paula in 3rd.

Player of the year points are awarded top 10 finishes: 30 for 1st, 12 for 2nd, 9 for 3rd, and then 7,6,5,4,3,2,1. The points are doubled for Majors. In the 7 tournaments Michelle played, she would have earned 66 points, compared to the 48 points Paula earned. Michelle's 66 would put her in 8th place after just 8 events. If we look at pro rated points(dividing by the total available in the tournaments played, then Michelle would be at 20% just behind Cristie Kerr and ahead of Paula. The order of these 3 could change after the Samsung--but, of course, Annika will still be number one.

I read all of these blogs because it's interesting how virulent the commentary is on both sides. I like Creamer, respect Pressel's talent, but am absolutely intrigued and excited about following Wie's journey. I coincidentally was able to see Creamer and Wie first hand in Hawaii at the SBS Open, which was the first LPGA tournament this year. In the short time I was able to watch that tournament, Creamer looked to be a much more polished player--making fewer mistakes than Wie. I came away thinking that Michelle is a work in progress, particularly in her judgment, putting and distance control with irons. But it was more exciting to watch Michelle swing than any other woman golfer in the field. Michelle played with Cartwright (I believe) who is at least 6 feet also and with a very athletic build--almost like a swimmer. But Michelle easily hit it past Cartwright with an almost effortless, limber swing. Most important, Michelle has a lot of room for improvement, and she finished second at that tournament (ahead of Creamer). There's enough room in golf for Creamer, Wie and Pressel, but there's no question the bucks will go to Wie unless she is a flop. That's life. Besides, do any of us know what Creamer did as a 15-year old? I believe Annika admits that she was nowhere near Michelle's game at a similar age.

It sounds like Michelle Wie plays badly whenever she plays on the LPGA, leaving strokes all over the course, and then usually winds up in 2nd or 3rd place. By contrast, it sounds like she plays very well in PGA events, and winds up missing the cut.
This suggests that the PGA is a whole lot more difficult than the LPGA, and that a lot of Michelle Wie's focus in training must be directed at the PGA. Just consider, averaging 70 at last year's Sony meant she missed the cut, but three 70s at this years SBS Open meant she finished 2nd two strokes out of the lead. But the Sony Open course had to be a lot more challenging than the SBS course.

Jim Coulthard said:
************************
Player of the year points are awarded top 10 finishes: 30 for 1st, 12 for 2nd, 9 for 3rd, and then 7,6,5,4,3,2,1. The points are doubled for Majors. In the 7 tournaments Michelle played, she would have earned 66 points, compared to the 48 points Paula earned.
************************

I think that says it all.
If anyone has any doubts about Wie, those stats should settle the argument once and for all.

Punahou Graduate said:
*******************
I coincidentally was able to see Creamer and Wie first hand in Hawaii at the SBS Open, which was the first LPGA tournament this year. In the short time I was able to watch that tournament, Creamer looked to be a much more polished player--making fewer mistakes than Wie.
*******************

and as you pointed out later in your comment, Michelle finished in 2nd, ahead of Creamer.

What's going to happen, as Michelle improves her putting and distance control? As a work in progress, she is already doing better than Creamer in the events they play together. By the time she is the complete player, which is years away, she should be the best female player in the world, unless others find a way to raise there games. Also PGA cuts look a great possibility.

I'm so looking forward to the Samsung. Despite the fact, that if Michelle doesn't win, lots of people will come on here rubbishing her, even though nobody will rubbish any of the other players who don't win.

Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
** First if we take Annika out of the mix, let us remember that Michelle would have won the LPGA Championship. **

I thought you had twisted yourself into a pretzel before, but this takes the cake. It's not enough for you to try to make all these projections about how well Michelle would play if this happened, or that happened.

But now you just want to alter history?

Well, while we're at it, why don't we just remove Lorena Ochoa and Christie Kerr? I guess that means Paula won FIVE tournaments this year! She's better than any of us thought she was! Also, we need to take away Birdie Kim. Let's go out and toast the youngest U.S. Open winner, Morgan Pressel!

Jim, your childish what-if games were entertaining the first or second time.

Now they're just, well, childish.

I've got an idea. Why don't we just see who actually wins a scheduled tournament?

Norman, Jim and the rest of the Wie Warriors. If Michelle is as far ahead of the rest of the group as you say -- and Jim, you predict Michelle will win two or three majors in 2006 and is already better than Annika and Paula -- Wie's first LPGA win, according to you, should be a matter of months, not years.

