« The Michelle Wie circus has, like, totally reached a new lowThe real power in golf: Manufacturers bullying even stars like Vijay Singh »

53 comments

Comment from: patricia [Visitor] Email
I've got to respectfully disagree with that comment. Particularly the last sentence which is but a visceral reaction, that doesn't make sense on anything other then an emotional level. That said... is Lorena Ochoa the best player out there today? Most probably, yes. And does she get as much hype/endorsement money/attention, as Michelle Wie? Decidedly not. But the thing is, why do you automatically assume that she wants or needs that attention? You seem to resent the attention that Michelle Wie gets, but I don't think Lorena Ochoa, or Paula Creamer or Annika necessarily do. They've got their games and their endorsements and their way of doing PR...or not doing it. They're busy, highly successful professional golfers, I don't think they're spending too much time obsessing about Michelle Wie. I would even venture to guess that there are some LPGA players who are delighted that Michelle is what she is. They wisely see her as someone who's good for their tour, commercially.

And Tim, you mention Michelle Wie's short, tight skirts...as if she was the only one that wore them... And you speculate that Lorena may owe some of her lack of media attention to the fact that she's Mexican? Well Michelle Wie is certainly not the classic American girl next door type either. I swear to God if you ask most sports fans (and a good number of golf fans) what nationality she is they'll respond, "Um Chinese...or Korean...or Japanese...or something." Few would immediately say, "She's American."

I'm just saying, I think most serious golf fans see the players for what they are. They appreciate the distinct attributes (and failings) of the different golfers . As for general sports fans who follow golf in a peripheral way, their lack of knowledge of the intricasies of the game will mean that they'll always be likely to be attracted to the most glittery, the most scandalous, the most visible players. Hopefully though, once they're watching, they'll catch the brilliance of a Lorena Ochoa methodically doing her thing in the background.
06/04/07 @ 22:41
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Ummm, Ochoa loses more than enough tourneys that she should win. She has not transcended great player yet. Why do we compare anyone with Wie these days.

"That and probably something to do with the fact she's Mexican." Please elaborate. I know that it's not a bigoted statement, but it bears a bit more definition.
06/04/07 @ 22:57
Comment from: Jim C [Visitor] Email
Lorena Ochoa is unbelievably popular in Mexico, much more so than Annika ever was. I suspect that has something to do with the fact that she is Mexican.

06/05/07 @ 00:27
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor] Email
Your prose astounds me Baldwin. Your points are so insightful and well thought out.

Lorena Ochoa 25 years old and playing in her fifth full season on the LPGA tour is a better and more consistent golfer than a 17 year old recent high school graduate that plays part time on the LPGA tour. Go figure genius.
06/05/07 @ 03:00
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor] Email
Sorry it was Baldwin's evil clone McDonald, somehow the description fits both.
06/05/07 @ 05:35
Comment from: Ty Webb [Visitor] Email
One-Putt you seem to be saying what some of us have said for years. The tales of Michelle's total domination of the sport seems to be quite a ways away. According to you she's just another non-exempt teen golfer struggling to find her way on tour. I agree comparing her to the likes of Lorena Ochoa, or any of the top players for that matter, is just not fair. This, of course is a far cry from the hype surrounding Michelle four years ago when we were promised total domination of the LPGA and a real career on the PGA tour. There is no shame in admitting that Team Wie and her fans jumped the gun. I am glad that you are finally starting to see the light.
06/05/07 @ 08:54
Comment from: Jim C [Visitor] Email
If you look up Lorena Ochoa's history on the LPGA site, you will find that in 2003(Ochoa was 21 at the time), Ochoa had a stellar season that included eight top-10 finishes(a third of her 24 events that year)--and it is noted that her best finish was second.

If the LPGA officially considerd that to be a stellar season for a full time player who was 21 years old, then what Michelle Wie did as a 16 year old with six top 5 finishes in just 8 events is worth far greater praise than even her supporters have given her.
06/05/07 @ 10:05
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Jim C,

That settles it then.

