« Finally -- A PGA Tour playoffMichelle Wie just being a good capitalist »


Comment from: Joe [Visitor]
very good comments. Michelle will learn form this and not make the same mistake in a more important time in a Tournament.

She does deserve better than many of her wacko fans many of whom seem to know little or nothing about golf. I trust her fans that know and understand golf will agree that is was the only decision that cold be made. She will be better off for it.
10/17/05 @ 09:15
Comment from: Ty [Visitor]
You can't possibly think that no one in this whole world, Wie Warrior or not, who would not look at that and raise an eyebrow at Bamberger would you? That's kind of a naive assumption--especially with the spectacular timing...Wie finishes her round and signs her card only to find out that she disqualified. Yes people can think what they want, Bamberger did it on purpose or he was just in reporter mode--but if one reporter out of hundreds noticed a violation that no one else noticed, you don't expect hundreds to call him on it when the timing looks off? Honest mistake or not, for both Michelle Wie and Michael Bamberger, no one gets away without scrutiny when the stakes are this high. If you can call people names (nut cases) for scrutinizing Bamberger, don't you think people ought to be able to call you names for scrutinizing them? I'm all for public discourse, but name-calling is kind of below the belt. Now where's the class in that?
10/17/05 @ 09:29
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Ty, thanks for the comment -- you make my case for me. You are deflecting the issue, which is the fact Wie made an illegal drop, as judged by the LPGA rules official, the proper channel for deciding these things. I have little doubt it was an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

The timing does not look off to me. As a sportswriter for 20 years, I know what it is like to be in "reporter mode." Reporters are concerned with getting their story out first and foremost -- and then you deal with other issues. The timing is a non-issue. It is far from "spectacular."

Besides, what does "timing" have to do with it anyway? A mistake was made, it was caught and reported, the proper action was taken. End of story. Move on. Michelle probably will. Calling someone "naive" is another subtle form of diversion.

As for my description of "nut cases," you only have to look at the comments of dozens, if not hundreds, Wie Warriors have made, at this site and many others, to see that that is an apt description.

I advise you to look at Joe's comment, above yours, for a reasoned and rational response.

10/17/05 @ 09:42
Comment from: June [Visitor]
When you call Wie-warriers "nut cases", you forgot to mentioned a nut case among your so-called coworkers.

Nut cases (Baldwin) draw nut cases to him in the first place. And it seems like you are becoming one yourself.

Have a nice day with your fellow nut case, Baldwin.
10/17/05 @ 09:53
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Amen, brother.
10/17/05 @ 10:05
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]

People taking Bamberger to task have no issue with him taking what he thought to be suspicious to the officials.

The issue that the "nut cases" as you refer to them--is the timing of Bamberger's reporting of the problem.

To his credit-Bamberger did tell the press that he did not think Michelle Wie cheated and that it was an honest mistake. However that does not excuse his poor decision to wait to inform the officials until Michelle could be disqualified.

Michael Bamberger is not only a golf sportswriter but a former caddy--he knows the rules. He cannot in good conscience talk about the integrity of the game when he himself sat on his hands with this information for a day and a half without informing the Wie's or the officials.

By waiting that long- he caused Michelle to be disqualified and by doing so got his name in the papers.
This did not have to happen at all since if he had reported it anytime between his suspicion and the signing of cards at the end of the tournmanet then there would have been no incident.

Bamberger is a writer tired of living in obscurity and found an opportunity to inject himself into the limelight -unfortunately he did so by humiliating a 16 year old making her pro debut.

Bamberger and Baldwin have much in common in that they are using Michelle Wie to get attention despite their mediocrity.
10/17/05 @ 10:07
Comment from: Shayne [Visitor]

Man if going into "reporter mode" for this guy is waiting a day and a half to act on something he saw--then SI is in a whole heap of trouble.
10/17/05 @ 10:26
Comment from: Paul F [Visitor]
As a fan of golf I find this whole situation bizarre. Here we have a reporter actually waiting for Wie to go to the eighth tee, walk off the distance from the drop area to the pin, considers it to be questionable, does not inform an official of his finding at the time of discovery and then uses the excuse that he was in "reporter mode". After he thought deeply about it (you know "the integrity of the game") he decided to let the officials know after the final round was completed. Since the video or the pace off were inconclusive the officials then used a string to determine the distance. I have followed golf for some 50 years and I never ever recall seeing this done before. To actually go out and measure the distance to make an official ruling. Where is the integrity of the game when this needs to be done.
Now if the reporter had told officials of his findings before Wie signed her third round card, he certainly would not have been well liked by Wie fans but he would have at least saved her from being disqualified. He chose to be silent until his conscience would not allow him to. Now I find that very bizarre!
Finally, they want to speed up play on tour, yet if players have to keep calling for official rulings play will become even slower. Let's not take away a player's judgement on where to drop a ball ("for the integrity of the game").
10/17/05 @ 11:04
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Tim, I guess this wasn't the column you originally meant to write!

But just look at most of the replies in this thread alone (along with the replies to Baldwin and skeptical posters in other threads.)

They provide all the proof anyone needs that the vast majority of the Wie Warriors -- at least the ones who post on the Internet -- are lunatic, venom-filled, foul-mouthed, paranoid, whiny weasels who need for Michelle to WIN THIS VERY INSTANT to validate their self-worth.

10/17/05 @ 11:21
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Sheryl -- you are one of the "nut cases" I refer to. Bamberger did not "cause" Wie to be disqualified. She did that on her own, with her illegal drop.

You accuse Bamberger being tired of "living in obscurity." Do you not know Sports Illustrated is probably the most prestigious sports magazine in the U.S.? I would hardly call that "obscurity."

Interesting how you are able to ascribe all these motives to him. You must know him pretty well. I suggest you first take a look at your own motives.
10/17/05 @ 11:26
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
George -- exactly. They need to validate their self-worth. Exactly the words I was searching for.
10/17/05 @ 11:30
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]
First of all I don't appreciate you calling me a nut case-- that just shows how classless you are.
Did I or have I ever insulted you in my comments prior? -I believe I didn't.

You need to read all my comments-- Michelle erred in not calling the tour official when she was unsure where to drop the ball. She made a mistake and I don't have a problem with her getting called on it. The problem is Bamberger waiting a day and a half later to report it when he had every oppotunity to report it earlier and with no incident.

This occured at the 7th hole--he had the rest of the day to contact officials yet didn't. There was a rain delay the next day, yet he didn't report it. He could have reported it at any time during the 4th round yet he didn't.

He never contacted anyone at the tournament yet surprisingly he found time to call his editor at SI to discuss the situation.

He found a way to get some publicity and he took it - and I'm calling him out on it.

Forgive me but I have never heard of Bamberger and neither has anyone who reads this website and I am a subscriber to Sports Illustrated.

10/17/05 @ 12:12
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Sheryl -- my point is, why do you and others INSIST on making such a big deal about the timing? There are all sorts of things that can explain why he waited. He may have wanted to consult with his editors, for example. He may have considered his being a member of the media, for another. He may have wrestled with his conscience. What difference does it make?

The fact is, he did report it, not to mention the fact he brought it up at the press conference that day, when Wie basically made a joke of it.

She made an honest mistake, she got caught, and she received the appropriate penalty. End of story. Why insist on blaming someone else?
10/17/05 @ 12:20
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
The rules of golf need changing.
My understanding is that Wie called over her playing partner who witnessed the drop. If she was happy shouldn't that be the end of it?
Is there any other sport where such a ridiculous thing could happen. Waiting for her to finish the tournament is unforgivable.
I think that this will actually make Wie more popular. Go Wie.
I read a comment that the one person that would have been happy with this ruling would be Pressel. I'm not keen on Pressel but I doubt even she would be happy about this.
How can you go back the next day and measure where you think the ball was. Bizarre!!

Alan M
10/17/05 @ 12:23
Comment from: Fred [Visitor]
That was certainly one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in golf. I'm betting that a good percentage of these drops end up a little closer to the hole, but nobody scrutinizes them because they're not the "next big thing." I just don't get it. All those people were there. They all saw it. Honesty, if it were me, I would not have waited until after the tournament was over. I could even understand it if he reported it Sunday morning (which would still have meant a DQ), but to wait until after the final round??! That just doesn't make sense to me.
10/17/05 @ 12:26
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]
While I agree that Wie's DQ was fundamentally correct, I think there should be a more clear and more stringent statute of limitations on when a complaint can be filed. What if Wie had left by the time the LPGA started looking into this. Nothing would have happened then. Also, a less than neutral spectator, or in this case a journalist, can wait till the scorecard is signed and then reveal his doubts thereby DQ'ing the concerned individual. Another problem is that if every player requests a tour official for every drop and divot fix, each round is going to take 6+ hours, a nightmare for spectators and for TV. It is unfortunate that Michael Bamberger waited over 25 hours [actually, over 30 hours] after the drop to bring this to the attention of the tour. I don't think he was intentionally malicious, but at the same time, I don't think he's entirely blameless. What should have been a simple two stroke penalty turned into a DQ and a media hoopla. And who benefits? Not Wie or the tour, but the media.
10/17/05 @ 12:27
Comment from: Gary [Visitor]
Not a nutcase, jsut a consumer of journalism...

I was most disturbed by the idea of Bamberger creating the new and not just reporting it.

This behavior is rampant among bloggers turned journalists like Drudge and the rest.

Apparently Mr. McDonald feels a little drawn out by this sentiment, as expressed by the so-called Wie-warrior, and has chosen to attack them.

What a shame...
10/17/05 @ 12:27
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]

** Bamberger is a writer tired of living in obscurity and found an opportunity to inject himself into the limelight -unfortunately he did so by humiliating a 16 year old making her pro debut. **

Sheryl, I'll focus on this part of your "reasoned commentary" to illustrate you and the other Wie Warriors act like loons.

First of all, would you agree that the Michelle Wie debut was one of the top sports stories this weekend? It probably would rank 2nd, at worst, only to the ChiSox going to the World Series for the first time in decades.

Plus, Bamberger clearly was assigned by SI to cover the event. Bamberger appears to be the only Sports Illustrated reporter we've heard of who covered this. And with only 20 golfers to cover, you probably wouldn't need more than 1 reporter per media outlet.

So, SI had to know going in that this would be one of their top stories of the week. They couldn't know ahead of time that Chicago would clinch that quickly, for example.

Do you REALLY think that SI would pluck a reporter "toiling in obscurity" to cover what they knew going in would be one of their top stories of the week?

Do you REALLY think the SI editors got together and said, "Hey, let's get Bamberger out of the alley he's been lying in for the last 10 years, clean him up, put him in detox, and see if we can get him to string together three coherent words and maybe we'll be lucky enough to extract a story from him about Michelle Wie's debut."

Riiiiiight. I'm sure that's how it went. They would NEVER pick an experienced writer to cover a big story like that.

In the real world -- one that you and the Wie Warriors don't inhabit -- Bamberger probably is one of their better golf writers, considering his prior experience and being a pro caddy. He already writes for SI. So he already has considerable notoriety among those who read the magazine regularly, and those in the golf world.

Plus, how do you know that Bamberger did not approach the Wie BrainTrust sometime Saturday and gave them his opinion about what he saw, perhaps giving them a chance to remedy the problem without a DQ? Some indications have surfaced that this did happen, but I definitely am not sure. I have no first hand knowledge.

Still, the fury against Bamberger seems to be a "shoot the messenger" situation. Bamberger is not the golfer who could not control a shot. Bamberger did not hit a golf ball into an unplayable lie. Bamberger did not drop the ball incorrectly. Bamberger did not sign a score card incorrectly. That was Michelle Wie and her caddy who are responsible for what happened. That's called personal responsibility.

Paula Creamer a few weeks ago outed her own mistake with the switched clubs incident. She took her medicine and took a DQ after she called it in to the officials. Unlike the Wie incident, no one pitched a fit. Paula and Michelle bungled, handled it with class, and moved on.

Paula's fans did not engage in some sort of fury about whether the rules are silly or not, or fair or not.

That's the whole point about rules for any professional sport. The rules are meant to be contrived, they are meant to strict and constraining -- because the sports are meant to be unique and distinctive. Football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, and so forth, are meant to bear no resemblance to each other. That's why each of those sports has very restrictive and byzantine rules.

See how easy it is, Sheryl, when you apply some common sense?

But when you and the other Wie Warriors go off your meds, life becomes all that much tougher.

10/17/05 @ 12:27
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]

I think why a lot of people are making a big deal about the timing is the timing was the difference between a 2 stroke penalty and a disqualification.

Everyone here would agree it would have been much better for Michelle had she finished 7th or 8th rather than being disqualified.

Every article I've read about Michael Bamberger has him quoted as "concerned" about the drop- if it was that important to him he should have contacted someone as soon as possible.

This whole thing is just regrettable because not only did his indecision cause Michelle this embarassment -it also took all the attention from Annika's amazing win .
10/17/05 @ 12:30
Comment from: Naoki [Visitor]
The issue that I have with this whole thing is with LPGA. Think about it. Did Bamberger get a special treatment from LPGA because he is a reporter from SI?? Could I or any of you have reported the incident to LPGA and taken seriously? If the answer is a "no" then it's a big problem with LPGA and this incident. Mr. Bamberger is a spectator, not a LPGA tournament offical. When LPGA allowed his "suspision" (it doesn't matter how it turned out) and investigated the incident in this detail, LPGA must do the same for ALL suspisions rasied by anyone and anytime.
10/17/05 @ 12:33
Comment from: MikeM [Visitor]
Circling the wagon around a fellow "writer" LOL Of course you would.

This fellow Bamberger interjected himself into the story as an ego objective pure and simple.
He is trying to pump his book sales which by all accounts are a huge disappointment.
Poor Michelle didn't realize the golf nazi was behind her waiting to pounce.

I like her, I cancelled my subscription to S.I. .... Long over due anyway.
10/17/05 @ 12:33
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]


Why do you always resort to personal attacks when you make your points ?

It just cancels out what you're trying to say.

By the way-Bamberger has said he never contacted anyone in the Wie "brain trust" before this incident. He asked her about it during the Saturday media interviews but that was it.
10/17/05 @ 12:34
Comment from: Mary [Visitor]

That's the whole point of this mess--
Bamberger never contacted anyone to rectify this situation until it was too late.

He had the access to report this all Saturday afternoon, and most of Sunday and didn't do anything.
10/17/05 @ 12:39
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Sheryl

Why do you always resort to personal attacks when you make your points ?

It just cancels out what you're trying to say. **

Nope. Nothing is canceled out.

1. I see you failed to refute my point that Bamberger is likely an experienced writer.

2. If Bamberger brought it up during the media conference, he brought it to their attention. In fact, he brought it up in front of all the media. So it sounds as if he was quite public about it. Bamberger, from what you say, did not sneak around with a gotcha scenario.

The Wie BrainTrust had an opportunity to remedy the matter, maybe without a DQ, and failed to do so. They paid the price. How much they learn from this in the future is unknown.

And yeah, the Wie Warriors need to take a pill. Just read the venom, personal attacks, insecurity, parnoia and conspiracy theories that abound in this and the other threads.

That includes your own conspiracy theory that Bamberger suddenly became tired of his obscurity and cooked up a way to get in the limelight. That's not a personal attack, that's an observation. You are engaging in conspiracy theories.

10/17/05 @ 12:43
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]
Imagine that spectators call/write in to complain about each drop or divot fix or adjustment a player makes in the absence of a tour official. If the tour were to investigate each complaint, that'd be a real nightmare.
10/17/05 @ 12:52
Comment from: Terrance [Visitor]
"my point is, why do you and others INSIST on making such a big deal about the timing?" because any reasonable person would think it suspicious that he waited till after the tournament, over a day after the incident

"There are all sorts of things that can explain why he waited." and none of what he presented seems convincing, basically he said he was in "reporter mode" and then forgot about it

"He may have wanted to consult with his editors, for example." get on the cell phone, maybe 30 minutes, not 30 hrs!

"He may have considered his being a member of the media, for another." hmm, isn't that obvious? what's your point?

"He may have wrestled with his conscience."
does he have any?

"What difference does it make?" DQ vs 2 stoke penalty
10/17/05 @ 12:52
Comment from: Eric [Visitor]
Conspiracy theories aside, or Michelle's apparent lapse of the rules, this whole thing stinks. The game of golf and its rules are the problem. How ridiculous is it that a player can be penalized for something that is inconclusive. Even one of the rules official who oversaw this mess stated that after going back to video it was inconclusive. Now you put the player and caddie in a horrible position of guessing, one and half days later, to guess exactly where the ball was in the bush and exactly where the ball was dropped. If you guess wrong then you are DQ'ed. That is completely insane. Gee, I think the next time I see Alan Iverson travel in an NBA game I will call the NBA and report a week later. Heck lets watch an ESPN classic football game from 20 years ago and lobby for a holding call that was obviously not called. Unless something is conclusive you move on and I think that is exactly what should have happened. How completely arrogant on the rules officals part to measure off from where they thought the drop occurred. If you were paying attention I said "THOUGHT" the dropped occurred. The reason why it is so arrogant is because by my guess there were probably 50 drops made during that tournament and is anyone going to go back and measure them. As for the reporter, would he have done the same thing if it was Meena Lee or Jeong Jang? Would the rules offical have pressed the issue with inconclusive video footage with these two individuals? I guess we will never know but one things is for sure this stinks.
10/17/05 @ 12:58
Comment from: Calisurf [Visitor]
Tim - I saw a rules violation in the American Express event, can we go back and review all tapes? :) Seriously. I have no problem with Bamberger reporting this infraction but to me it seems odd that this is the only infraction he has ever reported in all the years he has covered golf events? Why is this? Can you honestly tell your viewers, readers, that in the many years he has covered golf (and you) he has never seen another infraction until this weekend? Did he get caught up in the hype around Wie and watch closer than he has for others? Honestly, what is your take on this? You have seen thousands of matches, do you ten to watch the "hyped" players closer? or with a bigger magnifying glass?

Just to be clear I am not a Wie warrior, I am not even a golf warrior. To be honest, I haven't even seen her play.

I find it hillarious that all these people are defending Wie. She is a professional athlete being paid millions of dollars, it is her job to know the rules. (along with her caddy) She is at fault. Unlike other sports, where rules infractions happen in every game (NBA, NFL,etc) golf allows a "spectator" to change the outcome of the event. I am not sure if this is good or bad? I do know that I reported to the NBA in 97 that Jordan had pushed Byron Russell to the floor and I had indisputable video evidence but they still gave the title to the Bulls....my book sales weren't even slumping.
10/17/05 @ 13:02
Comment from: Jason [Visitor]

This whole thing is just bizarre--

The actual video of the drop was inconclusive.

Yet they relied on an most probably inaccurate recreation of the drop to decide a disqualification.

