Rolex Women's World Rankings bogus! Michelle Wie much better than Annika Sorenstam and Paula Creamer!
Michelle Wie the third-ranked player in the world? Unbelievable. There’s no way! It’s a travesty! She absolutely should be No. 1.
True, Sorenstam and Creamer have produced far better actual results, but look at the contract Wie signed with Nike! You think Nike would give that much money to Sorenstam and Creamer? No way! Sorenstam looks way too masculine and Creamer is too pudgy! Look at that sparkly new watch Wie wears! Look at those long legs!
All of us Wie Warriors see through the Rolex Women’s World Rankings. They are designed to reflect what the women do on the golf course, and don’t even take into account star quality, potential and sparkly jewelry.
I, for one, choose to reject the rankings. No, wait, even better, I choose to boycott them! Michelle Wie No. 1! Yay!
|« Rush Limbaugh's defense: Always blame the media||To The Players Championship winner, Stephen Ames: Go to Augusta! »|
puerile sarcasm doesn't become you. I'm a fan of Wie, but I don't think she's at the level of Sorenstam. Not yet. We're just excited about her potential and look forward to seeing her future success. This notion of the "Wie Warrior" is a pure projection of Baldie, born of obvious personal insecurities. Don't fall for it, Tim, you seem better than that.
And then think about this. When has women's golf gotten so much attention? When Sorenstam was breaking all records? No. It's only now that Wie's on the scene. And now there's more blog entries here on women's golf than men's.
Please note that I have often disagreed with him, and vice-versa.
Still, it's hard not to be influenced by Baldwin. I mean, the guy IS in Time magazine.
but Michelle Wie is actually not ranked on the Womens Rankings.
This week she has sliped to 14 events in the last 2 years and thus is inelligable for the rankings and so has dropped out of the rankings all together.
Don't worry though, she will be back in again next week, because after the Nabisco, she will be back up to the minumum required 15 events.
By the way, I don't blame you too much for being behind in today's news of Wie falling out of the rankings, but I do blame you on a much bigger mistake.
You stated how she was number 3. She had actually been number 2, for the last few weeks. She took over as world number 2 after The Fields Open. Were you not aware of this?
If you were aware, that Wie had moved to number 2, then why were you calling for her to be elevated above Creamer?
She was already above Creamer.
You did make one excellent statement though Tim:
"the Rolex Women's World Rankings. They are designed to reflect what the women do on the golf course, and don't even take into account star quality, potential and sparkly jewelry".
Horray, we agree on something. The rankings indeed do not take into account sparkly jewellery and yes, as you stated: They do reflect what women do on the golf course. That is why they are: 1. Sorenstam, 2. Wie, 3 Creamer, because as you have correctly stated, they take into account performance.
Go Norman, you have him on the ropes now!!!
Your post saying Michelle should be number 1 is about the 400th posting I've seen that makes the same stupid comment. Who are you satirizing, I've never seen a Wie fan say anything like that.
Normans discerning insight and piercing wit are just a bonus. Something we never see in blogs from you or Baldwin or Nessmith.
Go ahead, wit. Give us some more of your scintillating prose. Why heck, it might even become the latest sparkly thing.
When you refer to your sarcasm.
Obviously the part of the story saying that she should be number 1 is sarcasm. That is pretty obvious, but as Paul W said, there haven't been any Wie fan who has claimed that Wie should be number 1, so your supposed joining of the Wie Warriers gang and proclaiming that she should be number 1 just doesn't add up.
If you are trying to class the Wie Warrier as believing that Wie should be ranked number 1 in the rankings, then I am sorry, but you would be forming a new group there.
The actual position of Wie Warriers, like myself, is that Wie got a deserved ranking of number 3, when she came into the rankings. Her ranking deservedly went up to number 2 after her Fields Open performance, and it remained at number 2 and deservedly so. If Paula Creamer had played better she would have reclaimed it and deserved to do so.
This week Wie is deservedly out of the rankings, and will gain her deserved position next week when she again meets the minimum tournament requirement.
As you should be able to understand, the Wie Warrier position is one of acceptance of the fair nature of the rankings.
If Wie were to achieve lesser results and slip down the rankings, we would fully accept this. However, given her recent form, I doubt that will happen.
I expect her to contend at the Nabisco over the next few days, and after Annika, Michelle is the next favourite.
A Sorenstam 7/4
C Kerr 14/1
P Creamer 14/1
M Wie 20/1
Hee-Won Han 25/1
L Ochoa 25/1
N Gulbis 25/1
J Inkster 33/1
J Jang 33/1
C Matthew 40/1
K Webb 40/1
Mi Hyun Kim 40/1
Grace Park 50/1
Joo Mi Kim 50/1
M Pressel 50/1
R Jones 50/1
Seon Hwa Lee 50/1
Ai Miyazato 66/1
Meena Lee 66/1
S Gustafson 80/1
Y Fudoh 80/1
B Lang 100/1
Birdie Kim 100/1
Christina Kim 100/1
K Stupples 100/1
Sarah Lee 125/1
J McGill 150/1
H Lunke 200/1
However my day job is leaning me away from reading all 12 pages of that topic.
I will have a look through some of the shorter topics though, and maybe the last page or two of that one.
As regards the minimum number, I have no problem with them changing that if they decide, but unlike the anti-Wieners, I intend not to moan relentlessly if they do.
If they change the minimum number of tournaments, we should accept it, just as the anti-Wieners should accept the system as it stands at this stage.
if they change the minimum tournament to get on the rankings list that is fine.
However I would not support them letting Wie be in the list with 15 tournament and then dividing her by 30 events for instance.
That would be plain unfair, because it would be judging her as if she missed the cut in 15 events, in which she did not play.
Comments are closed for this post.