You have to admit that you actually have no way of really and truly knowing when that first win will come.

So why don't you relax and just let things play out? Or are you and the others so obsessed that you are quite impatient for that first win? Would it somehow validate your raison d'etre?

And it's entirely reasonable to make a big deal about winning that first tournament. And it's entirely reasonable to praise somebody who has won multiple pro events, including multiple LPGA events, as a 19-year-old rookie.

Because isn't that why they keep score in pro sports? To see who WON?

-George

Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Shanks, who is Ty Tryon?
I've never heard of him. Guessing he's an American hero never heard of anywhere else.

Umm, actually Tryon has been heard of in a lot of places (although maybe not really heard FROM lately)

http://neoflux.com/celeblogs/tytryon/

-George

George said:
***********************
Norman, Jim and the rest of the Wie Warriors. If Michelle is as far ahead of the rest of the group as you say -- and Jim, you predict Michelle will win two or three majors in 2006 and is already better than Annika and Paula -- Wie's first LPGA win, according to you, should be a matter of months, not years.
**********************

You should take a lesson out of your own book and not misquote people.
I never said Michelle was better than Annika. She is NOT in my opinion.

Also, if Annika plays at her best in the majors next season she will win all of them. Both Paula and Michelle would need to improve there current games to challenge her.

I don't think Annika will be at her best in all majors though, so the door will be open for others.
I think Michelle has a decent chance of winning next season, but I don't think it is necessarily that likely, given that she will play such few tournaments again.

If she has the consistant high finishes of this year I will be more than happy. 6 top 15 finishes from 7 starts is a phenomenal achievement in my opinion. Well done phenom.

Morgan Pressel must have pulled all her hair out by now with all the attention Michelle is getting lately.

I hope Michelle Wie does well at the Samsung b/c all the Wie Haters will be making a big deal about it.

(The other "Most Hyped One"- Tiger Woods didn't win until his fifth tournament after turning pro)

The fact is that winning does matter and until Michelle wins the Wie haters have the Wie backers one-up (ofcourse once she wins it will be, "how long til she wins again"?? and then how long til she wins a major and then two and so on). So those who back Wie have no answer for this until girl puts up.

But those who decide to extend their dislike for Wie by putting her below Creamer and Pressel miss the point. Michelle Wie routinely beats them when they tee it up together (5-2 this year with Creamer, better stroke average, more birdies, more average money per event etc.).

If you had a friend named Joe and he one every ping pong tournament in town, but when you played him you beat him 70% of the time (5/7) would you think Joe's titles made him better. Of course not!! You would know you were better than Joe and would tell everyone you know how you "own" him. That is Michelle and Paula this year.

Maybe the Wie-haters are right, if Michelle played the 21 tournaments Paula has she might not have any wins (because she hasn't learned how to win) but then they should also concede that she would have beaten Paula 15/21 because that's what the stats say. Hell a hammer only beats a nail al ittle more than 70% of the time.

And oh-- for those of you who say.. Paula would have done better... then I say Michelle would have won 5 tournaments, and my bit of lunacy not backed up by stats is just as reasonable as yours. If its lunacy to project a win for the winless it is also folly to expect someone who gets beat 70% of the time to all of a sudden turn that around (by the way if you add 2004...the 70% gets worse).

Well said Metoo, I particulaly agree with you when you say they will always make excuses.
For example, if she were to win the Samsung, they would say, well it was a once off, just a fluke, and Paula has 2 wins, so she is still better.
Then, as you said, they would say she was no good without a major win, because that is the only real pressure. If she won multiple majors, they would move to the mens and say she should win there. It must be awful to be so bitter.

Norman, once Wie demonstrates the ability to win, especially if it is tight going down the stretch, there will be no reason to withhold those predictions of Tiger-like domination of the women's game. But she does have to PROVE that she can handle her nerves because it's obvious to all (except the real jerks) that she's already got the talent.

I too believe MIchelle has to prove she can win (and hope she will do it this week). Winning is a rite of passage and she needs to get over the hump. What I object to is the placement of Paula Creamer higher than Wie because she has wins. She has achieved her rite of passage but still gets drummed regularly by Wie. No one who consistently finishes below another Golfer can be considered better.

Well, I'm glad Shanks has stated that once she wins that will be enough .... although I think I just detect a little wriggle room in your statement, "tight down the stretch", so what happens if she wins exactly like Paula did at the Evian .... will that mean she still has to prove herself?