Can't blame the conspiracy theorists on this one.
10/17/05 @ 13:05
Comment from: Naoki [Visitor]
Victor, a precedent has been set for this nightmare. People are pointing finger at the wrong places. LPGA has allowed a spectator to question a play and changed the outcome. Integrity of LPGA will be questioned if next spectator's suspision is ignored. Yes, Miss Wie learned a lesson. We don't know about Mr. Bamberger's real motive. The bigger question is "has LPGA learned a lesson" from this to change the rule regarding who and when a non-official can raise a rule violation during a tournament play. Or, they will keep this biased rule..... (I called it biased because they won't listen to you and I).
10/17/05 @ 13:06
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]
A more measured article.. http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051017/APS/510170584 Bamberger's point of view.. http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/17/news/story01.html
10/17/05 @ 13:11
Comment from: Stephen [Visitor]
I can't agree more with Jason.

The more I think about this whole mess-the more bizarre I think it is.

The actual video of the event was deemed inconclusive.

Yet the officials relied on Michelle and her caddy to recreate the event an entire day after and concluded based on this inaccurate recreation that she be disqualified.

The video is the ONLY accurate medium in all of this since it is the only tangible record of what actually happened -if that was inconclusive then that's that.

There is no way Michelle and her caddy could remember the absolute spot where everything was and for the officials to rely on this iffy information to disqualify her is just unfair.
10/17/05 @ 13:18
Comment from: Victor [Visitor]
Ultimately, this 'controversy' may actually be a good thing for the lpga -- more eyes may tune in when Wie plays, boosting ratings and purses which was what the lpga elders were banking on even as she turned pro.
10/17/05 @ 13:25
Comment from: King Bastard [Visitor]
Reporters aren't supposed to become part of the story. Michael Bamberger should be fired, period, especially with the timing.

And as a former journalist, I wouldn't have called it out. Imagine of journalists let out all the "secrets" they knew...
10/17/05 @ 13:40
Comment from: yyoo [Visitor]
There's no question that given the way events unfolded, Wie had to be disqualified.

But there's also no real justification for the fact that Bamberger waited until after Wie signed her card to report it. What would have been a two-stroke penalty (or no penalty at all if Wie had been told to correct the drop on the spot) ended up in a disqualification.

We have to remember that Bamberger himself had been a professional caddie. He knew exactly what it meant to withhold what he knew until after she signed her card.

So, blame Wie for the bad drop, but blame Bamberger for poor judgment as well. Both did wrong, and neither person's transgression excuses the other.

10/17/05 @ 13:41
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Calisurf -- I'd feel uncomfortable responding on Bamberger's behalf. I don't know what he's seen or hasn't seen. But, yes, it is human nature to watch well-known players like Wie closer than you might others, especially with all the hype around this tournament.

I've covered a ton of golf and have never witnessed personally an infraction. If I had, I'm not sure what I'd do. Probably report it. Reporters are people, too. Remember, he did bring it up at her press conference.

I find his explanation about why he didn't report the incident til Sunday plausible. He had work to do, for one thing, which takes precedence. It's his paycheck.

He also said he took time to mull it over, apparently wrestling with his conscience. I can buy that.

These conspiracy nuts would have us believe he waited a day because he either wanted to make sure Wie was disqualified, or he wanted publicity. That is what I find not only implausible, but conspiracy-nut-minded, if I may use such a phrase.
10/17/05 @ 14:07
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
This is a no brainer. If someone saw it that have to turn her in (we can have a long discussion about whether non contestants sould be allowed to turn someone in..but today this is the rule).

The field must be protected..that is the most important thing. Many great players have been DQ'd in the past (Paula Creamer called it on herself last week and was DQ'd).

This is a nobrainer, Michelle should have been disqualified (Hey I love Michelle-- but I love golf more). It may be a shame...but it is right.
10/17/05 @ 14:10
Comment from: Mr. Small Rain [Visitor]
Here is what I learn from Interviews regarding Wie's DQ:

After 3rd round, Michelle was asked about drop by same CNN reporter Bamberger in interview session and they had exchange of words and Michelle made the mistake by saying "seems link I am giving Geometry lesson" and eveybody laughed off except "him".

Do your homework, my friends!
10/17/05 @ 14:12
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
As I was watching on TV, I wondered how she could be so deep in the brush one minute, and have a clear shot at the pin the next. A proper drop 12-18 inches further back would have obviously brought the brush back into play again. That's why they the rules officials measured so carefully. If I had done the same thing while golfing with my friends, they would have called me a cheater immediately. Don't blame the reporter for her mistake.
10/17/05 @ 14:16
Comment from: Jake [Visitor]

I see what you're saying but--

It would not have taken Bamberger 30 minutes to report the infraction yet he waited a day and a half to do it. That is hardly interfering with his work since he was getting paid to be there.

He asked her how she figured out where to drop the ball at the Saturday press conference and she proceeded to tell him she used the triangle method. When he pressed her to be more specific she made a joke about feeling like she was teaching geometry. He didn't ask her any more questions afterwards.

That was the extent of his conversation with Michelle Wie-- he did not give them specifics of what he felt were infractions.

Nothing in that conversation would lead someone to think maybe she made a mistake, he merely asked her how she figured where to drop the ball. If he had said that it could have been an illegal drop to her or the officials then I think the whole situation could have been avoided.

That's why I don't believe it is such an implausible conspiracy that he waited so long to say anything--after all he was doing his media rounds this morning.
10/17/05 @ 14:19
Comment from: Mr. Small Rain [Visitor]
Hey, ask all golfers how they drop.
They all drop on the border line. Within a foot with no better is OK.
That most pro golfers do. Let me put it this way, golfer uses two club length, I bet they all mark a few inches longer. This is no science, guy.
10/17/05 @ 14:22
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
I agree with Naoki on her statement:
"The bigger question is 'has LPGA learned a lesson' from this to change the rule regarding who and when a non-official can raise a rule violation during a tournament play." The "when" should be within a few minutes of the suspected violation. There are probably countless unintended violations done by veteran and rookie players all the time, and it is impossible to catch every occurrence. But if someone were to physically witness one (even if that person was unsure that a violation occured), they should notify a tour official right away.

This is a response from Robert O Smith, LPGA Tournament Official and Manager of Rules, from the LPGA website:

---Q. Was the spectator here yesterday or did he see it on TV and did either of you know the spectator?
ROBERT O. SMITH: I don't know who it was. They were here yesterday and they told us about it today. Unfortunately, what we like to do, if a spectator sees something like, they need to tell us because if they can tell us right away, if she could have played that, and we could have caught her in the tent at 18, it would have been a two-stroke penalty. Play golf today. But once that scorecard is signed, it's history. That's the unfortunate part of it. That's the sad part of this whole thing.----

Notice that he says once the scorecard is signed "it's history". That is very interesting to me, because if it is indeed history then its done with, you can't change it anymore.

Just my $0.02
10/17/05 @ 14:27
Comment from: Mr. Small Rain [Visitor]

You are a good "history" teacher.

I totally agreed with you in this case.
10/17/05 @ 14:32
Comment from: Claire [Visitor]
Please don't judge the typical Wie fan by the comments provoked by Baldwin's inflammatory gloating posts. I, like most Wie fans, felt the incident was unfortunate and perhaps motivated by the publicity it would generate, but am not overplaying it or buying into far-reaching conspiracy theories.
10/17/05 @ 14:47
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Claire - you're right. I'll try not to.
10/17/05 @ 14:54
Comment from: Eric [Visitor]
Unless there is something that has not come out yet the DQ is completely incorrect. The game of golf and its rules are very black and white. There are no gray areas. How can a penalty be access if the point at which the drop occured can not be determined exactly? The rules are very clear about dropping no closer to the hole but when all parties can not determine the exact spots someone is taking the game into their own hands and I think the LPGA should apologize for some very over zealous rules officials.
10/17/05 @ 14:59
Comment from: Claire [Visitor]
Thanks, Tim. There are millions of Wie fans around the world. The number of sniveling malcontents posting on these blogs you can count on your fingers. On one hand.
There's been a lot of criticism of Wie's parents. But what's clear to me is that they've raised a remarkable young woman, someone who's confident and ambitious but who also, despite all the money and hype, seems to have a sense of proportion about things. She's smart, stable, and is obviously loved by her parents no matter what. How about a little acknowledgement of that? I work with kids in my job and believe me, most kids who have less than a tenth of Michelle's talents display more than ten times the attitude.
10/17/05 @ 15:14
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
I have a question. I'm not clear on this aspect of the ROG.

Was Michelle a dead duck as soon as she signed that scorecard for R3?

Is it a round-by-round situation whereby the DQ is applied as soon as a player signs an incorrect score card for any round?

Or does the player sign a cumulative card for all four rounds at the end of the tournament?

In other words, is it a moot point whether Bamberger called the officials immediately or the next day? Was Wie already effectively disqualified as soon as she signed that card at the end of the round? Or do they even have to sign cards at the end of every round?

Just wondering.

10/17/05 @ 15:15
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
Just to add to Claire's comments about Wie's parents which I agree with, I just read in the Boston Globe that Wei's father reached out and shook Bamberger's hand and said "no hard feelings" after the announcement. With all the stories about sports dad's attacking referees under much less stressful circumstances, that's an inspiration. I only hope I could take it that well.
10/17/05 @ 15:26
Comment from: Ty [Visitor]
I'm not deflecting the issue, never once said Wie was right or what a horror it must be that she got QD'd...but I'd hope that by now you would acknowledge that Bamberger wasn't completely in the right either. While the timing may be a non-issue for you, there seems to be a lot of people who think it is an issue who are not Wie Warriors. I really don't care what Bamberger wanted out of it--clear conscience, notoriety, payback, etc., the point is that his excuse just rings hollow to most people. So there are people out there who are wondering what is going on, who are not hard core golf fans nor Wie fans, who think it is just strange. You can say people are jaded or whatever, but that doesn't mean their response is that of a nut case. The fact that you imply the only rational response is your and Joe's response is quite myopic when the world is so large. Whether you were directing all that to people you incensed and vice versa is not my problem. I just find it naive, yes naive, that the only rational response in your view is that everyone ought to move on without questioning all parties involved.
10/17/05 @ 15:27
Comment from: Britney [Visitor]
If her mistake has been discovered right after her shot, she would have been given a 2 stroke penality. However, as soon as she signed her score card at the end of that day, there was nothing left to do but disqualify her (disqualifation is the automatic penality for submitting an incorrect score for the round).

10/17/05 @ 15:33
Comment from: Jerrod [Visitor]
Classy move by Michelle's dad--just wish that Bamberger was that classy.
10/17/05 @ 15:40
Comment from: Barry Jaynes [Visitor]
This has little to do with Wie and less to do with you or me. It's about Bamberger's role and how the ruling bodies used that information in their decision.

The decision does nothing but advance the perception that Golf is a game of quirky rules governed by stodgy old fuddy-duddy’s.

Rules official Robert O. Smith, the man who made the final call to disqualify Wie, defended his decision, ``The Rules of Golf are based on facts,'' Smith said. ``They had to tell us where it was. The fact was, the ball was closer to the hole by 12 to 15 inches.''

FACT?! There were no facts uncovered in the “investigation”, which culminated in a ridiculous re-enactment.

The FACT is that a review of the video tape was inconclusive.
The FACT is that pacing the distances proved inconclusive.
The FACT is that even after measuring with a length of silly string, they still could not pinpoint a distance – “12 to 15 inches”. Well, which was it?

The FACT is that the exact location of the ball and the exact location of the point of relief could not be determined expos facto.

The FACT is that there are NO FACTS supporting the disqualification.

Smith also said that he was "hand-cuffed by the rules" and that he was required to "administer the rules as written".

Well, as written, you’ve got to go all over The Book to find all the relevant rules.
•6-1: Player’s responsibility
•6-6: Scoring in Stroke Play
•20-2: Dropping and Re-Dropping
•20-7: Playing from Wrong Place
•28: Ball Unplayable

Wie clearly exhibited knowledge of the rules (6-1) as evidenced by her adherence to rules 20-2, 20-7 and 28.

Interestingly, Mr. Smith made no mention of the following rules as written:

•Spirit of the Game
•1-4: Points not Covered by the Rules
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

Note: The Rules of Golf offer no definition for “Equity”, however Merriam-Webster does:
1a: justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism
1b: something that is equitable
1: having or exhibiting equity: dealing fairly and equally with all concerned

It seems to me that the Spirit of the Game should not and does not only apply to players, but also to the other Agencies of the game:

A “referee’’ is one who is appointed by the Committee to accompany players to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him.

An “outside agency’’ is any agency not part of the match or, in stroke play, not part of the competitor’s side, and includes a referee, a marker, an observer and a forecaddie.

An “observer’’ is one who is appointed by the Committee to assist a referee to decide questions of fact and to report to him any breach of a Rule.

Which definition defines Mr. Bamberger’s role in this? Was he appointed by the committee to report a breach of a Rule? As written, it is difficult to determine how Mr. Smith administered the rules in their entirety.

Furthermore, given the inexcusable delay on Mr. Bamberger’s behalf in reporting the possible rules violation; the lack of a ‘statue of limitations’ for reporting such violations; the omission of guidelines for determing if rule 20-7 had been violated (video, silly string, etc.); and the lack of clear evidence that the rule had actually been violated -- Rule 1-4 could have and SHOULD have been invoked:

Rule 1-4 is vital to the Wie scenario and cannot be ignored. Had a Referee, Outside Agency or Observer raised the concern prior to the signing of the card, the Rules, as written, clearly provide Wie an opportunity to avoid disqualification.

However, perhaps the most important exclusion of Mr. Smith’s administering of the rules is the Spirit of the Game clause, conspicuously located at the top of the Rules of Golf. Mr. Bamberger’s golfing experience and knowledge of the game and its rules are beyond question – this could not be clearer than it is today.
His knowledge of the rules makes the FACT that he waited until after Wie had signed her scorecard suspicious at best. It is clearly not in the Spirit of the Game, nor was the dog-and-pony show that took place at the 7th hole on Sunday evening.

There is but one rule left to be administered. For the spirit of the game. For the good of the game. For the fairness and equity of all concerned.

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.
Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.
If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.
10/17/05 @ 15:46
Comment from: Tony [Visitor]

Since the video was inconclusive--does this mean this whole fiasco was merely based on the word of one person??

This same person who wasted numerous opportunities to report the incident until the only consequence possible was a disqualification ??

This whole thing is a little too suspicious and I'm the furthest from a conspiracy theorist .

C'mon Tim-you're a writer and this does not pique your journalistic suspicions one bit??

10/17/05 @ 15:49
Comment from: Mr. Small Rain [Visitor]
I wish Brian and Barry Jaynes posts are much better and give insights than those paid-columists. Good job, guys!
10/17/05 @ 16:24
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: Britney [Visitor]
If her mistake has been discovered right after her shot, she would have been given a 2 stroke penality. However, as soon as she signed her score card at the end of that day, there was nothing left to do but disqualify her (disqualifation is the automatic penality for submitting an incorrect score for the round). **

Hi, Britney, thanks for your response.

I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure. So being as it was a round-by-round sich, there is no conspiracy.

To rescue Wie & her caddy from their blunder, Bamberger actually would have had to become part of the story, by speaking up at the moment the drops occurred.

Two scenarios:

"Hey, Michelle, the way you're doing that drop is wrong. You've advanced the ball toward the hole."


"Hey, Michelle, you had better not sign that round-3 scorecard, you might get disqualified. You took an illegal drop and didn't take a 2-stroke penalty."

In both of these hypothetical scenarios, that would be a case of the reporter actually interjecting himself into the events, and no longer being an observer.

The events happened and the reporter was honest and reported the infraction to the officials.

In reality, so long as Wie conducted the drop, didn't take the 2-stroke penalty, and then signed the scorecard, she was over with and done after round 3, as soon as she signed that card.

It matters not when it was brought to the officials' attention, she was eligible for DQ, as long as the officials found out about it.

10/17/05 @ 16:32
Comment from: Ty [Visitor]
I don't think it would have been a problem for anyone if he had said something between the 7th hole and when she signed her card in the third round because a penalty would have only been a footnote in the tournament. But what Bamberger did made the violation into a media frenzy, which had his name all over the place. Mistake or not on his part, it just seems suspicious to people.
10/17/05 @ 16:42
Comment from: Kevin [Visitor]

I'm glad to see the Wie's were classy about the whole thing--

I would have chased Bamberger's ass all over Bighorn with my 5 iron and tried to drown him in that waterfall.
10/17/05 @ 17:10
Comment from: Dan Lepeska [Visitor]
Golf is a game of integrity. End of story.

That being said, I believe the R&A, USGA, and PGA should review and revisit the rules regarding this situation. Michelle did inform her playing partner, Grace Park, of her intention to take an unplayable lie and take a drop. It is the responsibility of the playing partner to witness said action and advise if he or she thinks the action is not appropriate.

She took her drop and received no contrary opinion from Grace Park. She dropped twice and eventually placed the ball at the point it hit the ground on the second drop. All per correct procedure.

The reason why it was ruled she took an improper drop is because she incorrectly marked the drop area (placing her tee in the ground too close to the hole to define the area).

As a player I have made many a drop in this way. The bottom line is that behind the drop line you have a full club length distance to drop. Far too many times I've seen players (amateur and professional) that insist on dropping as close as possible to the front of the drop area. When in doubt drop well behind the line.

The fact that Bamberger (the SI reporter who is so well respected that he isn't even given a listing on the SI web site) would report on his observations the day AFTER observing what he thought to be an incorrect drop is in my opinion an interference in the tournament. Grace Park and her caddie were in the tournament and allowed to observe the drop, it was their responsibility to advise Michelle Wie and her caddie if they thought the drop was improper.

I believe the Rules of Golf for tournament play should be amended to specifically bar outside observers from participation in discussion of rulings that would affect the outcome of a tournament. We have seen far too many cases of TV viewers, etc. calling in to report from the comfort of their arm chairs. The integrity of the game notwithstanding I think the intent of the player(s) and participation of competitors and rules officials should trump all those "outside agencies".

10/17/05 @ 17:13
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Tony, no it doesn't really pique my interest. In order for it to do that, I would have to question Bamberger's motives, and I've said before his explanation seems plausible. Maybe that's because I've been in his situation -- covering a golf tournament with a deadline looming. Believe me, everything, even a miscue by Michelle Wie, is secondary.

Having said that, I have to admit I was a little troubled by the official's version of the "facts." They checked the spot of the drop a day later, and it was only an approximation. It was not a "fact" as he said.

Still, the way I understand it, if Wie's drop had been anywhere in the area, even in the vicinity of where she and her caddy claimed she made the drop, it would have been illegal.