Bubbles will definitely win the LPGA championship this week just as you predicted, right Jimbo?
06/05/07 @ 10:20
Comment from: Jim C [Visitor] Email
No Alex. I made that mistake last week when I assumed Lorena Ochoa had the Ginn Tribute won when she had a big lead. Predictions are one thing, but they have to actually play it out before anything becomes definite.
06/05/07 @ 12:05
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor] Email
Tim,
Lorena probably doesn't want the attention Michelle has got.
If Lorena had that attention, then things like her Ginn Tribute tournament would be analysed and disected more closely.
Remember Michelle has been called a choker because of not sprinting past 4 of 5 players and winning when 2 or 3 behind the lead coming down the stretch. With Lorena's relative anonymity she can let big leads slip and it isn't such a big deal.
06/05/07 @ 12:31
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Johnny N,

See Joltin' Joe's initial poast for clarification on the number and quality of her numerous victories at all levels at which she has played. You might learn something. In your case, anything would help.
06/05/07 @ 13:01
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Jim C,

You're still equivocating. But I'll take your answer to mean that you have backtracked on your oft-repeated forecast that Bubbles would win the LPGA event.

Okay, where do you think she'll place? Top five? Top ten? Top twenty-five? Or will she miss the cut by a single stroke which will mean to the Wie-wee's that she "came close" and was "competitive"?
06/05/07 @ 13:27
Comment from: Jim C [Visitor] Email
Johnny

In Mexico, Lorena Ochoa is probsbly a lot bigger star than Michelle Wie is in the United States--but they celebrate her accomplishmens rather than criticize her shortcomings. Maybe Americans have something thet can learn from the Mexicans.
06/05/07 @ 13:38
Comment from: Jim C [Visitor] Email
Alex

The LPGA web site lists 6 choices as to who will win, including other. I think it is odds on that other will win given the way things have been going this year.
06/05/07 @ 13:47
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
I posted this on another thread, but Putty seems to be MIA.

putt4par,

I'm going to play psychologist here. I suspect that one reason we realists have drawn your ire is that you blame us for creating a negative atmosphere that has led to Bubbles' demise. But the truth is quite the opposite: It was you Wiebots who created a pressure cooker for the girl by articulating ridiculously high expectations.

If everyone had been like me, Bubbles would have been told that, because she was a girl, it was ridiculous to expect her to be able to compete on the men's tour. Then, even if she had been foolish enough to pursue that course, she would have proceeded with extremely little pressure. But you Wiemen piled it on, setting the bar so high that there was no prospect of her being able to clear it. YOU are the ones who have sunk the USS Bubbles.

Lastly, you really act as if your happiness is hitched to Bubbles' star. In reality, however, her success or failure isn't going to make a bit of difference in your life.

Oh, given your unraveling mental state, I prescribe 50 cc of Thorazine. I fear that you may be a danger to yourself or others.

Update: Since we haven't heard from putt4par in a while, I have to wonder about his mental state. Why is it that I envision him sitting on the ground in a padded room wearing a straightjacket, rocking back and forth rhythmically and muttering incoherently? I think psychological breakdowns may be common in the Bubbles camp.

Next we'll hear that BJ hadn't been grading papers for months, gave all his students F's, then embezzled funds from Bubbles' bank account and ran off to North Korea to be an adviser to Kim Jong-Mentally-Ill.
06/05/07 @ 14:22
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor] Email
Tim you said "The only reason Lorena Ochoa isn't more popular than Michelle Wie in the U.S. right now is that Ochoa doesn't wear those tight skirts over long legs."
I don't think that's true because Lorena is a very fit bird and I wouldn't mind giving her one and many of my friends have said the same thing.
06/05/07 @ 15:15
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Jim C,

Still no commitment, eh Jimbo? I really don't blame you. But you did actually state quite firmly just recently that Bubbles would definitely WIN the LPGA tournament.

As far as Americans learning anything from the Mexicans, we already have. It's called "Remember the Alamo!"
06/05/07 @ 15:17
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Yes, except now the whole country is becoming the Alamo.
06/05/07 @ 15:36
Comment from: Heinsenburg [Visitor] Email
There're the Mexicans from the South, the Yankees from the North. What are you going to do? Picking on 17 year old girls and calling her Bubbles?