Norman, What do you make of Morgan Pressel's comments in Fortune magazine?

You didn't ask me, but I will give you my two cents worth.

Pressel views herself as Michelle's equal or better (she beat her in head to head a few years ago, she won a bushel of AJGA tourneys--Michelle didn't play them, She stood up to the pressure of Sunday at the US Women's open, she won the US women's am). She believes her game is as good or better and can't fathom the disporportionate attention Michelle gets (even if Michelle is better than me.. she isn't THAT much better). Throw $10 million in endorsements in, when big time endorsement money is hard to come by (Hey I'm a cute blonde who won the AM and finished runner up at the OPEN for GOD's SAKE-- WHY not me)---

Why not her.. and why not Annika or Paula, and why not David Toms or more accomplished male players for that matter????

None of them have what she has; She is a 16 year old, asian girl, who is 6'1, with model looks, and just happens to hit the ball like a guy. Her future seems unlimited

16 makes her a phenom, Asian opens the door up to marketing to over a billion people who'd finally like a superstar who shares their heritage, the model looks open her up to marketing for all of us who enjoy beauty (including a large group of pervs), and the way she hits the ball...amazing. The last time a player came around with this combination he did all right for Nike so why not spin the dial again?

No one, including her bettors..Annika and the guys (except Tiger and MAYBE Phil) have the combination. Its worth millions and Morgan for all her game, her cocksure attitude which will both attract and repel doesn't have it (yet??/ever??).

The upside is if Annika and Michelle (and Natalie Gulbis)keep bringing attention to the LPGA, there will be MORE money for the Morgan's, the Paula's and the rest of the talented, marketable ladies.

Complaining about Michelle is like complaining about Arnie in the late fifties and sixties. Or Tiger in the present... its STUPID, because they are the rising tide that lifts all boats. And those that choose to try to bring her down, just don't get it.

Annika has won 65 tournaments and doesn't command $10 million per. So Morgan, it obviously isn't about winning!

Being from Hawaii-people underestimate how difficult it is for Michelle and family to travel to the mainland and compete. This is why I don't have a problem with Michelle not competing in the amateurs because why spend all that time and money to fly over and compete in some meaningless amateur tournament where she'll probably beat the competition senseless. The jet lag, and the time changes is pretty brutal as well.
Its better to seek the toughest competition with the pros, and actually get the best learning experience she can get.

Pressel has been jealous of Michelle Wie for the past couple of years, its getting old - she can't even get any publicity for herself unless she bashes someone else.

Just because you are successful in the amateur ranks doesn't mean you will be successful in the pros. Tiger Woods is an exception not the rule.
Most great amateurs go on to have mediocre amateur careers -Just ask Kelli Kuehne who only has 1 tournament win and she's now 29.
Can you name another big time golfer today with multiple majors that were dominant amateurs besides Tiger?
I didn't think so....

Metoo needs to understand that by all accounts of those who have ever mattered in this game, a player who has 2 LPGA Tour wins in one year - & another win overseas - has had A BETTER YEAR than someone who hasn't won anything. Talk all you want about high finishes but winning is the barometer. Michelle Wie had a very good performance in 2005 but Creamer did better. Period.

Norman, if Michelle Wie were to win in a blowout, of course it counts. Duh! However, she also needs to prove (to herself, mainly) that she can handle her nerves when it's close. So far, she has not done that.

Shanks you are missing the point. The issue you all keep making a point of is not that Paula Creamer had a "BETTER YEAR" or a "better tournament" its extrapolating that to say she is BETTER than Michelle Wie, and the facts do not support this.

Paula played 21 tournaments on the LPGA and Michelle 7. In the 7 tournaments they share in common Michelle was better in nearly every way. She beat Paula in 70% of those tourneys. She "earned" more money per tourney, made more birdies, had a lower scoring average, AND EARNED NEARLY 50% MORE PLAYER OF THE YEAR POINTS. In fact, Accoding to Golfweek over the last 12 months Michelle is one of two players with a winning record against the top 10 (a measure of who beats who at common tournaments). Her record is 47-23-2. Paula's?? 67-68-1. (the other player is Annika, ofcourse, an amazing 117-21-6. So Michelle routinely drums the best players and Paula about breaks even.

Shanks, a quick question... who would you bet on, the player who beats the top ten nearly 70% of the time or the one who beats them less than 50% (including her wins)???

Additionaly, in Paula Creamer's 21 events she has missed a cut and been out of the top 15 eleven times (more than half the time). In Michelle's 7 events she has finished out of the top 15 only once.