10/17/05 @ 17:15
Comment from: Don [Visitor]
Bambergers news making aside, I blame the tournament officials for their conclusions after the report had been made. Door wide open for some interesting complaints in the future after the race decided. There was no conclusive evidence that the drop was illegal and her playing partner and observers did not see a problem at the time. Unless conclusive evidence exists then Bambergers concerns are just that, and it should have gone no further. Don Human, MD
10/17/05 @ 17:48
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]

Whatever happened to your story about Michell Wie being a good capitalist?
10/17/05 @ 18:02
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: Kevin [Visitor]

I'm glad to see the Wie's were classy about the whole thing--

I would have chased Bamberger's ass all over Bighorn with my 5 iron and tried to drown him in that waterfall. **

Now you're talking! That at least would have gotten the Golf Channel to resume live coverage! ;)

10/17/05 @ 18:04
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]

ESPN's Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser referred to Bamberger as a "snitch and something else that rhymes with snitch"--- now that more facts are coming out about this- I have to agree.

It seems the only people on Bamberger's side are the folks who never liked Michelle Wie in the first place.

10/17/05 @ 18:05
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: Ty [Visitor]
I don't think it would have been a problem for anyone if he had said something between the 7th hole and when she signed her card in the third round because a penalty would have only been a footnote in the tournament. But what Bamberger did made the violation into a media frenzy, which had his name all over the place. Mistake or not on his part, it just seems suspicious to people. **

But why would it be Bamberger's responsibility to try to fix Michelle's screw up? That's where he would have injected himself into the story.

10/17/05 @ 18:08
Comment from: Eric [Visitor]
Bamberger's excuse of being in a "reporters mode" is ironic since he didn't report anything. He admitted walking off the distance right after she played the hole. That is called the "investigative mode" for those paying attention. After that you should go into "reporting mode" and tell someone. Clearly he had intent to use this information in some way shape or form or he wouldn't have paced it off and not said anything. Reporting mode....if this guy cared about golf at all and its integrity he would have told Wie's caddy at the next hole. I am going to make a bold guess hear that SI sent him there to cover Wie so I am sure he was following the Wie group on more then just that hole but yet he didn't say anything because he was in his "non-Reporting mode". During his next review at SI I hope he gets low marks for multi-tasking because apparently the guy can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
10/17/05 @ 18:09
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
Well, well what do you know----

Michael Bamberger just happens to have have a golfing book set for release in 2 weeks---

10/17/05 @ 18:14
Comment from: Ethan [Visitor]

Very interesting Mike---he was the catalyst for Michelle Wie's disqualification for not informing officials until Sunday and now his name is everywhere in the press.

Hmmmmm indeed....
10/17/05 @ 18:17
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
Verrrrry Interrresting......

Well I'll be the first in line to buy his golfing book--NOT!!

10/17/05 @ 18:22
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
You guys should be reading George. He's making a point that renders all yours' moot.
10/17/05 @ 18:28
Comment from: Jason [Visitor]

The Golfing Life by Michael Bamberger --

The shortest chapter in the book --
How to avoid seeking publicity and underhandedness in golf.
10/17/05 @ 18:36
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
The issue is if George would have gone to tour officals during the THIRD round rather than the fourth, the result would not be disqualification.

One can not argue that Bamberger did not wish to become a part of the story (as he did anyway).

One could argue that if he went to officals DURING the third round (as happened to John Daly during the third round at crooked stick) it could have been dealt with as lost strokes rather than a DQ.

Michelle committed the infraction, not the writer, but Bamberger had the choice of WHEN to inform officials (or Michelle)....

George A .. Bamberger did a third thing "Hey officals Michelle misplayed a drop yesterday and I saw it... sure I didn't tell her either at the time or before she signed her card... but I have t tell you now

Informing was the right thing to do...

Informing ON TIME would have been better
10/17/05 @ 18:39
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Sorry Gorge I didn't mean to insert your name for Bamberger's (ok maybe a little)
10/17/05 @ 18:41
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member]
You guys should be reading George. He's making a point that renders all yours' moot.

George along with you, are still forgetting that Wie had no idea she had made an illegal drop. She even re-dropped to make sure it was ok. If she still didn't think the second drop was legal, she would have dropped again (it wouldn't have costed her a penalty). She thought the second drop was legal and no one questioned her or made it apparent that it was otherwise. It's not like she thought, "ok I'm going to sign this scorecard with an illegal drop and hope no one saw it." If that was the case, like I mention before, she could have easily dropped it again without penalty. She thought she played within the rules and signed her scorecard accordingly.
10/17/05 @ 18:41
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Brian, I don't want to speak for George, but I think his point is that if Bamberger had intervened Saturday, then he would have been inserting himself into the story intead of reporting it.

True, by reporting it Sunday, he still became involved. So he's sort of damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

The only way he could have not gotten involved is if he had said nothing. Apparently, his conscience wouldn't let him. I, for one, respect that.
10/17/05 @ 18:45
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
I for one do not respect him at all, and I doesn't matter if he is a reporter or not. If a spectator that saw something he/she thought was wrong, then they should say something right away. I don't know why you and George are so stuck on him "inserting" himself. All the spectator needs to do is notfiy an official. What is the big deal with that?
10/17/05 @ 18:48
Comment from: Ken [Visitor]
I agree with Tim. All else considered, the DQ was the best case scenario. If allowed to pass, just imagine the caterwalling about Michelle's "preferential treatment". Better she learned it now anyway, than say, at the LPGA Championship (or at the 2015 Masters, hehe). I also thought she showed the composure and class of a future champion. At 16, I might have run bawling to the nearest tree, wrapping my clubs around the trunk, and not releasing myself from the branches until brought down by tranquilizer dart.
10/17/05 @ 19:50
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Let's all agree... Bamberger SHOULD have reported the infraction (the field has to be protected).

Let's also agree he SHOULD have informed officials on saturday when the penalty could have been addressed without DQ.

As his conscience was correct to compel him to speak up...it should not have selfishly worrying about whether "he" would be a part of the story...and he should have told officals on saturday.

There is no excuse whatsoever for the delay (in doing so he harmed Michelle without allowing her redress).

No one should attack him for what he did. NO ONE, TIM-- should commend him for when he did it

Wha's that old maxim... Justice delayed is Justice DENIED

He was both so right and so very wrong

10/17/05 @ 20:40
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Allow me to explain the timing. Even a 2 stroke penalty would have cost NBC a lot of viewers on Sunday. The guy checked with SI and they obviously did not want to alienate NBC or Samsung, so it was decided to keep Michelle Wie as a draw for Sunday, after which time he could nail Wie or not depending upon what he wanted to do. The timing had everything to do with $$$.

Michelle Wie did talk about being more nervous when she had to take her math exam last year. The problem with drops is when they are made far from the initial point. The triangle method compares the two angles at the initial point and the drop point. As long as they are very close, the angle at the hole is virtually zero. The angle at the drop point needs to be little more than simply acute. But with more distant drops an acute angle at the drop point is no guarantee that the drop popint is farther from the hole.
10/17/05 @ 20:40
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
I don't know why you and George are so stuck on [S.I. golf writer Bamberger] "inserting" himself. **


Because that's the issue the Bamberger critics are raising!!!!

They say Bamberger, by waiting, inserted himself into the story. But by telling Michelle and the mannequin who is (hopefully was) her caddy that "hey, Michelle, your dropped looked about a foot or two closer to the hole," he is helping her and is no longer an observer.
So he inserts himself into the story.

For Bamberger to then be fair, he has to help out every one of the other 19 golfers in some fashion.

Why would Bamberger be obliged to help Wie more than someone else?

Wie and the mannequin masquerading as a caddy are ultimately responsible for what they did to themselves. It's called personal responsibility.

"I didn't know there was a speed limit sign behind that tree, officer."

Same thing.

** All the spectator needs to do is notfiy an official. What is the big deal with that? **

Because it's not his job? Do you think SI was paying Bamberger to roust officials to bail out Michelle Wie?

"Sorry, boss, but I missed Michelle's double-eagle or quadruple-bogey on one of the par fives, or I missed Chris Baldwin and Michelle Wie holding hands making goo-goo eyes on # 8, because I was off trying to find an official to help Michelle Wie save some strokes and money. What's that? Don't bother showing up for work Monday? OK, boss."

Obviously, an official wasn't there. So by the time Bamberger could have found an official, Wie is already liable for a two-stroke penalty. And so when would they ask Michelle about what happened?

"Excuse me, Michelle, sorry to interrupt your 15-foot par putt that you really should be concentrating on, but do you remember that drop on #7 ? Can we head back there and you can stop what you're doing and we can re-enact the event?"

Obviously, they can't stop her on the course. So the only opportunity is at the scorer's table.

And is that the official's job? Is it really?

If so, then you would have to also argue that it was the official's job to tell Paula Creamer not to sign her scorecard a few weeks ago because she changed her club setup? I didn't hear any of the Wie Warriors whining about that. One or two of them had a bit of glee over Paula's DQ.

The Wie Warriors had better be just as pissed off at the officials over the Creamer incident (which I'm not -- Creamer handled it right and took her DQ without her fans pitching a fit about it) as they are at the officials, the reporter, and in fact, mad at everybody except Wie and her mannequin masquerading as a caddy.

So can anybody tell me where and when the officials were supposed to intervene? Does the IRS tell you ahead of time that you could be doing something wrong or something that could cost you money?

Bottom line. At the minimum, Wie lost two strokes, since by definition, an official wasn't there to bail her out. No matter what happened, she has to add two strokes to her scorecard.

So the only other point of intervention -- a dubious one, to say the least -- is before Wie signs the scorecard. Once Wie signed the card after R3, she was a dead duck, gonzo, kaput, finito.

Anybody able to document where any official -- ever -- intervened in such a fashion?

Or are the officials obliged to intervene just because Michelle Wie has more rights than another human being?

Michelle doesn't believe that. But it sounds like most of her fans do believe she's more equal than everyone else.

10/17/05 @ 20:42
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]

** Allow me to explain the timing.**

This should be good.

** Even a 2 stroke penalty would have cost NBC a lot of viewers on Sunday. **

So Wie being 7 back instead of 5 back would be a deal killer? Neither one sounds like she had much of a chance to win. If people were going to tune in at 5 behind, they probably wouldn't suddenly say, hell, now she doesn't have a chance to win.

With the lead Annika had after three, it was pretty obvious Michelle Wie wasn't going to be the one doing the catching, whether at 5 strokes or 7.

If I'm trying to figure out whether to watch a tournament on Sunday and I happen to see that Tiger is 5 strokes ahead, I'm watching only to see by how much Tiger is going to win.

** The guy checked with SI and they obviously did not want to alienate NBC or Samsung, so it was decided to keep Michelle Wie as a draw for Sunday, after which time he could nail Wie or not depending upon what he wanted to do. The timing had everything to do with $$$. **

Jim, do you have any evidence for this? Please cite your proof.

Or are you just the latest conspiracy theorist to lurch into view?

10/17/05 @ 20:59
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
To George
Your comment earlier:
But why would it be Bamberger's responsibility to try to fix Michelle's screw up? That's where he would have injected himself into the story.

I agree that it's not Bamberger's responsibility to try to help her. But I should point out that because of the timing, HE MADE HIMSELF THE STORY. And he surely knew that's what would happen when he did what did. He was a caddy before right?

I've read about how MW supposedly joked/mocked Bamberger in a press conference. I heard everyone but Bamberger laughed when Michelle said she thought she was teaching geometry to Bamberger...

What does that make you think? Not looking for a fight here or anything like that. What's your view on the story that Bamberger was supposedly mocked by MW in the press conference?

10/17/05 @ 21:30
Comment from: DK [Visitor]
"Sniveling fans"? Kind of harsh. Your column isn't very good, by the way... no, scratch that, it's adequate.
10/17/05 @ 21:49
Comment from: Britney [Visitor]
"Brian [Visitor]
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member]
You guys should be reading George. He's making a point that renders all yours' moot.

George along with you, are still forgetting that Wie had no idea she had made an illegal drop. She even re-dropped to make sure it was ok. If she still didn't think the second drop was legal, she would have dropped again (it wouldn't have costed her a penalty). She thought the second drop was legal and no one questioned her or made it apparent that it was otherwise. It's not like she thought, "ok I'm going to sign this scorecard with an illegal drop and hope no one saw it." If that was the case, like I mention before, she could have easily dropped it again without penalty. She thought she played within the rules and signed her scorecard accordingly."

Actually, you get two drops and if the ball moves closer to the hole each time then you place it where the second drop landed. Once you've chosen your place to drop it, if you're too close to the hole then you'll be penalized regardless. As I understand it, the ball should have been dropped in the sand and not the grass. Any drop in the grass was going to be too close to the hole. Her caddy, who is paid the big bucks to make sure this kind of thing doesnt happen, "dropped the ball"(pardon the pun) :)
10/17/05 @ 21:59
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
Here's what I don't understand, probably from ignorance since I've never been at a tournament, though I have been an official at other types of events. If the officials wanted to discuss the issue with Michelle and her caddy, but didn't want to interrupt her play (which seems a little odd since it was already interrupted 3 times for weather), why didn't they simply leave a message at the scoring table (or tent or whatever it is) saying "please contact the officials before you sign your card". I don't think there was a conspiracy, but it seems pretty dumb.
10/17/05 @ 22:02
Comment from: June [Visitor]
I have new title for your article, Tim.

Tim is no better than Chris Baldwin.
Ooh, what a shocker!
10/17/05 @ 22:04
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
George your logic makes ZERO sense. Bamberger should not help one golfer at the expense(???? how Wie taking the correct 2 shot penalty is at the "expense" of others is screwy) is silly.

Baldwin did not watch and call a foul on the other 19 golfers... here is your logic

"It isn't Bambergers job to timely notify officals"--- this misses a crucial point..IT WASN'T HIS "JOB" TO TALK TO OFFICIALS AT ALL!! So if he can "find the time to talk to officals the next day...why not on Saturday????


Paula Creamer's DQ has nothing to do with this...do you actually believe if an someone knew that she substituted clubs they wouldn't have told her???
This issue is a drop..one that Michelle thought she took correctly (she didn't).

You simply can not defend Bamberger's timing..,

George this is the question you keep ducking...


10/18/05 @ 00:11
Comment from: MrSports [Visitor]
Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon both agreed that the actions by Bamberger violated both the journalist "code of ethics" or whatever you would like to call it, as well as common sense.

I'm pretty sure those two fellas know a thing or two about journalism.

Sounds like you lose, Mr. McDonald.

Have a nice day =)
10/18/05 @ 02:01
Comment from: Barry Jaynes [Visitor]
Rain Man -

You are truly a savant!

10/18/05 @ 02:24
Comment from: yyoo [Visitor]
Ironically, when Bamberger waited until the second day to report this he made himself an even BIGGER part of both the story and the tournament by getting Wie disqualified. If he had told Wie or an official on the spot (he was standing 10 yards away) she could have corrected the placement with NO penalty. If he had told someone before Wie ended her 3rd round, it would have been a two-stroke penalty and less of a story and less of an intrusion into the event.

Incidentally, there would be NO story if Bamberger did not report this violation. As a professional journalist, Bamberger must have realized this. If he doesn't snitch to officials and make something happen, there is no big story for him to write. And that seems a plausible explanation for why he eventually tattled and why the SI editors urged him to tattle.

By the way, Tim M., what do you journalism ethics tell you about a story like this. Should Bamberger get to write it at all? Shouldn't someone else on SI's staff do a story with interviews from Bamberger and other concerned parties. In fact, shouldn't SI simply punt on this one and let other news agencies interview Bamberger and tell the story? Once you're a part of the news (as Bamberger and SI have become), how can you report on it objectively?
10/18/05 @ 04:13
Comment from: Vernon Wong [Visitor]
This whole ridiculous incident is caused by the PGA/LPGA willing to accept the observations of non-participants to "police" the players without regard to the intent/effect of the violation. Did Wie gain an advantage by dropping the ball in the wrong place? Mark Rolfing said she did not. Her playing partner, who is responsible to protect the rest of the field from a cheat, did not notice any problem. Did Craig Stadler "build a stance" when he put a towel on the mud to protect his pants? Does anyone really believe that he did it to cheat? Yet he was disqualified because a TV viewer called in. If Stadler had put the ball on a tee under the tree to make it easier to hit, a call from the TV viewer would be appropriate. If Wie had dropped the ball illegally to gain a better shot, then she should have been called on it immediately or before she finished the round and penalized. But to wait until after the tournament when the only alternative is disqualification, is unconscionable. Maybe all players should be required to verify their triangulations with a rangefinder. I hope someone is watching all the rest of the players for any violations?
10/18/05 @ 04:26
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
DK -- it isn't a column. It's a blog. Hate to throw journalistic jargon at you, but there's a big difference.

10/18/05 @ 07:54
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
yyoo -- I agree Bamberger should not be the one to write the main story on Wie's pro debut. That should be handled by another SI writer.

He SHOULD write a first-person account in the magazine as a sidebar.

10/18/05 @ 07:59
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Mr. Sports --

Wilbon and Kornheiser are both long-time sportswriters (although they've crossed over to the "other side" as broadcasters), and I respect their opinions.

I'm betting opinion is split among other members of the media. I myself am not entirely comfortable with Bamberger's action. Not sure if I would have done the same thing.

But, the point in this case is, I think his explanation is plausible. He's apparently one of those guys who believes deeply in the "integrity of the game." I've seen too much hypocrisy in golf to buy into that, but I can't fault someone who doesn't share my cynicism.

It'a a good question, though: Can a reporter ever shed his "credentials" and become simply a spectator? Golf is unique, as you know, in that spectators can and have influenced the outcome of tournaments.

Apparently, he thought it was important enough to break down that journalistic wall.

Here's another question: If Bamberger had kept his mouth shut, then should he have reported what he saw, the infraction, in his story? What kind of a furor would that have started? Not as big as the one he is currently in, certainly, but it would have caused a stir, and he would have still been pilloried.
10/18/05 @ 08:15
Comment from: DK [Visitor]
Problem is this...

Calls get MISSED in every sport. If you follow around with a video camera around every player in the game, and "VIDEO REVIEW/REPLAY" every single play in the game, you will find SOME technical infractions every round, mistakes that get missed, whether it's replacement of a ball after a mark and the ball moves, or a drop being a few inches closer to the hole before a 50 yard approach shot, or a ball shifting 1 mm in the sand if you do a 100x superzoom on the ball.

Now, does Bamberger, as a FAN, have carte blanche to come back two days later and say he believes that a call was missed, and that VIDEO evidence STILL doesn't confirm, then Michelle has to point the next day to a spot she believes the ball was, then they pace it off, and FINALLY conclude that her judgment was off the day before and that in fact,



10/18/05 @ 09:33
Comment from: June [Visitor]
To Tim and Geroge,

So Bamberger didn't want to be a part of story. Well because he reported it on Sunday instead of Saturday before the round was over, you know what he has beome?

He is not just a part of story but HE is THE STORY. Good grief.
10/18/05 @ 10:26
Comment from: Nelson Garcia [Visitor]
Michael Bamberger knew exactly what he was doing. He has no business using the word integrity, because he has none.