The fact that Paula was able to win is important (and the Evian Masters is a big tournament and it will be important that Michelle learn to do the same.

Let me make a point about your "better year" nonsense. It is also considered, by all accounts of those who have ever mattered in the gam, a "better year" to win a major than to have 2 wins. So both Jeong Jang and Birdie Kim had "better years" than Paula Creamer. While the fact that winning Women's Open (the biggest prize in women's golf, by all accounts of those who have ever mattered in the game) vaulted Birdie Kim to her "better year" she has been nearly non-existent elsewhere. This shows the folly of "better years". Although most players would rather win the open than have 2 wins like Paula... does anyone think Birdie is better?? Or Jeong Jang?? In 2004 7 men (Singh, Mickelson, Els, Garcia, Cink, Adam Scott, and Todd Hamilton) men had more wins than Tiger. They had "better years". Does anyone think that any of them (with the possible exception of Vijay) is even in the same breath as Tiger?

We have not been comparing "years" in these blogs. Years only matter when you string them together, and these players are to new to have done much of that. We have been comparing players. Because Michelle is only allowed to play 7 events, we look at their respective finishes head to head. They played the same field, on the same course, under the same conditions. In those events Michelle has been markedly superior to Paula. Why would any one look to events not played in common when they played a third of the season in the same events? In any other sport, we would look to head to head to establish superiority. In any other sport we want them to "settle it on the field". On the field, Michelle has been better.

I feel bad picking on Paula. I really like her, she is a breath of fresh air on that tour. She is having one of the great rookie seasons, she competes, and she is fairly hot. My problem is that she is the tool (along with Pressel) people use to try to "put Michelle in her place". And I think for all her qualities and abilities isn't better.

Michelle must learn to win, no doubt. Dominating fields but not winning does not a hall of fame career. But wins or not, if she continues dominating Paula at a 70% rate we will always know who's better between these two....they settled it on the field.

THREE wins (TWO on LPGA Tour) versus NONE ... who are you trying to kid? You must think we are all little children.

Do you think that ANYBODY has EVER gotten ANY votes for player of the year in a year that they did not win a single tournament?

Of course not. Even you can't argue that. Creamer had the better year. Case closed.

Metoo, Thanks for your view on the Morgan Pressel's comments. I was thrown off by Morgan's comments, it just seemed so bitter.

Shanks- do you watch women's golf? They don't vote for player of the year. Points are awarded based upon finishes (doubled for majors). In the events they have in common Michelle Wie has EARNED (if eligible) 50% more points than Paula in those events (which include one of Paula's win).

Wie's quartefinal at the men's publinx, win or no, is more impressive then Creamer's japanese win you keep touting. There were'nt 5 players ranked in the top 50 in that tournament and she is ranked 2nd. The only thing that is impressive is that she proved she could wi as a prohibitive favorite. That was chasing appearence money and it is not worth memtioning.

You keep on touting the "better year"... if a always beats b, a is better than b.... Case Closed.

I stand corrected on the POY award. I was mistakenly talking about the mens game and how the best players on the planet decide who has the best year. My apologies.

Wie's PERFORMANCE in the Mens Publinks was impressive, but your rating of it exceeeding a win against a professional field is VERY subjective. There is a HUGE difference between playing well and winning, but on this subject you obviously have no idea what myself and others are talking about. It is my hope that by going through this with Wie, yourself and the other Wie Warriors will learn from her mouth what it is we're saying. Her very own quote in the 10/13 USA Today was that she is "going to try to focus on WINNING." You should pay attention to her press conference AFTER her first win.

I agree that she must learn to win.

I think you vastly overrate that Japanese tournament and its "professional" field. That tournament had only 4 players ranked in the top 50 and they all finished in the top 5. I simply do not rank a win where only 4 players have a chance of beating you, very highly.

Remember in Women's golf players outside the top 50 seldom win (The US open lately has been a notable exception with Lunke and Kim) but this year almost no wins outside the top 50.

Its a win but not a big one. Kind of like winning the 4 man grand slam of golf.

Agreed, it's a lesser win than a regular LPGA Tour event. That's why I always mention it separately. But it is a WIN. When Wie goes on her globetrotting schedule and should she win one of those, I'm sure you will point out how she handled herself in doing so.

All of the big dogs take appearance fees to play overseas. Definitely not a guaranteed win. Do you think Vijay, Els, Tiger, Goosen, etc win every one of those they play in, when they are the favorite? No, they don't. And all of them are PROUD to say how many worldwide wins they have. But Creamer did perform and win. So don't be so quick to dismiss the accomplishment.

I think Metoo explained it beautifully when saying that Birdie Kim won a major, and ALL GOLFERS would rather win one major, than two other tournaments.

Shanks didn't answer Metoo's question. Did Birdie Kim have a better year than Paula Creamer?

The other question naming 7 players who won more 2004 tournaments than Tiger "Singh, Mickelson, Els, Garcia, Cink, Adam Scott, and Todd Hamilton".
Did all of these players have a better year than Tiger?
Shanks also ignored this question, because it proves that his reasoning is flawed. You can't describe a year simply by number of wins and ignore all other facts.

When Wie evntually wins her obligatory appearence fee fest overseas it will have exactly the same significance of Paula's. I will applaud her winning when she was a prohibitive favorite, I will marvel at how she handles the 12-15 time zone change, but in the end I will be fairly dismissive of the competition...exactly the same reaction I have to Paula. An accomplishment?? Yes, but not a big one.

On the men.. Check Tiger, Ernie, Vijay and Retief's record on the appearence gravy train.... they are 100% since last year and all hae played and all have won.

I don't give Tiger any credit for winning the Dunlop/Phoenix in Japan last year (although it did garner him a few world ranking points)...so I am pretty consistent on this. Check their records.. They almost always win

Metoo, you're saying that Creamer - by winning the Japanese tourney - is on a par with Tiger, Vijay, Els, etc? Ok, I won't argue with your reasoning there.

Norman, all female players would rather win the US Open than ANY other tournament. But just because Birdie Kim won it doesn't mean she had a better year than all the other tournament winners (but at least you're now correct in ONLY assessing the winners). Because Kim basically caught lightning in a bottle, that was almost her only highlight of an otherwise forgettable season. So, no, she did not have a better year than Creamer, who won twice on Tour AND played well throughout the season.

On your other question, I will give you an easy partial answer. Vijay, Els & Mickelson ALL had a BETTER YEAR than Tiger did in 2004. Tiger did not win a stroke play event and only had 1 top 10 in the Majors. Care to argue that? (No, I didn't think so!)

As far as the others, it MAY be close as to who had the better year, I don't know, but I don't feel like getting into the nitty gritty of each of those players' 2004 season.

Shanks:
Metoo, you're saying that Creamer - by winning the Japanese tourney - is on a par with Tiger, Vijay, Els, etc? Ok, I won't argue with your reasoning there.
*************************

Metoo obviously doesn't think she is on a par with those players. He was merely stating that tournament wins in these type of events are EASIER no matter who the player getting the invite.

As regards you not arguing that Creamer is on a par with Tiger, Vijay and Ernie, now you are really deluding yourself.
Even the most staunch of Wie fans do not try to put her on a par with the big 5.

I meant relative to their respective tours. Of course she's not as good as those guys.

However, I would argue that since Tiger has re-established dominance (after a horrible 2004 - for him) much like Annika has been doing all along, Creamer is the relative equal to the rest of the 'Big 5'. She's won twice, kicked some serious butt at the Solheim Cup and is currently number 2 on the money list. Doesn't that sound similar to Els, Singh, Goosen or Mickelson?

And Norman .... I notice you're not responding to my answer about who had the better year in 2004. Having second thoughts about your questions????

Shanks, I think you mean the who had a better year than Tiger.
Mickelson had a better year, major and all. Vijay had a better year because he won so much. Ernie had a better year, he was more consistant.
Those other guys like Todd Hamilton didn't. Some players who win are a flash in the pan. Others win some titles but are also great. The big 5 are all great regardless. I think we agree on that anyway.

Shanks, I agree that Annika is like an equivalent to Tiger at the moment.

I simply don't think the womens game has an equivalent to the rest of the big 5. The others in the big 5 are all obviously great players. They have all WON (which you like to harp on about) MAJOR TITLES.

If you are asking who is next on the main LPGA tour after Annika, Paula Creamer is one of the names that I would certainly put in the next 4. However the next 4 are not like the next 4 in the mens game, they are not as good relatively, hope I'm explaining what I mean okay.

You look at Ernie Els and he just oozes class. This could be Creamer and Wie in a few years but not just yet.

Norman, I detect that you are not quite as fanatical about Wie as some others because you are starting to make some sense. I don't agree with all your thoughts there, but I do see where you're coming from. Now, if you could only understand that there is a big difference between playing well and winning ...