If he took the time to pace the distance on Saturday, he was no longer in "reporter mode" as he claims.

Another thing he measured was how big a news story this will make, especially if Michelle were to mount a comeback and win the tournament - all of which will be even more plausible if he just keeps his mouth shut until the tournament is over.

My guess is that he already had his story filed by the time the tournament ended and was probably busy patting himself on the back and sipping victory martinis with LPGA tour officials while every other legitimate journalist was left scrambling trying to figure out what happened. Good one, Mike. I bet you even those Augusta folks are happy to follow an LPGA story this week, as long as it comes from you. Good boy.
10/18/05 @ 11:15
Comment from: Wei [Visitor]
LPGA needs to become a more professional organization. When a rules violation is reported by a spectator/reporter, well into the next day for that matter and not addressed until after a player has signed their card, you have some serious operational issues with your rules managment and enforcement.

At the very worst it should have been a two stoke penatly. Now I know the difference between failure and fiasco.
10/18/05 @ 11:18
Comment from: HK [Visitor]
It's all timing. When somebody gets shot and murdered, shooting needs to be well aimed and also timed. When he/she's gone, a bullet wasted. You get that?
10/18/05 @ 11:57
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
10/18/05 @ 12:07
Comment from: Flog [Visitor]
Intersting points on both sides of the issue. However I think both the press and even people's reactions are blowing this issue way out of proportion.

Call me Captain Obvoius but the fact is that if it were the same situation that happened with some other unknown to the public pro golfer, no one especially the press would have cared about the situation. There would have been no discussion happening right now between wie warriors, the anti-wies, or whatever. Honestly would Bamberger pointed it out to officials if it were some other unknown golfer? I mean it seams that he was the only one that noticed Wie's mistake. Maybe some other golfer made a mistake too in the tourney, we'll never know.

I feel that because of the hype and interest of this young 16 year old golfer, WE as in the people who are responding to this issue which includes the press and the interested public are making it a bloody fiascao by our own responses. WE must all realize that our reponses such as making blatant criticisms on both sides or bringing up un-supported claims is simply adding fuel to the fire.

WE should not be focusing on this issue any longer because it's not like our opinions can change the situation. It is unfortunate about what happened to both Wie and even Bamberger, heck we are all humans and the un-predicted outcome from this situation shows the human side out of all of this. I feel that both Wie and Bamberger want to completely move on from this issue and focus on whatever agenda is set at the moment. In fact I think they they already doing that. So shouldn't we all follow their lead?

If this discussion continues to go on and it probably will just because people always want to have something to say and repeat claims over and over again, it will be a never-ending cycle of coulda, shoulda, wouldas.

Let us just all agree to disagree and move on.
10/18/05 @ 12:26
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Tim-- Bamberger should NOT have kept his mouth shut.

It is however, simply inexecusable that he waited the extra day to inform officals.

If we take him at his word...that the integrity of the game and its rules are so important to him... then he knew by not coming forward before she signed that card he was allowing her to break a SECOND rule (signing the incorrect card)... integrity should have compelled him to report her infraction and have the correct punishment meted out (the two stroke penalty).

You simply must admit..by waiting he has put his credibility and intentions under a microscope.

Isn't it as plausible that he knew what a big story a DQ would be (he paced it off and questioned her at the press conference) and that's why he came forward??? I have zero proof of this.. but it is AT LEAST as plausible as someone who cares about the integrity of the game taking a day to inform officals or a reporter who doesn't want to become the story...becoming THE story.
10/18/05 @ 12:37
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Flog-- I disagree with you. Although this involving Michelle Wie blows up the story (and the emotions). These type of things still matter when they happen to unknowns.

In 1996 Taylor Smith was DQ'd at disney for having the wrong type of grip on his putter (a fairly ludicrous rule..but a rule all the same) this was a big deal at the time as it aided Tiger Woods in his second victory. There was a firestorm of attention surrounding this...so it does matter when it happens to unknowns...
10/18/05 @ 12:41
Comment from: JW [Visitor]
Michelle Wie is probably the best thing that has happened to women's golf since the establishment of the Soldheim matches. You seldom see LPGA events on NBC or CBS on the weekends except for the majors. I doubt that any of this tournament would have been on NBC this past weekend had Michelle not turned pro or had not entered this tournament. She's just 16! She has charisma, she's a cute young girl, she has tremendous appeal to most of the golfing community, and she doesn't act like a crybaby and pout the way Pressler does. Even the LPGA commissioner agreed that Wie's turning pro will be a plus for the tour. The truth be known, even the PGA likes to use her in their tournaments to draw major network coverages. The R&A just ammended their rules to allow for qualified women to compete in the British Open. Seems like more than a coincidence that occurred just as Michelle turns pro.

Michelle will be playing next in a PGA event. I believe the only woman doing so. Then she plans to play in the asian theater. She doesn't have to win right now - people just like watching her talents. Should she decide to play PGA and overseas events more than LPGA events - it would be a loss for all of us.

Bottom line:
Michelle made a mistake, took the high road and returned back to Hawaii to continue her 11th grade curriculum!

The caddie made a mistake. I don't know him, but let any of you who hasn't made a mistake throw the first stone. Even Steve Williams caused Tiger to mis club several years ago at the masters.

The SI writer should have reported the infraction on Saturday. I don't think that anyone disputes that an error was made with the drop. It's just the timing.

SI is going to support their writers. That's what newspaper and magazine organizations do. Bamburger said last night on the Golf Channel that his story will be out this Thursday. I don't think his story will add anything new to this drama.

Regardless of what I think, or anyone thinks, Michelle Wie was the winner in all of this. The only way that she would have received more publicity would have been if she had won. Sorenstam won by a huge margin, and you won't see any stories about her in today's newspapers. And she is generally well liked by all golf fans.

The next time you see Michelle in a tournament, you'll see that she will have the largest following on the course.

Michelle is a great boon to the world of golf - like it or not.
10/18/05 @ 13:04
Comment from: Flog [Visitor]
meetoo-- The situation that you brought up is not an unknown matter because as you stated, Tiger Woods was part of it. Of course it would have gotten a firestorm of attention because Tiger Woods (who at that time was already a highly publicized figure just like Wie) ended up winning the tourney on a controversial ruling. The situation was sort of the opposite for Michelle Wie (also highly publicized as much as Woods at the time) because she ended up being DQ'd instead. The fact is that both situations featured two highly publicized figures and a bloody fiasco and that was the point I was trying to make. If the situation was entirely just unknown golfers invovled, they might get a little attention maybe a blip but not a firestrom comparison when highly publicized figures are invovled.

Also does it seem that some of rules of golf like the ridiculous inappropriate putter grip problematic to the game of golf? And if so then the ruling for the DQ of Wie that was mainly due to outside observance (some could say interference, but I'm not going to go there) and was therefore justified after the tournament ended is considered to be bad for the game of golf despite the fact that it was the correct ruling. So is golf protocol the main culprit and not so much (or as much depending on your perspective) Bamberger?

JW-- I totally agree with you, she took the high road and she's moving on. Handled the situation as the professional she is.
10/18/05 @ 13:42
Comment from: Eric [Visitor]
Most of you are missing the point of the DQ all together. No one even knows if a violation take place. To say the DQ was justifyed would imply a penalty took place. Even the rules official couldn't confirm it so they took a guess. I think people should be more upset at the rules officials then anyone else although the reporter had very questionable motives. Heck, if the reporter even paced off the distance and wasn't sure a penalty took place then why even bother reporting it. All of this basically means the LPGA rules officials took the word of an observer over that of the player and the playing partner and everyone else who saw no violation. That is a slippery road for the future and the LPGA needs to answer to that.
10/18/05 @ 13:56
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
This truly was bizarre, I am a big believer in the rules of Golf, did Michelle make a mistake? Yes! But to wait over a day before some one points it out is a little nuts to me. And how could they actually prove where the ball was, were it was dropped, and where it ended up the next day? Wow!! It is sad that she was DQed as a result, I understand why, but still sad. I also agree with another post, if Michelle or any other golfer starts calling rule officials over for every drop the rounds will take forever. But you almost can't blame them if that starts to happen. Maybe caddies and rule officials should carry GPS devices so they can triangulate the exact position of the ball in relation to the flag. Oh wait a minute then that would be unfair as I am sure any device that can calculate the exact distance to the flag is illeagle. Anyway, overall I agree with the ruling, but sad that Wie or anyother player gets DQed becuase of the delay.
10/18/05 @ 14:14
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]


I'm not ducking it. But are ducking my main point, along with the crucial problem Michelle Wie had: Once she signed the scorecard, oblivious or not, she should have been DQ'd.

And you fail to address another point: There was no official available. So Michelle took an illegal shot on #7 and should have taken a two-stroke penalty. If MIchelle couldn't find an official before her shot, why do you oblige Bamberger to locate somebody?

Is it because you believe people are required to make an extra effort on behalf of Michelle Wie?

Wie headed into peril as soon as she signed the card after round 3. Not round 4.

Do you seriously believe the Wie Warriors would snivel any less or have any fewer conspiracy theories if this thing had been resolved Saturday night and the officials had barred Michelle from teeing off on Sunday? You can't possibly believe that.

10/18/05 @ 14:18
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: June [Visitor]
To Tim and Geroge,

So Bamberger didn't want to be a part of story. Well because he reported it on Sunday instead of Saturday before the round was over, you know what he has beome?

He is not just a part of story but HE is THE STORY. Good grief.

Hey, June.

Tell me what would have happened if Bamberger had reported this on Saturday?

10/18/05 @ 14:24
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
George there WAS an offical available. On the LPGA tour there never is an offical more than THREE holes away!! (as you can note with Annika's issue on line of sight relief on Friday. I don't know where you are getting this stuff from!

I oblige Bambergewr for a simple reason..HE TURNED HER IN!! If on sunday he was able to seek out LPGA tour officals (which as you point out..he was not required to do) then why not on SATURDAY.

On Saturday he was able to 1. observe the drop 2. Pace it off 3. Ask her about it at a press conference--- (remember Michelle thought her drop was legal and it was so close LPGA officals had to measure it with a string-- their first measurements came up inconclusive) So Bamberger was interested in holding her to the rules down to the inch (which is fine)

Why didn't he find someone on Saturday? In nearly every tournament there is some player who has some potential infraction they are made aware of..generally this happens on the course or in the scorers tent BEFORE cards are signed). Banberger could have intervened then... it was on his mind, but he chose to wait until the next day.

George-- in a way you make the point of the Wie supporters...Bamberger was under obligation to do NOTHING! He chose to become involved, not simply as a reporter but as an active participant...

You are correct..he was under zero obligation.... but you have to admit that zero obligation extends to turning her in at all. If he was so disturbed that he paced it off and had to seek out officals on Sunday...he should have sought them on Saturday. When this first started you held that as a reporter he did not want to become part of the story...that was easily refuted as he DID become part of the story...now you mention that he had no obligation, but again he chose to become obliged... there simply is not a good explanation for the timing and you know it.

10/18/05 @ 14:48
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Visitor]
You Wie Warriors suck ass! Just like your girl. Paula Creamer will always be better. I
10/18/05 @ 15:27
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Flog-- I have been against outside observers imposing themselves on golf competition since Craig Stadler was disqualified for utlizing a towel to build a stance years ago. (I am also troubled that tournament leaders and prominent players have a disporportionate opportunity for call in because of the media coverage they receive)

I think the professional tours should add a few stipulations

1. Outsiders (non- players caddies, tournament officials, etc.) Shoud NOT be allowed to call in and effect the outcome.

2. Once the subsequent round begins the issue is over. (you might remember Mark O'meara was involved in a situatiion with Jarmo Sandelin a few years ago on the Euro tour (it involved marking his ball closer to the hole on a putt--Sandelin called him "Mark O'NEARER"-- something similar happened to Colin Montgomery this year)-- in these cases they tried to change the WINNER after a tournament was completed (days or weeks later) I say ENOUGH, when the next round starts you cut it off...or 24 hours after a tournament ends.

3. The silliness about sighing the wrong card (not the same as Michelle...think Roberto Divencenzo),

I think the field can be protected wothout the silliness.
10/18/05 @ 15:39
Comment from: William B. Cissell [Visitor]
Tim MCDonald is as unethical as Micahel Bamberger. It is fine to say that Michelle Wei is responsible for the error in dropping her ball incorrectly, but it is wrong to defend a jerk who knowingly grabbed a news headline by back stabbing a 16 year-old in her first pro tournament.
10/18/05 @ 16:13
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
George there WAS an offical available. On the LPGA tour there never is an offical more than THREE holes away!! **

So what? Michelle took her illegal shot. She took the shot before anybody could be found. If there WAS an official available -- why didn't Wie avail herself of that official?

Either way, she chose to take an illegal shot. That's two strokes right there.


** I oblige Bambergewr for a simple reason..HE TURNED HER IN!! If on sunday he was able to seek out LPGA tour officals (which as you point out..he was not required to do) then why not on SATURDAY. **

Again I ask, when on Saturday? The only point where the DQ could have been averted would be for Bamberger to approach Wie BEFORE SHE SIGNED HER CARD. Why are you having so much trouble with this concept? Wie took the illegal stroke before anybody could have found an official -- because Wie and her caddy decided they knew where to drop the ball.

Is Wie not responsible for her own actions? Is the caddy not responsible?

You are correct..he was under zero obligation.... but you have to admit that zero obligation extends to turning her in at all.

Baloney. If Bamberger didn't drop a dime on Wie, then he's showing favoritism to her and bias against the other 19 golfers. That would also be unfair.

Face it. Wie and her mannequin masquerading as a caddy messed up. The DQ was appropriate. The appropriate thing for Wie to do would be to fire that caddy and find someone who isn't a clown.

Bottom line, why is it that everyone else has to bend over backwards to make sure everything is running smoothly for Michelle Wie? Does she have no responsibility for her own game? Who the hell was it, anyway, who hit the ball into the desert on #7 to in the first place?

Is Wie more equal than everybody else? That's the way it's starting to sound, at least according to some posters.

There are some people -- and many Travel Golf posters -- who so desperately require Michelle to WIN THIS VERY INSTANT to validate their own self-worth that they literally become irrational.

10/18/05 @ 16:45
Comment from: William B. Cissell [Visitor]
I nominate both Tim McDonald and Michael Bamberger for the Sports Reporters Hall of Shame. Michael intentionally sabotaged the maiden pro tournament of Michelle Wie to grab a headline. The shot, judged illegal following a dubious measurement, could have been reported by Wie had Bamberger told her and her caddie that he had paced the distance (which is an imprecise measurement at best). He chose to wait until she had signed the card. McDonald seems to think this approach is just fine. Both are unethical.
10/18/05 @ 17:04
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
To George.
I think most of the discussion is about why Bamberger waited until the moment when bringing this up would mean DQ for MW. Most people seem to accept this statement, 'Rules are rules and one must accept them.' No one is asking preferential treatment for MW.

BTW, here's what I was thinking what Bamberger might have thought about the night before he finally talked to an official about the drop.

-Why didn't I talk to an official right after I saw the drop? People will ask why I waited until after the tournament was over which might lead to her DQ?

-Will people say I wanted my 15 minutes of fame?

-People will accuse me of manipulating the situation so that I can sell more of my book that will be released in 2 weeks?

-People will say I'm trying to get her because she mocked and belittled me in front of a big group of reporters, some my peers.

-How will Wie react? Will she crumble in public and start saying bad things to me?

-Despite all these, I should do the right thing because I love the game of Golf too much.

10/18/05 @ 17:07
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
William -- is there a nice plaque or any sort of money in volved?

10/18/05 @ 17:31
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
It is amazing to me how many people know exactly what Michael Bamberger was thinking this past weekend.

Are you tuned into some sea of consciousness I haven't discovered? There is a theory on this, you know. That we are all somehow connected by mind, and can communicate with each on an inter-conscious level other once we harness this great power.

I bow to you. I envy you. I will do my best to communicate with Bamberger on this level, as you are, so that I may know his true thoughts.

10/18/05 @ 17:42
Comment from: June [Visitor]
I have thought about what might transpire this whole illegal drop thing for whole day and this is what I came up with.

By putting club between the hole and the point of entrance to draw AB, and then put 2 club lengths perpendicular to that fist shaft (method A), you are not getting equilateral triangle. Point C obtained by this way is actually further back from the hole than actual point C of equilateral triangle ABC. Of course by doing the way you describe, there is no chance the ball is end up any closer to the hole.

Now comes the tricky part. From the TV viewing, it sure looks like if you putting 2 clubs like the way you described (method A), it does look like there is a chance the drop point is somewhere on the dirt area. But this doesn’t give you equilateral triangle point C. Actual point C of equilateral triangle ABC would be a little upfront from the dirt area (method B). While there is smaller margin of error in this method, if it is done correctly the ball won’t be closer to the hole, but you can get the drop spot closer to the hole than the spot you got from method A. By using method B, it seems to me like Michelle tried to avoid the dirt area, which is risky but still perfectly within the rule.

Michelle did mention during 3R press conference she had used triangle method and also did mentioned about equilateral triangle although she didn’t elaborate any further when Bamberger asked her exactly how.

Now if Bamberger or casual TV viewer think of only method A and don’t have any idea Michelle was using method B (equilateral triangle), a red flag might raised in their mind when she put the second club at the point C although what she was trying to do was perfectly legal within the rule. I guess this was sticking point when Bamberger went “Oh. Oh” more than the way she carelessly put the second club closer to the point C obtained by method A. But Michelle might be putting second club at the point C obtained by method B. So she has no reason to believe what she is doing is wrong up to this point or after everything is said and done the drop spot is ended up closer to the hole because there is such small margin of error in method B.

Even more complicating aspect is that, if Bamberger and official paced it off the distance following method A, of course it sure looks like what Michelle has done seems wrong. After informed about the possible infraction, I am not sure how accurately and in reasonable manner Michelle could have explained this two separate scenarios to the official or if she ever did so.

This might explain this whole unfortunate episode. Sorry about the long post and rambling but I can’t seem to stop thinking about it cause I feel sorry for Michelle for what happened. But give your thought on that matter. Am I pushing? Is it possible that real issue is truly difference between method A and B?

Take up a pencil and a paper and draw yourself method A and B and think about it.
10/18/05 @ 17:46
Comment from: William B. Cissell [Visitor]

I will be happy to design one. You certainly deserve careful attention to detail.
10/18/05 @ 18:15
Comment from: William B. Cissell [Visitor]

It is not hard to figure out Bamberger's thinking. He had a beautiful opportunity to do something honorable and chose to act dishonorably.
10/18/05 @ 18:17
Comment from: tim [Visitor]
cool. what about the money?
10/18/05 @ 18:23
Comment from: June [Visitor]
I meant to say isosceles trianlge, not equilateral triangle. Sorry about that.
10/18/05 @ 19:29
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
To Tim's comment below.
It is amazing to me how many people know exactly what Michael Bamberger was thinking this past weekend.

Are you tuned into some sea of consciousness I haven't discovered? There is a theory on this, you know. That we are all somehow connected by mind, and can communicate with each on an inter-conscious level other once we harness this great power.

I bow to you. I envy you. I will do my best to communicate with Bamberger on this level, as you are, so that I may know his true thoughts.

Here's my comment:
I do not claim to know what Bamberger was thinking over the weekend. I only wanted to show the circumstances he faced before he talked to an official after the tournament was over.

Please don't try to avoid acknowledging the facts such as he didn't talk to an official during 3rd round when he could've (not should've but could've), has a book about to be released in 2 weeks, and was mocked by MW (I guess according to him) during one of the conferences. I really think the incident during the press conference was the one caused Bamberger to talk to an official. To be made a fool by a 16 yr old in front of a very large gathering of reporters covering golf, a sport Bamberger makes a living covering and writing about.
10/18/05 @ 20:02
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
George A writes

You are correct..he was under zero obligation.... but you have to admit that zero obligation extends to turning her in at all.

Baloney. If Bamberger didn't drop a dime on Wie, then he's showing favoritism to her and bias against the other 19 golfers. That would also be unfair.

George you have problem...your argument keeps changing (as your dislike for Wie shows through).

1. First you said that Bamberger didn't want to be part of the story-- which is disproved by his own actions--where he has BECOME THE story.

2. You have stated REPEATEDLY, that there was no official around...this is simply UNTRUE. There are officals available every few holes.

3. You state that the only way for the DQ to be avoided is through BAmberger speaking to Wie...This is UNTRUE. All he had to do was mention what he saw to the same officals he sought out Sunday. HAd he done that the correct penalty of two shots would have been meted out. This happens at EVERY tournament. Someone calls in or reports a violation and the officals meet with the player BEFORE they sign their scorecard. One of the most famous times this happened was Saturday at Crooked Stick where John Daly was pulled aside for a potential rules violation.

4. You correctly point out that Bambeger had an obligation to the 19 other players. You miss an important point... HE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO 20 PLAYERS. Why is Michelle Wie left out?? You are supposed to protect the FIELD (not the field minus one and not the field minus the girl you don't like and her "mannequin" caddie. Remember Michelle (and her playing competitor Grace Park) thought the drop was legal. Bambeger should have got the score correct not "got Michelle".

You keep pointing out that Michelle has a responsibility... you are correct and she failed in that responsibility. The penalty according to the rules is TWO SHOTS. It is because Bamberger waited.... remember he had time to pace it off.. time to aske her a question at the press conference when it was too late and time to find the correct officals on Sunday...Why not time to make sure the correct penalty was assessed.

This is not a case of people "bending over backward for Michelle Wie". In fact, if you had ever been involved in a tournamnet you would know that this happens EVERY WEEK and the treatment Michelle received from Bambeger is unusual. Generally the information comes into the tournament officals who meet with the player before they sign their cards....Bamberger holding out an extra day is the exception...not people expecting him to act timely.

Please stick to an argument or give up once it has been refuted. I know you don't like her. You don't need to keep manufacturing reasons that this was correct...

10/18/05 @ 20:22
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member]
It is amazing to me how many people know exactly what Michael Bamberger was thinking this past weekend.

Are you tuned into some sea of consciousness I haven't discovered? There is a theory on this, you know. That we are all somehow connected by mind, and can communicate with each on an inter-conscious level other once we harness this great power.

I bow to you. I envy you. I will do my best to communicate with Bamberger on this level, as you are, so that I may know his true thoughts.

Tim I hope this was not directed at me. You should remeber that I said I didn't know what Bambeger was thinking...I simply pointed out that neither did you. And because neither of us know it is no more correct for you (or Chris) to state what he was thinking than for the "Wie warriors".

We can give him the benefit of the doubt or we can crucify him.... my point is that someone who knew the rules as well as he does...knew she would be disqualified if he waited...so he should not have waited unless that is the reult he wasa after...
10/18/05 @ 20:29
Comment from: dba [Visitor]
My comment to metoo:
I think Bamberger's response was unusual because he was mocked by MW in a press conference full of reporters who cover golf. The image keeps playing in my mind. After MW uttered 'teaching geometry' in response to what Bamgerber asked, everyone laughed EXCEPT FOR Bamberger. Why? Was he annoyed that others were laughing and taking away time from him to ask more questions? Annoyed that he was mocked by 16 yr old in front of all his friends/competitors who cover/write about golf like him?

I heard he asked no other questions after that moment. Is that true?
10/18/05 @ 20:34
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Hey George (and Chris/Tim)--

excerpted fom Joe:

“I think it was really fair of the guy who did it. It (just) should have been handled differently; he should have called it before she signed her scorecard,” said world No. 2 Vijay Singh.

The reporter’s timing seemed to bother players more so than his calling a violation.

“I think the way it was handled was wrong in my opinion,” tour rookie Sean O’Hair said. “I think it could have been brought to her attention during the round. If that would have been the case, then she wouldn’t have been disqualified.”

O’Hair said that at the WGC-American Express Championship two weeks ago, his playing companions, Singh and David Toms, brought to his attention a bad drop he made on the 15th hole in the final round. They did so during the round, allowing him to call a penalty on himself, and thus avoiding disqualification for signing an incorrect scorecard.

This is the point I have been making to you all day. Are Vijay Singh and Sean O'Hair "snivelling "Wie Warriors" too????

If Bamberger chooses to become involved because of sportsmanship/integrity, sportsmanship DEMANDS that he act on Saturday.

Are the best players in the world wrong too??? Should Vijay and Toms have left Sean O'hair to be disqualified as Bamberger did?? They had no obligation to him. Do you think they would do that??

As I have told you ad nauseum-- THIS HAPPENS EVERY TOURNAMENT! It does not usually come to a DQ, because those involved have the integrity,decency, and sportsmanship to uphold the RULES and be fair to all competitors..including the one that makes the infraction.

Does your dislike for Wie run so strong that you will now disagree with those that are involved with the game at its highest levels. As I mentioned to you in an earlier note...I bet the players will be nearly unanimous on this...if you feel the obligation to uphold the rules (which you should) feel the obligation to do it right away!!

10/18/05 @ 21:32
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]

Although it is wild speculation on my part..without a shred of proof, I actually believe what you noticed is the issue.

After Michelle gave Bamberger that ridiculous (and childlike) reponse about geometry...I feel that he was determined to prove himself correct. I think he held the information until after the round expecting Michelle to disqualify herself when she heard it. The story would then be that in her first tournament she proved she was "wise" beyond her years. Instead she stuck her foot in her young mouth and things went down hill (for her) from then.

I don't have a bit of proof on this

its just that

1. His not informing officials (or Michelle) befor she signed her card
2. His pacing the drop off
3. His questioning of her (when he knew the drop was illigal...because he paced it off)
4. His silly comments about being in "reporter mode"

all add up to me to be more than a "struggle with conscience".

Again...I really have no idea what he was thinking, but the sum total of the events don't sit well with me.
I would not have ANYTHING negative to say about him had he reported this on Saturday. I probably would have given my two cents worth that I don't like outsiders being able to effect the outcome...but would have acknowledged that as long as they can..he did the right thing.

It is the wait that makes me suspicious.
10/18/05 @ 21:40
Comment from: Just another Snivelling fan [Visitor]
Bamberger is a tool and a clueless tool at that. He still believes he did the right thing protecting the integrity of the game.

Its well documented Bamberger (at the moment) is a SENIOR WRITER for golf at CNN/SI. Further he was a pro caddie thus having extensive knowledge of the game and rulings (i.e. DQ).

How many infractions has he seen and reported to the PGA during all his years around golf. I'll bet ZERO. How can he admit to anything less being that he is honourable. I'd like to hear his comments on this.

Further, after reading alot of columns and blogs, its seems this is not the first time a reporter has interjected themselves into a tournament about possible infractions, only difference it seems is they did it immediately and did not do it hindsight thus affecting the outcome which is exactly what has happened here.

My take is as follows:
Bamberger sees the potential infraction. He is wrestling with the fact of what should I do - no I'm a reporter so I'll just report. Can't cause a scene because this is Michelles comming out tournament, I'm reporting for SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, and besides, if I cause a stir now, it'll look bad, besides I'm getting good comps now and SAMSUNGs really treating me well. After round 3, Bamberger asks Michelle about the drop and Michelle gives a filppant comment about geometry (typical of any 16 year old), this does not sit well with Mr. Tool (I know 1000 times more about golf than you do little Ms. $10M dollar girl - I might just teach you a lesson, and I'm sure DQ has crossed his mind at this point, since she already signed round 3 card).

That night Bamberger is tossing and turning all night debating the situation (oh s*&%$, what do I do - I missed the opportunity to fairly inform Michelle Wie but hey I'm just a reporter in the reporters mode and I should not interfer with the game, besides it'll look bad). But after round 4, Tool man makes his fateful decision and makes the announcement to LPGA officals since he realizes he will have to write about the potential infraction rather than make a cover up (can't have that on your honorable conscience). Bedlam follows and the rest is history.

My point is Tool Man missed his window of opportunity to fairly inform the player. Instead he took the cowards way out and instead of taking his oversight like a man, he became a tool, or rather displayed the characteristics that others have probably not seen up to now, since you don't become a tool overnight. It takes years of practice and eventually you become a full fledged tool.

Michelle, while declaring being a pro is still a 16 year old girl, something alot of people forget. Tool man on the other hand knows the rules probably backwards, fowards, a possibly sideways and would like to teach Ms. Young professional about the game, especially since she did not seem to accord him proper respect during the previous interview, since Tool man knows the game 1000 times more than Ms. 16 year old. More imporatantly he cannot live with his conscience since he is so honorable (never seen or reported any infraction before) as above all Tool man has to protect the integrity of the game or at least be able to live with his conscience (in his clueless mind).

Bottom line is that should MW have called an offical - you bet and she learned that.

Did her caddie drop the ball - probably, but its also questionable that he saw the same thing as Michelle in a fair drop.

Did the LPGA handle things well - the jurys still out. The rules are stated but the evidence has not: was it was 18, 12, 10, 9,8,7,6,5,4, or 3 inches. In the era of videotape, GPS, instant replay, I would be interested to see exactly where the alleged placements were.

Is Bamberger a tool - you bet. Not only has he mis-represented probably the most major sports magazine but still beleives he did the right thing. Like I said, the window of opportunity for doing right thing passed him by, like it appears so many other things in his life. Whatever noteriety he and SI get from this is richly deserved.

If you talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk and I hope it'll be a long one tool man.

Any defence of this tool is pure journalistic homerism to the nth degree.

Just another snivelling fan.
10/18/05 @ 21:55
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
Tim-- I could be an ass and ask you if Len Shapiro is "snivelling", but I won't.

I would honestly like to hear your thoughts on what Shapiro writes below:


From Jason--


Rulings Are for Officials, Not Reporters

By Leonard Shapiro
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 18, 2005; 5:21 PM

What was Michael Bamberger thinking?

Then again, why was Michael Bamberger not thinking?

Bamberger, who has made a solid name for himself as a talented and nationally recognized senior writer and reporter for Sports Illustrated and other publications, also did himself no favors over the weekend when he essentially ratted out Michelle Wie for taking an apparent incorrect penalty drop during the third round of the Samsung World Championship in Palm Desert.

His troubling decision to report her to LPGA rules officials for what he perceived to be a violation of the rules of golf never should have happened.

So what if he witnessed the incident, when Wie took an unplayable lie and apparently dropped her ball no more than a foot closer to a hole she would eventually par. The rules say you can't drop your ball closer to the hole and calls for a two-shot penalty.

The infraction occurred on the par-5 No. 7 on Saturday, but Bamberger did not report the alleged infraction to rules officials until Sunday. By then, of course, Wie had already signed her Saturday scorecard, and when rules officials ultimately determined that Wie had, indeed, broken the rule, she was disqualified from her first tournament as a professional for signing an incorrect scorecard, wiping out her fourth place finish and a check for $53,126.

Back in Journalism 101, among the first principles ever driven into our young and fertile minds was the concept that reporters should never become part of the story. We're there to report and write about what we witnessed, but not inject ourselves into the action or contribute to altering the basic facts of what we've just seen or heard.

If Wie, to take this to an extreme, had fallen into a water hazard and was in danger of drowning, good for Michael Bamberger or any other reporter who would drop his notebook, jump in the pond and rescue her. In that hypothetical, of course a reporter can become part of the story.

But affecting the outcome of a golf tournament because you believe a rules violation has taken place goes way above and beyond the role of the sports press. And by the way, governing bodies of golf that allow television viewers to call in and report possible rules violations also ought to cease and desist in permitting such nonsense.

Bamberger, who's work I have always respected and often admired, has been quoted as saying he believes he did the right and honorable thing.

I believe he was dead wrong and did the absolutely dishonorable thing for his profession. He was there as a representative of his publication, given credentials by the LPGA to "cover" the event, not officiate it. If he wanted to mark off the yardage to prove the error of Wie's ways to himself and then to his readers, no problem there. If he wanted to write about his findings in the magazine, again, that certainly was his prerogative. But to seek out an official and report an alleged transgression in my mind does not and never has fit the job description for a journalist covering a golf tournament.

This is not to say Bamberger does not know the game. He plays. He has caddied on the PGA and European Tours. This year, he even served as a caddy for British Amateur champion Stuart Wilson and wrote about it for his magazine. Good for him, good for his readers, good for SI.

n his role as a caddy, he would have had every right to call a possible rules infraction to the attention of the man whose bag he was carrying, even to bring in an official if he spotted a rules violation by another player or caddy.

As a journalist, he had no right, no matter what sort of moral high ground he has been taking in all the interviews I've seen him give since the DQ, to insinuate himself into the story. He was out of line. Period and end of story.

If Bamberger and the magazine he works for are so concerned about the honor of the sport, I also suggest he and SI start writing about some truly dishonorable aspects of the game.

Perhaps a piece on the discriminatory membership policies of Augusta National and many other courses around the country-including several where SI editors past and present have played-that do not allow women members, or have odious policies that prevent women from teeing off before 1 p.m. on weekends.

Perhaps he can write about all those U.S. Golf Association officers, the men who are the so-called public guardians and protectors of the game, who also belong to clubs like Augusta National, Pine Valley, Peach Tree and Seminole, none of which allow women and several of which have no black members, either.

There are plenty of wonderful, meaty and controversial topics to cover in the wide world of golf. You want to be a journalist, go get 'em tiger.

You want to be a referee, quit the profession, go get a striped shirt and buy a whistle.

Len Shapiro, a past president of the Golf Writers Association of America, can be reached at Badgerlen@hotmail.com.
10/18/05 @ 22:57
Comment from: Just another Snivelling fan [Visitor]
And while I'm on a roll;

Michelle Wie has more talent than most of the SEASONED womens pros currently on the circuit.

She has beaten male PGA pros from the same tees (at 15, not 19 and not 30). By almost making the cut in her most recent PGA invite, she beat half the male field. Boo-ya, male PGA tour pros, not house versions.

Does her game need work, of course, yet she continues to place in the top ten. Just shows you how weak the LPGA circuit really is.

Distance kills. Tiger proved that. When you play your second shot with an 8-SW, you should be at a significant advantage. The days of the short hitters appear to be numbered as it should be. And don't kid yourself, its not only the equiptment. There are a good number of amature golfers out there hitting for distance but of course not consistantly.

When she develops her short game and putting, well who knows. Thats why Nike and Sony invested the money they did in a non-winner (but of course your esteemed collegue knows this).

Distance like height you cannot teach. Either you got or you don't and Michelle's certainly got it. When your 6'1" and have the talent to drive it for distance consistantly, you should rightfully be in a more favorable position than your short hitting competitors. Makes 6400 yard courses seem pretty short.

Good for golf and great for the LPGA. Michelle, like Tiger has just raised the bar.
10/18/05 @ 23:20
Comment from: William Cissell [Visitor]

I read your commentary again and have to criticize your statement, "Its a shame that $10 million in endorsement money can't buy her fans as classy as her herself." That is a terrible remark. You insenuate that Michelle Wie is trying to buy sports fans. She has no need to buy fans and her fans represent a wide spectrum of classes. Some are probably as low class as you and Bamberger.

By the way, I was never a fan of Michelle Wie or any other professional golfer until Bamberger pulled his back stabbing, headline grabbing stunt. Even now, I am less a fan of Michelle Wie than a critic of Bamberger and you, his apologist.
10/19/05 @ 00:13
Comment from: Jake [Visitor]

There are literally just three people in this world that have no problem with Bamberger ratting out Michelle Wie a day late--

Chris Baldwin
Tim Mcdonald
Michael Bamberger
10/19/05 @ 08:17
Comment from: tim [Visitor]
Yes, we like to call ourselves "The Holy Trinity of Justice"

10/19/05 @ 09:01
Comment from: Joe [Visitor]

Don't be silly there are a lot of people who think he did the right thing. It could have been done better but it needed to be done.

From Brian Hewitt of the Golf Channel

Meanwhile it’s my opinion that Michael Bamberger did the correct thing on all counts. Doing the correct thing sometimes means a reporter can’t avoid becoming part of the story.

This time the story didn’t have a happy ending.

But it had the right ending.

Email your thoughts to Brian Hewitt
10/19/05 @ 10:07
Comment from: Jake [Visitor]

No he did the right thing -I have no problem with him going to officials---but again it was A DAY TOO LATE!!
10/19/05 @ 10:40
Comment from: Karen [Visitor]
I think most people feel there wasn't much justice in this whole mess...

I find it very disturbing that Bamberger has been granting and seeking out interviews in the media since this event happened.

Everyone involved seems to be recusing themselves from talking too much to the press with the exception of him--I guess his book is coming out pretty soon.
10/19/05 @ 10:44
Comment from: Jake [Visitor]

By the way Joe--

I don't understand why you think I'm being "silly"-we have the same position on what happened.

I never said Michelle should not have been penalized-however it should have been the proper 2 shot penalty not the disqualification.

Bamberger had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to tell officials yet chose not to do anything. Not to mention all these interviews he is giving to the press that is making him even more unseemly.
10/19/05 @ 10:51
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Joe, Joe, Joe

Bamberger did the right thing, the WRONG way. And he did it the wrong way when he could have chosen to do it right.

This seems lost on you...HE HAD A CHOICE...he could have turned her in on Saturday (hell he could have yelled "you need to redrop", on the course). He CHOSE to wait and it is the waiting that people are angry about. His waiting allowed Michelle (unknowingly) to incur a SECOND VIOLATION (signing an incorrect card) the second violation NOT the first caused her to be DQ'd.

Brian Hewitt refers to him coming forward (and I believe he should have come forward)...but in CHOOSING to come forward LATE (instead of Saturday...which he easily could have done)

he acted outside what the PLAYERS believe is right (see Vijay Singh's and Sean O'Hair's comments).