Did you watch Furyk choke away the Vegas tournament. That was even worse than Daly's gaggin' 3-putt fiasco last week. And these guys are proven winners. Takes intestinal fortitude to perform when the heat is on. That is what we need to see from Wie before she gets to be considered great. Right now, it's only potential.

Paula is a great player..world number 2 (because Wie does not qualify).. on her tour she is on par with Vijay (number 2 on PGA). And in winning a meaningless tournament she has matched their achivement in chasing appearence money and winning a meaningless tourney.

That win still sits below some of Wie's playing against Men non wins.

Shanks, just as regards the difference in winning and playing well.
I think you need to accept that when Annika plays her best, there is no other winner.

Therefore if winning is all that counts, the other players might as well just go home if Annika appears to be on form. There is just no point playing for 2nd, or is there?

And here I thought you were turning the corner. Oh well, I tried. Why is it that you can't just look at WHAT IS?

Wie did not win. Creamer WON multiple events. She even WON a tournament with Annika & Wie in it! Creamer had the better year. End of story.

P.S. Just so you know I'm not a Creamer-Crazy, Kerr & Jang also easily had a better year than Wie.

Your not a Creamer Crazy.
haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha

Creamer won one event with Annika and Michelle, the week before the British Open.

If a player won a tournament the weak before the British Open in mens, would you consider he beat Tiger and Vijay at their best?

Using your twisted logic, you could say that Paula wasn't in a tight battle down the stretch, so she wasn't under pressure. That's your logic not mine.

I do remember another tournament a while after where Paula had the lead going down the stretch and collapsed. Remember that?

Look at the results from the entire year. Creamer won multiple events. Wie did not mange to win at all. Sorry it bothers you so much, but Creamer had the better year. Period.

Poor thing, now you've got to wait all Winter for your girl to have another crack at winning. Must be Hell.

Wie has had a great year.

If she doesn't win next year, it will still be a great year, if she manages to reproduce the great form of this year.

Hopefully Paula Creamer will manage to improve also. I would love to see her raise her form nearer to Michelle's standard. That could provide more excitement.

And by the way, looking at the results from the full year, I see 6 top 15's for Michelle in her 7 events. In those same events, on the same courses, on the same days, against all the same players, Paula had 3 top 15's.
Michelle = 6 top 15's
Paula = 3 top 15's.

This should even explain the situation to Shanks, although probably not.

Oh hold on,

Shanks want the full year, okay her goes.

For the full season, Michelle finished top 15 in 85% of her events.
Paula finished in the top 15 in 50%

Michelle = 85%
Paula = 50%.

Who had the better year? Hmm.

Percentages? Ok, here goes.

2005 LPGA Wins:
Creamer - 2 of 22 = 9%
Wie - ZERO of 7 = ZERO%

Who had the better year? Hmm.

Your arguments just don't hold water. Sorry.

Wow Shanks, don't think you will ever get it.

So lets have a statistic, total tournaments played.

Creamer 22, Wie 7.
Lets display that in dots, to help you understand
...................... Creamer
....... Wie

Now, just look at the dots above, see how many more dots Creamer has, well that's how many more chances Creamer had to win tournaments, and many of those would have weaker fields.

At least, by your last post you seem to have grasped that Creamer has played 22 tournaments.

Maybe Shanks would like to enlighten us as to how Michelle should have outplayed Paula in the tournaments she wasn't in. Perhaps also, how could she have won more tournaments that she wasn't in. I know Tiger likes a light schedule, so if you could inform us how to win tournaments that you are not in, I'm sure Tiger would be grateful.

Creamer will probably be the greatest female player of all time.

Paula Creamer may become the greatest of all time-but many of us are Michelle Wie fans> We find Michelle Wie to be a very exciting player, and this is true whether she wins, loses or is DQed. She is only 16 and we have no desire to pressure her to win in a hurry. If you wish to say that Paula is the greatest, I will not argue with you.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a question of who is better. Only time will answer that one. The question is who had the better year. That's easy. Creamer did, because she won multiple times compared to Wie who did not win once. That is the only reason that I have been talking about Wie's lack of winning. It's only a knock against her IF someone is comparing her record against that of a 3-time winner.

Er, ah .... excuse me, but Creamer just won for a 4th time in 2005. My bad.

Horray for the Pink Panther.

Hopefully she can make it 5 before the end of the year.