You were one of the first people to post on this issue in these blogs. You have added some good material to the discussion...but at this point you are just going backward.

He WAS WRONG. We have a right to be angry (see Len Shapiro's comments in the Washington Post), and you know it too.
10/19/05 @ 10:59
Comment from: Jason [Visitor]

At Michelle's next event when Michael Bamberger asks her a question at the press conference

She should say-- "Let me think about it for a day or two then I'll get right back to you!"

Then grant him an exclusive interview for this troubles then meet him after his deadline.
10/19/05 @ 12:23
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
I like the idea of reporters just observing--but if some reporters wish to call infractions to the attention of the officials to protect the integrity of the game--then at a minimum, they should be like Black Jack dealers who follow rules as to when to hit. Thus a reporter might go on record as following a rule to report everything immediately to the officials.
10/19/05 @ 12:55
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
mee to

quoting a golf writer...

The infraction occurred on the par-5 No. 7 on Saturday, but Bamberger did not report the alleged infraction to rules officials until Sunday. By then, of course, Wie had already signed her Saturday scorecard, and when rules officials ultimately determined that Wie had, indeed, broken the rule, she was disqualified from her first tournament as a professional for signing an incorrect scorecard, wiping out her fourth place finish and a check for $53,126.

You're relying on Shapiro to validate yourself, but is he accurate?

As soon as Wie chipped the ball onto the green from the illegal spot, she incurred a two-stroke penalty.

Therefore, she automatically was going to finish worse than 4th and at best would get a check for less than $53k.

Shapiro just made a factual error in his story. And you're relying on him?

It's remarkable how so many people refuse to place any responsibility with the golfer and the caddy.

And up above, you tried to project Bamberger onto me, for whatever reason...

** Sorry Gorge I didn't mean to insert your name for Bamberger's (ok maybe a little) **

Bottom line: Wie hit the ball into the unplayable, not Bamberger. Wie had a two-stroke penalty as soon as she chipped from the illegal spot, not Bamberger. Wie signed an incorrect card, not Bamberger. Michelle is ultimately responsible, not Bamberger. The caddy played the fool and helpd to undo his client. If anyone should be fired, it's the caddy, not Bamberger.

Even B.J. Wie is less angry about this than you are. From her public statements, Michelle is not as angry about this as you are.

You and the other Wie Warriors, not Michelle, are unhinged about this. You are the ones who need to obtain some perspective and become grounded in life.

Michelle is talented, maybe even superstar talented. Who can know for sure?

How far that talent takes her, no one can know. Not you. Not anyone. Not even Michelle. Because no one can know what an athlete can do -- until the athlete does it. All she can do is try hard and attempt to improve. That is all that can be asked of any athlete, really.

What's more, Michelle seems very grounded. She is dignified and gracious. Michelle, in fact, as a teenager, is far more grounded than the rabid pack of pit yorkies that masquerades as her fans.

To reiterate, for you and the other Wie Warriors, this isn't about Michelle Wie and her unfortunate detour to a DQ.

This whole kerfluffle is about you.

This is about your desparate need for validation and self-worth, about your lack of self confidence, about your ravenous hunger for Michelle to WIN THIS VERY INSTANT AND NOT ONE SECOND LATER.

Your only value is to (marginally) entertain other posters and provide reliable fodder for Travel Golf hosts.

You Wie Warriors are like orbiting satellites, bound to Michelle by her gravity. You only care about having the opportunity to bask in Michelle's reflected glory.

Unless Michelle shines, you reflect nothing. No one would know you were there.

10/19/05 @ 14:07
Comment from: Ho-J [Visitor]

That was pretty cool joke... I am sure he will like it.

But in all honesty, SI report did the right thing but too late, thus altering the outcome of the tournament. Furthermore, he deprived Michelle to keep her paycheck for 4 days of hard work under tremendous pressure. This could have been prevented had he acted in a timely manner.

In the end, Michelle handled it so gracefully. In fact, there are lot more fans out there today than Sunday owing to SI reporter. We all should thank Mr. Bamberger for what he did.
10/19/05 @ 15:08
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
George-- Where you get this stuff Ic will never know.

Wie AND Bamberger are connected. BOth were required for this situation. You corectly point out that Michelle hit the shot, made the drop, struck, the chip and signed the card.... BUT none of these were thought of as penalties without Bamberger.

Bambeger watched the drop, paced it off, and contacted officals, which led to the discovery of the incorrect card and the resultant disqualification.

Bamberger HAS responsibility. He HAs it because he CHOSE to become involved. He didn't have to become involved...he CHOSE to. When he made that choice he was faced with a secondary decision....should I inform someone now (as is done every tournament-- attested to by Vijay Singh and Sean O'hair...but I suppose THEY are sniveling too) or should I wait.

His reasons for waiting are unfathomable... was he in "reporter mode", was he embarrassed by the "geometry lesson" MIchelle gave him, was he looking for a bigger story, is he just COMPLETELY CLUELESS,

But under all circumstances he made an action and needs to be held accountable for it. Had he simply acted timely than she would have received the TWO SHOT penalty her "illegal shot" earned.

I don't know why you have such trouble with this concept. Like any informer (snitch to those who don't like him) he has a choice of when to inform.

George-- just because your the type who isn't a fan...don't piss on those who are.....

It was easy to laugh at the Cubs, white sox (and formerly red sox) but only a fan knows the despair and joy of being a fan.

Some of us feel for Kevin Stadler in his DQ, we felt for the gorgeously red clad Paula Creamer when she was DQ'd. But there is something ignoble about being DQ'd when you didn't have to be

And that is why we snivel....you pompous self-righteous, argument changing, ass
10/19/05 @ 16:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Meetoo said:
I don't know why you have such trouble with this concept. Like any informer (snitch to those who don't like him) he has a choice of when to inform.

George-- just because your the type who isn't a fan...don't piss on those who are.....

The reason why George has such trouble is because he is a Creamer-fanatic. He cannot stand to see anyone do better, let alone like a 15 year old girl did this year.

That is what drives his passion. Some people, like me and you, like both of these girls, but we are willing to look objectively at what they have done and say Michelle did better in 2005.

I'm sure, Meetoo, you will also agree that maybe Paula will do better than Michelle next year. If she does, good luck to her, and we will be the first to admit it.
10/19/05 @ 17:23
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
I too am extremely interested in Creamer...she plays extremely well and looks unbelievable in red....

however....I believe Michelle will outplay her in the events they have in common (which is really all she can do), while Paula will likely continue to be World #2 (behind Annika) and number 2 on the money list.

If that happens they will be the second and third best players in the world (in some order depending on your allegiance, which will not be to bad for a 19 year old and a 16 year old.
10/19/05 @ 18:46
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
George is just being good old George.

The following is his evolution

1. George first stated that the reporter didn't want to be a part of the story (Tim McDonald liked this one). Of course this was the most easily refuted..As Bamberger became THE story.

2. George then stated that there wasn't an official around for Bamberger to speak with. Easily refuted by the fact that there are officials every few holes (exactly for this type of thing)

3. George than started his Long diatribe about Bamberger not being obligated to help Michelle Wie... George then polluted this argument with some convoluted notion that somehow Bamberger WAS obligated to help the other 19 contestants. (I must say this one baffled me...why the other contestants earned Bamberger's aid and obligation and not MIchelle Wie simply makes no sense...unless you live in George's "I hate Michelle Wie and her fans world").

4. George then moved on to a missive about personal responsibility (MIchelle hit the shot..MIchelle took the illegal drop...MIchelle signed the scorecard, etc.) I believe he was trying to make a point that Wie's fans were attempting to alleviate Michelle of her responsibilities. What George misses is the fact that no one is giving Michelle a break here...we simply are astounded that a reporter who noticed a bad drop on the 7th hole on saturday, who had the presence of mind to pace it off, who as a result KNEW Michelle had incurred a penalty, didn't tell anyone about it Saturday and waited until Sunday when Michelle had incurred a second penalty, disqualification.

5. George then takes a shot at noted golf writer Len Shapiro of the washington post stating that "he had no credibility"....(you wonder what color the sun is in George's world??)

6. Finally George points the fingers at Michelle Wie's fans--- saying we live in reflected light and a bunch of other nonsense that points greatly to George's dislike of Michelle and her fans but does little to shed the light on why Bamberger's action turned a TWO SHOT penalty into a DQ.

7. George has even delusionally mentioned that MIchelle Wie's fans are expecting a win "this instant and not one second later"...forgetting that Wie's fans have been extolling the virtue of her year, while preaching patience on the wins front. In fact, it is the WIe haters who are continually ridiculing Michelle for her lack of a win... even more to the point there is nothing in the issue with Bamberger that could have Brought Michelle a win..ANNIKA WAXED HER BY ALMOST 10 STROKES!! So how are we "expecting a win this instant)...Again I must admit I was baffled by this one

THrough all of this George has ignored..
-- Vijay Singh and other top players stating that Michelle deserved a penalty but Bamberger should have acted earlier to avoid a DQ

--Some of Bamberger's colleagues at SI stating that they felt his actions were worthy of blame and that in the past when faced with similar circumstances they had acted much differently and more in keeping with the concepts of sportsmanship and decency

So George what will it be next?? Michelle Wie is really the one armed man from the fugitive?? She eats children??? Bamberger was on a mission from God???

Whatever it is, I can't wait to hear it!!!
10/19/05 @ 19:37
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
Even kids know berger did wrong.
I am sure berger doesn't have any kid.
berger knows all about golf then should say that time-it doesn't matter who you are- when the drop was so concerned.
he wanted to sell his name to the world. so he waited until next day like a sly wolf in the story.
his intention was selling his books.
he thinks people will still buy his golf book. his fellows advertised him as one of the best golf writer.
But I do not buy that.
I do not even click CNN/SI any more.
What a rotten berger reporter!

10/19/05 @ 21:43
Comment from: Jason [Visitor]

Bamberger said in the interview he got some pretty interesting messages.

"One guy said he wished he could cut off my head, place it between two pieces of a hamburger bun and place it in a microwave forever."

Man--I hope that wasn't me I got pretty smashed at a party last night.

10/19/05 @ 23:41
Comment from: passing bye [Visitor]

LOL you put some time into your last post.
Give everyone a favor and ignore that fuking troll.

I enjoyed Shapiro's article and few other ones here on this forum.

It's just a shame what happened to Michelle and personally I don't know what the heck Michael was thinking.
IT doesn't matter, I think MW learned a great lesson and it's time to move on folks.

This debate is becoming honestly retarded as nothing can change the outcome of the game.
10/20/05 @ 01:48
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
well planned plots by si and berger. sick si and berger! torturing young girl like that way..
10/20/05 @ 04:48
Comment from: tim [Visitor]
Jason -- I nominate your blog as best on this entire thread. I know what it's like to have a little too much fun and threaten to cut off someone's head. Or not.
10/20/05 @ 07:53
Comment from: Jason [Visitor]
""Jason -- I nominate your blog as best on this entire thread. I know what it's like to have a little too much fun and threaten to cut off someone's head. Or not.""

Thanks Tim !

Looks like a lot of people have it in for Bamberger--I think its time for him to change phone numbers.

Someone posted his phone number at SI in the ESPN forums!! LOL!
10/20/05 @ 08:29
Comment from: Mitch [Visitor]

From Michael Wilbon's Washington Post online chat--

Charlottesville, Va.: Should Michael Bamberger have told Michelle Wie that he was considering reporting a scoring error? What is the responsibility of a reporter in that situation?

Michael Wilbon: Michael Bamberger should be reporting the news, not affecting it. He shouldn't be turning anybody in. He shouldn't be going to the PGA Tour with ANYTHING. You can report it, criticize her...But you're not there to enter yourself into the tournament...and A DAY LATER AT THAT! He's not the police. I find this thing distasteful...to go on the court and RECREATE a situation. How awful.
10/20/05 @ 13:51
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Here are the facts in the dq of Michelle Wie.
- practically everyone admits that a rule should have been broken and a penalty should have been received.

But the difference is, some of us think that it should have been reported earlier
- Michael Bamberger has recently admitted that he should have spoken earlier.
- Vijay Singh said that it should have been reported earlier.
- Tiger Woods has said that it should have been reported earlier.

I am glad to be in agreement with the above people, in thinking that the timing was unfortunate.

I feel sorry for Tim McDonald, for writing the original blog. I guess he has been proved wrong. I haven't heard any Wie fans complain about her getting a penalty.
Wie fans have only complained about the timing of the Michael Bamberger deciding to report the incident .... and Tiger Woods and Vijay Singh agree with us.
10/20/05 @ 16:29
Comment from: tim [Visitor]
Norman - I don't think this is the sort of thing where one can be "proven wrong." I haven't seen any facts that would do that. One can certainly hold an opinion, which I do, as do you.

My opinion will probably not be influenced by what Len Shapiro or Michael Wilbon thinks, and certainly not by what Vijay Singh or Tiger Wood says. I will consider their opinions -- and almost everyone else's for that matter -- but in this case, my opinion is the same as when I first wrote the blog.

Wie broke the rules, it was reported and she received the appropriate penaly under current golf rules. Now, I happen to think those rules are incorrect -- the governing bodies need to get over this thing about so severely penalizing someone for unknowingly signing a scorecard incorrectly -- but that's the way the rules are written now, and they were followed, whatever their shortcomings.

You can crow as much as you want about Woods and Singh being "on your side" -- that doesn't mean a thing to me.

10/20/05 @ 17:36
Comment from: Mitch [Visitor]
Sorry Tim got to disagree with you

The appropriate penalty would have been a 2 shot addition to her score card.

A disqualification is an inappropriate punishment.
10/20/05 @ 18:39
Comment from: meetoo [Visitor]
I think Norman's point Tim, is the fact that this blog began with an article stating that Michelle Wie's fans were snivelling for questioning Bamberger.

You are completely entitled to your opinion...but it would appear to me that if you can hold your opinion against the tide of Wie's fans..a growing number of sportswriters, the best players in the world, and even Bamberger himself (upon reflection)...THen anyone calling Michelle Wie's fans "sniveling" for holding an opinion which is at worst case the equal of yours.

Chris and Tim--as opinion leaders and blog writers...took an opinon. It was taken early, it was full of venom, and at least from the point of view of Banberger...it was WRONG.

Michelle's fans clearly had the right to question Bamberger's actions/timing. He has done the same thing and says if he could do it all over...he would do it differently.. That was at least my point from the beginning...

and it seems somehoe hollow that those who would call us sniveling for holding an opinion...now choose to be cloaked in "we all have a right to an opinion".
10/20/05 @ 18:54
Comment from: Just another Snivelling fan [Visitor]
Snivellus here again;

Well I've had time to chill awhile, ok for the legions suffering from AR and its pervasive in the golf world, I've stepped back and analyzed the situation further and have been more enlightened over these past days since I posted here last.

In fact, as much as I hate to do this, I'm going cut tool man some slack (Bamberger for those who have not been keeping track), but not too much. Gotta be fair now don't we. Yes, isn't it all about fairness. Well don't get too happy because tool man still deserve public crucifixition, and after all isn't that what being a reporter is all about, the public.

Folks we're looking at


Big time damage control or to use a better euphamism SANITIZATION.

First, no one has mentioned JIM HERRE (Assisting MANAGING EDITOR at SI). Is EVERYONE sleeping out there? My apologies to tool man but isn't HERRE the one who TOLD tool man to report his findings to the officials.

Now in all FAIRNESS, I doubt tool man tells him everything (e.g. first contact, delay, et al.). It sounds like he has only said hey I saw this and that. Nobody said Tool man is stupid. Isn't that what all SNIVELLING tools are. Like Michelle, I suspect Herre gets sandbagged but like I said tool man is not stupid. Were talking equal, if not more culpability here.

Now don't you think the ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR knows the RULES and what'll happen, or maybe just didn't give the ramafacations that much thought. Then BANG ZOOM - bedlam and SANITIZATION time.

Now I'm very surprised the media piranahs have not sunk their teeth into this. I mean this is could be the WATERGATE, I mean RATHERGATE of the sports world. Yes, the media is so ravenous for cheap shots and stories, well isn't this HUGE. I mean were talking SI, sports icon, mogul media monster, SENIOR REPORTER, ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR. Comon now. I'm sure you get the picture. Oh yes it's one of your own, not to mention a media moster that might crush any rogue outside journalist, not to mention you might have to try to get a job there one day.

Well as far as the events goes, and in light of tool mans interview (in house SI), we'll take him at his word being genuially sorry. I mean he feels bad for Michelle, at little less for the caddie whom he'd like to lay partial blame on but enough said about that. Fact remains he's a low life sandbagging tool. Just hosed Michelle and implicated his boss, didn't he.

Yes management at SI just hosed a child prodigy and now is spin doctoring (wealsing) there way out.

How many reporters give a full fledged interview after a DQ.

I think ROB STANGER gives closest to the best comments where hes been in a similar situation before but went immediately to the player. Seems someone has common sense at SI. More interesting (to me anyways) is his comments on the shoulder height drop. Since were all talking rules and integrity here, let me take it to the extreme. Players drop from less than shoulder height. Were talking 90 degrees here for those who don't know right triangles. I wonder what penalty is for a 89 degree drop. Can you even tell the difference in 1 degree. I say lets look at all the video tapes, since all past tournaments are taped. Since past events have dictated hindsight rulings, in all FAIRNESS, 87 degree drops should be called. You see where I'm going here.
10/20/05 @ 22:10
Comment from: tim [Visitor]
Mitch -- I agree. That's what the penalty SHOULD be. A DQ is ridiculous overkill. Unfortunately, that's not what the rules are now. So, in that context, the rules -- unfair as they may be -- were applied appropriately. I assume you can appreciate the distinction.

10/21/05 @ 08:16
Comment from: tim [Visitor]
Metoo -- My opinion on many of Wie's fans remains the same -- sniveling.

There are many Wie fans who are sane. Many are deluded. You can read back over this and Chris Baldwin's blogs and figure out who's who.

Claire cautioned me not to form broad opinions on Wie fans based on the lunatic fringe. I'm trying not to do that.
10/21/05 @ 08:24
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Good thing the Wie fanatics weren't Roberto DiVicenzo fans ... might've started looting & riots in Augusta fifty years ago!
10/21/05 @ 12:56
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Tim said:
Mitch -- I agree. That's what the penalty SHOULD be. A DQ is ridiculous overkill. Unfortunately, that's not what the rules are now. So, in that context, the rules -- unfair as they may be -- were applied appropriately. I assume you can appreciate the distinction.

We agree that the rules should be changed.
We agree that the rules were applied correctly as they stand.
Where we disagree, is that I think Bamberger should have reported it straight away.
10/21/05 @ 13:37
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
By the way, people insult Michelle alot for not knowing the rules. I have even heard some refer to her as a "veteran" who should know better. A veteran at 16!!!!

Just to put it in perspective. Annika has been playing for YEARS and has TONNES of wins. However on the last whole on Friday, she didn't know the rule regarding the scoreboard incident.

Now before people start jumping in saying "but Annika did the right thing in having an official present".
Yes Annika did the right thing, but my only point, is that Annika didn't know the rules in that case, and the commentators on the channel I was watching were shocked at how she didn't know. They were saying any rookie should know. So even the great Annika doesn't know everything!!!!

So lay off Michelle for not measuring correctly, even though she or moreso her "experienced" caddie, should have called an official.
10/21/05 @ 13:42
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Michelle knew the rules, it was just that it was hard to determine if the drop point was closer or not. Knowing the rules has nothing to do with the case.

Annika is famous for knowing the rules better than most officials. But she needed to get the permission of an official if she wanted to get away with something that violated the rules.
10/21/05 @ 17:12
Comment from: kim densham [Visitor]
good points, I guess though Bamberger's motives are unanswered, he has obfuscated the issues by hiding behind journalistic integrity, as by his own standard that he has now set, he cannot so much as jaywalk without reporting himself to the authorities, and we have not so much as looked at his expense claqims, driving at the correct speed and all the other "rule violations that people commit day in - day out, I clearly think his motives were to make a name for himslef, his drivel about not sleeping at night, or being able to live with himself ( SI Q&A), begs the question...how many muggings,atrocities and other immoral acts has he witnessed and not vreported on , because he would not make a name for himslef.

People Bambergher watch has commenced...he wants you to reports his ever rule violation from this day forth...
10/21/05 @ 21:01
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
What happens if Michael Bamberger loses his job as a reporter, goes back to caddying and becomes Michelle Wie's caddy?
10/22/05 @ 00:44
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim Coulthard said:
Annika is famous for knowing the rules better than most officials. But she needed to get the permission of an official if she wanted to get away with something that violated the rules.

So are you saying that Annika tried to knowingly cheat?
10/22/05 @ 18:03
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Let us just say that Annika was trying for a new interpretation of the rules. Taking the slope of the green into account ceretainly seems like a reasonable idea--but it would be a nightmare to try to enforce such a rule. I was perhaps to harsh in the way I first put it.

Now let us look at another example of something simuilar. Michelle Wie's drop at the bee bush. She got relief for a playable lie even though she said it would not have been a smart play to play the ball. In other words she almost admitted she would have taken an unplayable lie if not for the bees. She obviously is not very good at this sort of thing or she would never have made that admission. Did she tell the official that she thought it would not be a smart play to play the ball? I am sure she did not tell the official she would have taken an unplayable lie even if there had been no bees.
I do not believe that is the way Michelle Wie wishes to play the game, and I would not be surprised if she were happy to have been DQed on another ridiculous matter so that it cannnot be said that she gained any unfair benefit in this way.

I would also like to express my support for Michelle Wie win, lose, or DQ. Michelle Wie is very good at not paying attention to what people say--but there are limits. Some people have been very nasty about Michelle Wie and her lack of wins. We fans need to let go of any desire to have Michelle Wie win to show them up. Idiots are idiots, what do they matter? It is clear to me that Michelle Wie doesn't need to learn how to win, right now she needs to learn to let go of winning, and her fans need to be with her on this. Let people think Paula Creamer is better and will be always better. Michelle Wie won't gain the idiots as fans if she wins, and she won't lose the fans she has now if she doesn't. So let us simply enjoy her fine play and wish for her that she can always do her best.

10/22/05 @ 21:27
Comment from: Just another Snivelling fan [Visitor]
Snivellius here;

Well I've been feeling under the weather lately and had to brew up a potion. Anyone get the nexus yet? Yes our host is quite brillant, took me a few blogs. Besides how the heck did my girl J.K. just get involved in this whole issue. And don't even go there.

Now I generally don't like to reply to fellow BLOGGERS because, as our hosts esteemed LEFT COAST editor so correctly points out, quite frankly we don't give a RA about what anyone else has to say and I'm not talking Royal and Ancient here. And while were mentioning the Royal and Ancient, supreme kudos and two pips for their position. I'm ROFLMAO wondering what type of perks SI is going to get when they go overthere. I thought they were a bunch of old codgers (no offense) but they're actually quite progressive, but I digress.

Now it appears by cutting tool man some slack, my last post has caused some confusion. As far as agendas go, well tool man has no agenda. Do you mean to tell me you have never met a tool. Were you home schooled or something? Yes, I can definately say tools have no agendas. Dosen't it say so in Websters? I think Websters can definately back me up on this one. I mean comon, you've never met a clueless tool before.

And as far as obfsu.. something or another, wow that really hurts to even look at that word. Are you related to William F. Buckley Jr.?
And don't even get me started on Roget (e.g. French, politics, anti-US).

Well this whole issue has shurely taken a turn into somewhere else. (Where are you William F.? I need a word).

I mean DROPGATE. Common. Don't journalists today have some creativity out there? Didn't I just name it BAMBERGERGATE.

10/23/05 @ 18:18
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Jim Coulthard, I'm curious. Who do you think had a better year in 2005 - Wie or Creamer?
10/24/05 @ 07:48
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Jim Coulthard, I'm curious. Who do you think had a better year in 2005 - Wie or Creamer? **



Creamer wins second Japan title of 2005
by Associated Press

MIKI, Japan -- LPGA rookie Paula Creamer birdied the first playoff hole Sunday to win the Masters GC Ladies for her second Japan tour title this year.

The 19-year-old Californian closed with a par-72 to tie Japan's Chieko Amanuma at 4-under 212 after 54 holes. Creamer then sank an 8-foot birdie putt on the par-4 18th after Amanuma missed a 15-foot birdie putt.

"I was so nervous I was shaking watching her," said Creamer, who has four career titles, including the NEC Karuizawa in Japan in August. "She had a decent putt and I knew I had to make mine."

Japan's Ai Miyazato, winner of the Japan Women's Open, shot a 74 to finish at 218.

10/24/05 @ 11:17
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Another win???? Aw, c'mon, you're pulling my leg!
10/24/05 @ 12:31
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
Creamer wins second Japan title of 2005
by Associated Press

MIKI, Japan -- LPGA rookie Paula Creamer birdied the first playoff hole Sunday to win the Masters GC Ladies for her second Japan tour title this year.

** shanks:
Another win???? Aw, c'mon, you're pulling my leg!**

#4 is indeed in the bag for Paula "Just Win, Baby" Creamer, as the Pink Panther hunts down and captures another victory!

A great year continues for Paula Creamer: four tournament victories, including the so-called "5th major" -- those French do like to put on airs at times -- and of course, Paula's stellar Solheim Cup performance.

Talent, moxie, victories, good looks -- Paula's the real deal.

10/24/05 @ 12:59
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]

She is really good looking.
10/24/05 @ 13:34
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]

It also was probably a pretty decent payday for Paula "Just Win, Baby" Creamer, depending on the exchange rate. Here's a slightly longer story.

Nice line in the story about how Paula "calmly" drained the winning playoff putt.

2005 Kyodo News Service
October 23, 2005 Sunday


LENGTH: 233 words

HEADLINE: Golf: Creamer takes Masters GC Ladies title in playoff

DATELINE: MIKI, Japan, Oct. 23

U.S. LPGA rookie Paula Creamer birdied the first extra hole to beat Chieko Amanuma in a playoff to claim her second Japan tour title at the Masters GC Ladies on Sunday.

Overnight leader Creamer shot an even-par 72 to finish the regulation 54 holes tied with Amanuma, at 4-under-par 212 at Masters Golf Club in Hyogo Prefecture.

In the playoff held at the par-4 18th, both players reached the green in two shots and it came down to a putting contest in which Amanuma missed a birdie putt from about 15 feet before Creamer calmly holed an eight-footer to decide it.

'She (Amanuma) had a decent putt to make and I knew that I had to make mine, but other than that, I was so nervous I was shaking watching her,' said Creamer, who won her second title in as many Japan LPGA appearances following her victory at the NEC Karuizawa 72 in August.

Creamer pocketed prize money of 22.14 million yen in the richest tournament on the Japanese women's tour, which boasted a purse of 123 million yen.

Naoko Takasaki was two strokes back for third place after a 72, while money rankings leader Yuri Fudo and tour rookie Shinobu Moromizato were in a six-way tie for fourth at 1-under 215.

Ai Miyazato, winner of the Japan Women's Open, capped off a disappointing week with a 74 for a share of 14th place at 2-over 218.

10/24/05 @ 15:27
Comment from: shrodr [Visitor]
The ironic thing about this column is that it was meant to call into question those that defended Michelle throught the stupidity that surrounded her disqualification, yet it became more of a referendum on the character of the people that continue to defend Mr. Bamberger. It seems they are hell bent on sticking with him, facts be damned, out of an obvious jealousy for a 16 year old girl with a great deal more talent than any of them will ever have.
They expect us to believe that Mr. Bamberger alone, in a group of sports writers, hundreds of spectators, tournament employees, a fellow player and her caddie, was the only one to see this infraction. Then, instead of mentioning to anyone in his group, he stayed silent. Why not ask one of his collegues what they thought? Might ruin his story.
So he stays behind to pace it off himself and comes to the conclusion that she was wrong in her calculations as to where to drop the ball. There can't be any grey area there now, so he now has the proof he needs. Why wait for an explaination from the player? Is she going to tell him something his own feet didn't? As to his not having time to hunt down an officail out of fear of missing something, well he already risked missing something by staying behind and pacing off the distance himself. As to it not being his responsibility to find an official, I thought he was all hung up on the virtues and honor of the game. Whose responsibility was it then, when he was the only one he knew, or suspected, an infraction had occured. He also had 11 holes in which to cross paths with an official before Michelle finished her round and signed her card. Are you telling me there wasn't one official following the newest, biggest name on the tour on her round? And why wouldn't he make a quick remark to one of his collegues about it after the pace off? "Gee, I paced it off myself and it seems she dropped closer on the last hole, what do you think? What should I do?" But he didn't do either. Might ruin his story.
There was no responsibility on Michelle's part to find an official to report anything. She believed she made an legal drop. Why would she question it without someone bringing to her attention the possibility it was improper? Had he mentioned it to her or her caddie before they finished the round, they could have taken actions to find an official. But Mr. Bamberger didn't. Might ruin his story.
So he follows her for 11 more holes and decides to take his secret suspicions to the post round press conference, where he asks a general question about the drop. Then, when he doesn't get a satisfatory answer to his question he stays silent instead of having the guts to follow up on his thoughts. "Well Michelle, I stayed behind after you left the hole and paced it off for myself and it seems it was closer, are you confident you made a legal drop?" It's the obvious follow up if he didn't like the answer he got to the first question. But then all of this would have been exposed to his fellow reporters. Might ruin his story.
I think way to much slack has been given Mr. Bamberger for his actions. He is the one with supposed experience, as a player, caddie, and writer. He knew every step of the way what was at stake. Yet with all his years of experience he failed to do the right thing at the right time. His defenders would rather turn it on Michelle, a 16 year old who was somehow supposed to know what was in his mind before she signed her card. But if he did let her in on it, it might ruin his story.
So he spends a sleepless night, tossing and turning, as the ghosts of Hogan, Sarazen and Snead haunt him about how the honor of the game is in his hands. He talks to his publisher who tells him to tell the tour officials if he thinks there was a penalty. So he goes to the LPGA and tells them his story. Does the LPGA call Michelle aside and tell her of his suspicions. No, they let her play, guaranteed of the TV ratings her appearance will get them. Then when she is done, they call her aside and ask her to find the spot, a day later, after 18 holes of golf, where she dropped the ball on the 7th hole. There isn't a golfer out there who can honestly tell me they could find the spot, within the 3" to 12" she was reported to be closer, that they dropped a ball a day earlier. The video was inconclusive, as were their own measurements, but the supposed spot she picked out after playing 18 holes, was good enough for them to disqualify her. Shame on the LPGA. Michelle handled it with great pose. One thing did get ruined. Mr. Bamberger's reputation.

10/24/05 @ 16:34
Comment from: Jim Coulthard [Visitor]
Shanks. Not taking age into account, I thought whoever would do better at the Samsung would be the one to have the better year--that would be Paula. In any case, I am no longer interested in getting into these comparisons. Michelle is under enough pressure, her fans don't need to add any by getting into these discussions.

Shordr. I think the LPGA was correct not to interfere with Michelle Wie's round. Certainly if it had been resolved in Michelle's favor it would have ruined her round to bring up the matter prematurely.

I would like to see pressure taken off Michelle Wie--like the rookie quarterback whose coach calls all the plays. In this case, it would be good if Michelle could focus entirely on making shots--but for that she needs to listen to her caddy. I think BJ might like to have Michael Bamberger caddy for Michelle--and given what happened I think Michelle would listen to him. She would be much better off if she jcould let her caddy decide what shots she should try. THAT WAY THE FAULT FOR A BAD SHOT WOULD NOT BE HERS ALONE. Even though BJ doesn't know that much, Michelle listens to him and did quite well when he caddies for her in Europe.

10/24/05 @ 17:58
Comment from: shrodr [Visitor]
Jim - The only way I can see that the LPGA would have been right in letting her finish her round is if Bamberger didn't inform them of his suspicions till after she started her round. If he told them before she started, then they needed to resolve it right away.
10/24/05 @ 23:44
Comment from: Karl [Visitor]

Michelle will be just fine--- Paula Creamer can't touch what Michelle Wie has accomplished at 15 and 16 years old.

The ONLY fair comparison would be to compare what Michelle will accomplish when she's 19 - and what Paula accomplished this year.

Since this whole discussion can't be quantified for another 3 years---this whole discussion is ridiculous and just a flimsy excuse for Wie bashers to do something else besides smoke their crack.

If Michelle doesn't win at 18-19 during her first year as a member of the LPGA then the debate can begin.
10/25/05 @ 13:47
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I think the really sad thing is that the Wie-bashers are jumping for joy because Paula has won another tournament in Japan.

.... yet I think we all know that if Michelle were to win one of these tournaments, they would be saying it is 2nd rate and meaningless.

In my opinion, it is good for Creamer to win it. The opposition might be 2nd rate but she still has to travel there and win it. I hope Creamer-lovers will show the same respect for Michelle in future, but I seriously doubt it.
10/25/05 @ 16:30
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
See, that's where you are dead wrong. You actually think that I am a Wie-basher but that is not true. I point out her weaknesses only in these silly comparisons you want to make.

I EXPECT her to start winning one day, possibly soon. And I'll be happy for her. She needs to win something somewhere or eventually it could become detrimental to her confidence and development. A tough win, even against a limited field, could do wonders for her in that regard.

10/25/05 @ 17:33
Comment from: David Doig [Visitor]
Whats' all this stuff about Bamberger being a caddy? Sure he caddied on the PGA tour - just so he could write about it. Did the same later, on the European Tour for the same reason and wrote one of the best books on golf I've ever read, and i've read a lot of them. "To The Linksland" Check it out.
10/25/05 @ 20:15
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
MIchelle Wie doesn't need people telling her she needs to win or it might be detrimental to her confidence. She needs people to tell her she's only 16, and she could do a lot to reduce the pressure to win if she would only let her caddy decide what shots to take, and then she could focus her attention entirely on trying to make the shots her caddy advises her to take. If she won't let Juli Inkster's caay call the shots, maybe she would do so if Maichael Bamberger were her caddy.
10/25/05 @ 21:08
Comment from: David [Visitor]
I once saw an Asian player on the European Tour - I forget what his name is - and he marked his ball and placed it elsewhere (they were playing 'preferred lies'). He then picked up his ball again, then replaced it. That's illegal; you're only allowed to replace the ball once during 'preferred lies'.

The guy knew he had been penalised by the time he had reached the green. He didn't cry about it. He also shouldn't be congratulated that he 'took it in good spirits.' If he didn't like the ruling, he could've just withdrawn and took his ass home without a paycheck. Why should Michelle be patted on the back for taking it with 'class'? She shouldn't; nobody is bigger than the rules, not even a spoilt, hyped-up, 16 year old millionaire with 0 tournament victories.

She knows this, of course.

The disqualification was, of course, justified. However, what annoys me is that Bamberger saw the illegal drop, and the stupid idiot waited at least a day and a half before reporting it. Had he reported the breach in real time to an official nearby, Michelle would've gotten off with a simple two-stroke penalty and could've just continued her round. Bamberger was probably just trying to get a front-page headline. Or maybe he kept changing his mind about whether a rule breach had occurred or not. Either way, he probably thinks of himself as a hero with newfound celebrity status, but really he's just a pathetic moron with a deadline to meet and a juicy story to write. (By the way, I like Michelle Wie and Paula Creamer, although some people don't seem to think that is possible.)

What made me laugh was when Wie got a drop from a bush in the first round, as it had bees in it. Michelle's dad was giving it all, 'Michelle Wie studies the Decisions book,' 'She knows the rules,' and god knows what else. Then, days later, she gets herself disqualified, seemingly knowing very little about the rules.

Some person here said that Paula Creamer cannot touch what Michelle Wie has achieved. The opposite is also true. Creamer, being 2nd on the LPGA Tour Money List and taking Rookie of the Year honours very easily, has literally proved herself to be one of the best woman golfers in the world. As such, Michelle has really achieved nothing; I know 16 year olds who cut miss the cut at a PGA Tour event by one stroke. I'm not a Wie basher, but a supporter; I'm just presenting the facts that Wie is in many respects a big media whore surrounded by hype, and although Creamer is very photogenic and good with the media, she is less credited than Wie, is not worth $10 million, and at the end of the day has what it takes to win.

Pressel has also proven herself more than Wie, though she, like Wie, is pretty much a spoilt brat through and through.


10/26/05 @ 09:36
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** .... yet I think we all know that if Michelle were to win one of these (Japanese LPGA) tournaments, they would be saying it is 2nd rate and meaningless. **

Which is exactly what some of your fellow Wie Warriors -- and who knows, maybe you too -- have already done. You folks dismissed Paula's win at Sybase, and later her first win in Japan. The only "good" win was at Evian.

Sounds like the Wie Warriors have already been just as petty -- in real practice -- as you predict others will be WRT Michelle Wie.

10/26/05 @ 10:17
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
David. How can you be a Michelle Wie supporter and call her a media whore?

George. Michelle Wie finished 2nd in the LPGA Championship, behind only Annika. If a second only to Annika in a Major is to be discounted, then it would seem that wins against weak fields should also be discounted. Am I the only person who thinks Paula's win at Evian is more impresive than her other 3 wins put together? If respect is given to high finishes then Wie supporters will certainly respect all of Paula's wins.
10/26/05 @ 20:40
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
First of all, I agree that it's harsh to call Michelle Wie a "media whore." She really does not give the appearance of somebody who seeks to hog the media spotlight. Michelle is doing what she wants to do.

But it's also true that Michelle's path to riches (which she deserves -- my philsophy is everyone, Paula, Michelle, Tiger, Bill Gates, you, me, the person behind the tree, everyone, should make as much money as possible, as long as it's legal and harms no one's inalienable rights. No one is rich enough, everyone should have at least one more dollar than they have now) is paved by taking the path less trodden.

Michelle Wie should strike when the iron is hot and go for it. That's probably why Michelle skipped the women's amateur won by Morgan Pressel. Obviously, Michelle could have opted out of the British Women's Open and prepared for the Amateur.

It would have been too dicey for Michelle to face a peer, only slightly older, and a fellow non-pro, and lose. That would have tarnished her image.

** Michelle Wie finished 2nd in the LPGA Championship, behind only Annika. **

You have already begun with a flawed premise. Norman finally agreed to discuss wins vs. wins -- although as usual, he had to use only a hypothetical example, since Michelle has yet to win a tournament. But at least he's making progress.

** If a second only to Annika in a Major is to be discounted, then it would seem that wins against weak fields should also be discounted. **

Apples and oranges? Wins vs. standings? There is absolutely no logic to that. It gets back to the old Phil Mickelson, pre-Masters tag: "The best player to never win a major." The operative phrase there is "to win."

** Am I the only person who thinks Paula's win at Evian is more impresive than her other 3 wins put together? **

All three put together? That could be a stretch. But fighting off the miserable weather, coming from behind at Sybase, then draining a fairly lengthy put to win by 1 -- that's damned impressive for somebody who was, after all, ONLY 18 YEARS OLD.

** If respect is given to high finishes **

I don't think the skeptics disrespect them. And the high finishes are not to be discarded. The skeptics WRT Wie have simply pointed out that high finishes do not equal victories.

Look at how much more money the first-place finisher gets compared with even 2nd place in just about any tournament. That should prove that a huge amount of greater weight is given to a victory than 2nd place or lower.

** then Wie supporters will certainly respect all of Paula's wins. **

Maybe. Yet the track record doesn't justify your optimism or premise.

Still, if you use that logic, then this hypothetical equation would be valid: Paula had one victory in 2005 and Michelle Wie had a lousy year.

But that's the pretend world.
Sure, there are tournaments that got away from Paula that she really could have won -- including the U.S. Open. But that's not reality.

In the real world,

-Paula won four times, twice on the LPGA.
-Paula is the #1 American women's golfer.
-Paula led her team to a Solheim Cup victory (I have the cites for the thicker skeptics on that).
-Paula is the rookie of the year.

Michelle can have a better year in 2006. But that would be then, not this year. That's just reality. My teams didn't win any world championships this year, or even make the playoffs. Like Michelle, I'll just have to wait until next year. So will her fans.

10/26/05 @ 21:36
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
"They provide all the proof anyone needs that the vast majority of the Wie Warriors -- at least the ones who post on the Internet -- are lunatic, venom-filled, foul-mouthed, paranoid, whiny weasels who need for Michelle to WIN THIS VERY INSTANT to validate their self-worth."

In spite of the above comment, why is George not blogging for TravelGolf?
10/26/05 @ 23:30
Comment from: David [Visitor]
Jim, after all the supposedly harsh stuff I have said about Michelle Wie, I am still a big fan of hers. She is incredibly talented. However, the things I said hold at least some truth, or are simply my opinions.

Michelle IS a media whore. Some people love the limelight. I'm not really old enough to be sure of this, but it seems that when Palmer and Nicklaus were going head to head against each other, more people liked Palmer because of his flamboyancy, even though Nicklaus was obviously the better player. Similarly, Tiger Woods is charismatic (well, not so much nowadays, but he was when he was in his early 20s), and while Vijay Singh is a great player (not quite as good as Tiger, in my opinion), more people generally like Tiger and Phil since Vijay is a miserable, cheating bastard.

Michelle Wie may turn out to be the Kournikova of golf. If Michelle wasn't so big-headed and media-friendly, she wouldn't be as famous as she is now. I'm not saying these are bad qualities; it's just that not everybody likes publicity.

10/27/05 @ 11:41
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
David said:
I know 16 year olds who cut miss the cut at a PGA Tour event by one stroke.

David the PGA courses and the set ups are way harder than you think they are. Your "friends" might be able to do well on normal courses, but please trust me, even the very best 16 year olds would struggle to get under 80 on their best day on a PGA tour course.
10/27/05 @ 13:42
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim said: ** Michelle Wie finished 2nd in the LPGA Championship, behind only Annika. **

George said: **You have already begun with a flawed premise. Norman finally agreed to discuss wins vs. wins -- although as usual, he had to use only a hypothetical example, since Michelle has yet to win a tournament. But at least he's making progress.

George, I discussed wins versus wins, as well as high places versus high places. A win isn't everything especially when one player has played very few tournaments.

Now as regards the LPGA championship 2nd place. Keep in mind this is a major. In my opinion 2nd place there is better than either win in Japan by Paula.
I respect Paula's wins, but these tournaments were not of the highest quality and Michelle's 2nd place at that MAJOR, was in a top class field where she finished only behind the greatest womens player ever. This was a MAJOR don't forget. That 2nd place was better than Paula has ever done in a major.
Paula did finish 3rd in that same tournament, her best major finish ever, and well done to Paula for that. While some people might insult her for it, I think it was a great achievement. I think 3rd in a major is a great achievement, and keep in mind she finished behind the only 2 players to have better years than her.

By the way Michelle also had 3rd place in a major, whereas Paula's next best performance was 15th.
15th isn't bad at all, but since George thinks 2nd place is a bad position, I don't know what SCORN he will have for a 15th place finish.
10/27/05 @ 13:51
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:
Apples and oranges? Wins vs. standings? There is absolutely no logic to that. It gets back to the old Phil Mickelson, pre-Masters tag: "The best player to never win a major." The operative phrase there is "to win."

George, Luke Donald this year has had a great year according to lots of commentators.
- He moved up to number 14 in the world rankings, having started the year at 28.
- He stands at 14th on the US Money list and 13th on the European Money List.

He has had a great year.
Now, how many tournaments has he won this year?
3, 5, maybe 7.
Nope. He has won none. Nil, zero, none.

Yet some people still credit him with having a great year. He has moved up the rankings and made a ton of money. Golf recognised high finishes. Winning is the best thing you can do at a particular tournament, but if you don't win, but do very well you can still have a great year.

Padraig Harrington has won 2 PGA tour events. Who had a better year? Him or Luke. Well Luke has moved up the rankings, whereas Padraig has moved down and Luke has won more money in total so you would have to say Luke Donald. I am a big Padraig Harrington supported by the way, but facts are facts.
10/27/05 @ 14:04
Comment from: Karen [Visitor]

No David--

Media Whores seek out attention --Michelle Wie does not seek out the attention of the press they simply like to cover her because there is a public fascination with her right now.

In the past couple of weeks alone-Michelle has turned down Time magazine and Vogue for stories about her because she wanted to spend more time with her family and friends.

Michelle Wie is no media whore--Paris Hilton is a different story.
10/27/05 @ 14:48
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
Calling someone anything with "whore" in it is disgraceful.

Michelle is no media whore.

Paris Hilton, fair enough, but Michelle Wie is not a bit like her.
10/27/05 @ 15:33
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Norman, I think we've finally identified your problem - you must live and die on the World Rankings. First of all, if you were to ask ANY player on Tour whose year they would rather have, they'll take the 2 wins. Hands down. That's why POY voting always goes to the guys who WON the most or WON the more-prestigious tourneys. Second, Harrington is still ahead of Donald on the strength of those 2 wins alone, because MOST of the rest of the year was horrible by the standards of a player of his stature (and we all know why). Third, your precious World Rankings are based on a TWO YEAR period, in which Donald actually won THREE tournaments. His steady play ON TOP OF those wins helped him move up into the rarefied air of the OTHER multiple winners. (Had the love of your life won just once, you would've had some basis for your argument because her play was consistently terrific, except for those couple of times she choked in the clutch.)

And finally, let's look at another example of why you are wrong. You have already admitted that Vijay, Mickelson and Els had a better year than Tiger last year. However only Vijay actually passed him in those wonderful World Rankings. Why is that? The two year average, of course.
You need to get an apples & apples comparison for your argument on a single year - NOT these World Rankings. Sorry .... again.
10/27/05 @ 16:08
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Shanks, you are wrong on the world ranking. Yes they are over two years, but they are HEAVILY weighted toward more recent results. For example the results in the last six months count way more than the events that took place a year and a half ago.

The points awarded in the most recent 13-week period are doubled. This declines in by a quarter with points awarded 1.75 value after 3 months and the points value drops every 3 months thereafter. For the period of 1 year 3 months, tournaments only get .75 of there points worth and for tournaments a year and three quarter old they tournaments only get .25 value of there points worth.

The main point here, is that points value decline as time goes by. Therefore you cannot explain Luke Donalds increasing world ranking on last seasons wins. The points he got for these wins are declining all the time. But his performance this year are good enough to increase his ranking from 28 to 14.

Another problem you seem to have is with the player of the year thing. The player of the year is voted by the players on the PGA tour. This doesn't exist in the same format on the LPGA, where player of the year is based on performances. So constantly arguing about Player of the Year, as to how it operates on the mens tour is pointless in this regard.

Only Vijay passed Tiger on the world ranking. Here is you being the great beliver of only wins count. Yet Vijay hadn't even passed Tiger when he had won something like 9 times to Tigers 3 in that 2 year period. So for world rankings, Tiger was ahead of the man who was WINNING alot more than he did.

Since you want to leave world rankings aside since it doesn't suit you, lets look at money won. Donald won more money (total money, not just PGA tour where he won slightly less).

The only point I was making is Donald had a great year, without any wins.
I believe Harrington is the better player and indeed one of the worlds best players. Outside the big 5, I don't think anyone who is necessarily better than Padraig. Some can argue, but not conclusively.
10/27/05 @ 17:47
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
By the way, Montgomerie last won a year and a half ago, until a victory a couple of weeks ago.

Monty moved from 80 at the start of the season up to the top 20 in the world without winning this season.
This guy is a great golfer and contended for lots of tournaments. He picked up a few 2nd's and many high finishes and his great consistant play launched him all the way into the top 20.
Then eventually he got a win a couple of weeks ago.
Monty is a great player, and has player about 30 events this season.
Michelle has played 8. I rest my case.
10/27/05 @ 17:52
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
Shanks, Norman, George and Jim.
Never fear, Johnny is here.

I have read lots of arguments from you guys, regarding who had a better year Creamer of Wie.
I will solve your argument for you all.

1. Creamer had 4 wins this season which is great and she had a great rookie year.
2. Wie had a great year with high finishes, particularly in the majors.

Here is where you guys all have a problem
Michelle played 8 events. Paula played 22.

You are all simply wrong to try to compare them. They played different schedules, it is not right to try to decide which of them is better than the other in this case.
* Creamer won more times. Sure she did, but you cannot say she is better than Michelle, because Michelle simply wasn't in most of those events.
* Wie has a better record head to head. Okay sure she does. I can not deny that, but it is just 8 events guys. You need it to be over a full season to be able to get any kind of an accurate record.

You should get this thing of comparing them out of your heads. They are both great players.
10/27/05 @ 18:05
Comment from: Brennan Baller [Visitor]
r u kidding me? that was officially a waste of your time to write that...if u r a true fan - Then u WOULD raise an eyebrow on the reporter, that reporter is just straight up dumb, and should work on his time management...oh wait a minute, does this make me a lowsy fan to make these coments?!? No - sorry that I am simply getting upset at someone who played a part in the disqualification of one of my fav. players, that's uhh...really...uhh...horrible (roll eyes). not.
10/28/05 @ 02:11
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
4 wins compared to zero wins .... hmmmmm .... which would I prefer???

10/28/05 @ 08:03
Comment from: David [Visitor]
>> David the PGA courses and the set ups are way harder than you think they are. Your "friends" might be able to do well on normal courses, but please trust me, even the very best 16 year olds would struggle to get under 80 on their best day on a PGA tour course.

Norman, I know, I know. The PGA Tour and Open Championship courses are hell-tough, and maybe there was some exaggeration on my part. Still, there is always a small minority of kids who can do surprisingly well.

By the way, 'whore' in this context is not meant in a sexual way. It's not even an insult to Michelle. However, as somebody else said, 'facts are facts.'

Don't bring Paris Hilton into it. She makes me sick; she's famous for being famous, just a rich good-for-nothing celebrity. The media and public are fascinated by Michelle for a reason - she has such immense talent at golf. However, it still does appear to me that Michelle loves the attention and media coverage. I've already said, everyone loves her for a reason and there's nothing wrong with liking fame.

Karen, you're right, Michelle doesn't need to TRY to get her name in the paper. She's already world-famous. However, she goes along with it because she enjoys it. It is possible to escape the limelight with such a level of fame; Ben Hogan did it, and he was an American icon, at least as famous as Wie.

She doesn't escape the limelight because she doesn't want to. She doesn't need to, either; it's good for her career. Again, it's not a bad thing. Please, everybody stop thinking I'm insulting her.

I'm in awe of her golfing ability.
10/28/05 @ 09:40
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
"4 wins compared to zero wins .... hmmmmm .... which would I prefer???"

I've read quite a bit of the stuff here. Alot of it is nonsense.

Some people big Michelle Wie up too much, they think she is better than she actually is.
Some people big up Paula Creamer in a likewise way.
But I think your comments are among the worst I have seen here. Time and time again you insult a young girl because she has not yet won on an adult tour.
It is perfectly okay if you think Paula Creamer is the greatest. It is even okay if you fancy her like mad, but you really should keep your insulting comments to yourself.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a girl who has just turned 16, not having yet won on a main professional tour. She has been 2nd to Annika in a major don't forget.
She has great achievements, and should be looked up to and admired and respected and not have people like you taking pot shots at her at every opportunity.

From your complete ignorance to take into account that she has only played a few events this year (8 one commentator said), I don't think she should have been expected to win. She is just a young girl and is playing at the very top level. Fair play to her for being able to compete and compete so brilliantly. Any time I've seen an lpga tournament she has been doing very well.

This Paula Creamer girl seems like a lovely girl but I suppose even the greatest athletes attract some riff raff to support them.
10/28/05 @ 14:12
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
George A.

As long as you want to talk about the REAL WORLD--in the real world of profesional golf what matters is money. Michelle Wie's 10 million not only puts her ahead of Paula, but it may even put her ahead of Annika.

If we call a 5 million dollar a year endorsement contract a win, then Michelle has two wins to zero for Paula.

Wins are for amateurs. Professionals want money, and no woman is making more than Michelle.
10/28/05 @ 18:22
Comment from: shrodr [Visitor]
A 16 year old girl who loves the media attention surrounding her is not a media whore, she's a 16 year old girl.
10/29/05 @ 09:04
Comment from: j [Visitor]
david, u r blog whore.
10/30/05 @ 21:03
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
But Michelle only played in 8 events, wah, wah, wah!!!! I don't care if she played in 2 or 20 ..... she didn't win any. Creamer wins 4 pro events, therefore she had a better 2005. Case closed.

10/31/05 @ 10:07
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
Jim Coulthard is right!
11/01/05 @ 00:28
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
haha Shanks.
Now he really takes the biscuit.
He says it doesn't matter if Michelle played in 2 events or 20.

Does anyone else here think that playing 20 events, would give you a better chance of winning than playing just 2 events.

I think it certainly would, but Shanks is entitled to his opinion I guess, no matter how idiotic it is.
11/01/05 @ 09:01
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
It's all about the wins ..... and, need I remind you, Wie doesn't have any. Hey, just had a great idea! Let's create a trophy for "Most Consistent Play at a High Level in 2005 from a Non-Winner" .... then your girl Wie can win something too!!!
11/01/05 @ 14:22
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
Actually Michelle Wie won a prestigious trophy in last competition as an amateur--a trophy is given to the low amateur in the British Women's Open. But it is good to see that Shanks is finally willing to recognize the value of a consistent hiigh level of play. Even I hadn't thought of giving her a trophy. I'm afraid that Shanks will henceforth be considered one of the leading Wie Warriors. Welcome to the club.
11/01/05 @ 16:51
Comment from: George A. [Visitor]
** Comment from: justice
Jim Coulthard is right! **

Now you know why they say justice is blind.

11/01/05 @ 18:13
Comment from: justice [Visitor]
George A.,
the truth hurts you.
stay in peace.
11/01/05 @ 20:59
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Hehehe ... that was a pretty good one, Jim! If the others see that sense of humor of yours, you're liable to be kicked out of the club.
11/02/05 @ 08:04
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jim, kicked out of the Wie Warrier Club?

NEVER. He's practically a leader.

and I'm also grateful for Shanks award to Michelle.
Now she can add it to her gold medals for leading amatuer finishes.

Shanks's award is even better than a win in the Evian masters, so now even her wins are greater than Creamers. Thanks to Shanks.
11/02/05 @ 11:21
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
You guys are scary.
11/03/05 @ 08:20
Comment from: SM [Visitor]
Does anyone know if Arnika or Paula (multiples wining this year) give back, and help out Katrina victims?. Michelle with zero win but she has a big heart to donated $500,000.00 and I am proud of her.
11/04/05 @ 12:32
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I'm a big MW fan, but lets be fair.

Paula and Annika didn't get as much money as Michelle.
Also Annika is Swedish, so she is no more obligated to help Katrina victims than any other disaster anywhere else.

Also, Paula is a rookie, she's just getting her first big pay cheques. Let her enjoy them. She has plenty of travel expenses etc. When she has more millions over the next few years then hopefully she will give a little back to deserving causes, and not just in America.
11/04/05 @ 14:02
Comment from: j [Visitor]
Wie is a great kid.
$500,000.00 for helping people...
I'm sure she will try to help more people in the future.
God bless her.
11/05/05 @ 00:05
Comment from: Greg Pinelli [Visitor]
Bamberger is a weasel and so is anyone that supports him...please follow closely. Bamberger is a reporter...not
a participant...either as a "fan" or as an "informer." This is not a trivial point.....reporters are supposed to stand apart from the stories they report (or observe). This goes directly to the heart of their recognized Constitutional right not to reveal a source and their readerships expectation that their information is as objective as possible.
Bamberger would have been functioning as a news source if he wrote an article for Sport's Illustrated questioning the LPGAs rules monitoring abilities and citing Wie's situation as a "possible" example.
Instead he injected himself into the story for reasons, I personally believe, are contemptible. If you had a secret would you tell this person?? Sprot's Illustrated stop being about real sports a long time ago......
11/27/05 @ 21:15

Comments are closed for this post.

Kimball Golf Packages
Dates: May 10, 2018 - October 9, 2018
The links style brings back the tradition on how the game was meant to be played. With our native fesque rough and top sided bunkers, come experience the beauty and challenges which makes Solitude Links Golf Course unique.
Price range: $69