And you raised some girls who apparently turned into good citizens? I suppose it is inspite of their parent.
06/05/07 @ 16:48
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Heinsenburg,

What in the pluperfect hell are you talking about?
06/05/07 @ 17:30
Comment from: Jim C [Visitor] Email
I predicted that Wie would win the LPGA, and I do not see anyhone who is clearly a better choice. Before her collapse when I thought Lorena had slain her demons I would have liked to change my pick and go with her. But now, while I am almost certain that Ochoa will finish ahead of Wie if neither one wins, Lorena seems so adept at the art of not winning the big one that I really don't see her as any more likely to win than Michelle. And really there is no one else who seems intimidating out there. So if I had to pick jhust one golfer to win, Michelle Wie seems as good a pick as anyone. Would you care to pick one golfer Alex. Remember I am not interested in who does best,only win or lose.
06/05/07 @ 17:48
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Yes, Lorena is a great player, but Michelle is popular more than because she "wear(s) those tight skirts over long legs." Also, she was popular before Nike made her wear those skirts.
And mentioning Lorena's not popular because she's Mexican is so wrong!!! Asians are more discriminated against than Mexicans! So, Michelle must be really great to be popular!
As far as playing with the men, what's your problem? Who cares, let her play, it's a good learning experience and there is nothing wrong with them.
To me there is no wrong way of playing golf tournaments. Michelle just chose a nontraditional way. She'a playing with allpros, while attending a very presigous school, making good grades, and will attend Stanford next Fall, not too many people can play at that level and do all that. Anyway as long as she is not hurting anyone it's OK. (Except for those w/oversized egos or those making up for lack of confidence, or those intimidated that a woman can play golf better then him, then that's his/her problem!)
Lorena is great player, I wish she had a little more luck in playing, so she could win more!!!!!
06/05/07 @ 18:43
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Jim C,

In answer to your question as to would I care to pick a single golfer to win the LPGA tournament, no, I would not.

Picking a single person to win any event is a sucker bet and only a wie-wee would attempt it.
06/05/07 @ 19:23
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Tim,

With the latest posts by Heisenburg and now starie, the literacy rate of the new crop of Wie Warriors is very suspect.

Either that or it's a free day down at the home.
06/05/07 @ 19:26
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie,

A point you either miss or conveniently overlook is that Bubbles does, in fact, hurt others by playing PGA events. Specifically, she hurts the men who are more deserving of the exemptions and would get them if this little interloper were not having a red carpet rolled out for her. You should bear in mind that those men do NOT have the luxury of being able to play the LPGA Tour when Bubbles intrudes where she doesn't belong. Many of these guys are struggling to make ends meet, and now they have to play second fiddle to a sideshow.

Sharie, do you care? Or is it that the credo of the modern feminist is: Whatever any woman wants, she gets, and fairness be damned?
06/05/07 @ 20:44
Comment from: Jim C [Visitor] Email
Judge

Exactly how does Michelle Wie hurt anyone by playing in the SONY? It is my understanding that the SONY would no longer exist if not for the interest generastted by Michelle Wie's play.
06/06/07 @ 10:02
Comment from: Jim C [Visitor] Email
Judge

It seems to me you are objecting to the wrong thing. Michelle Wie gets sponsor's exemptions because she increases interest in the tournament. There is no reason to suppose that a boy who could generate the same interest would not get the same exemptions. There is no sex discrimination.

On the other hand, every LPGA event heid in America would seem to be in violation of the sex discrimination laws in this country. Think about it. Men's events are open to women, how can it be legal for women's events to be cloaed to men. Isn't that a far greater affront to the equal treatment of men and women than anything to do with Michelle Wie playing in a couple of men's events?

06/06/07 @ 10:19
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Jim C,

How much interest has Bubbles' play ever generated at the Sony on Saturday or Sunday?
06/06/07 @ 10:25
Comment from: Ty Webb [Visitor] Email
Jim C. Picking Michelle Wie to win anything is never a good idea.

I'll grant you that in the past she has played well at Bulle Rock, but given her current form, injury(wink, wink) and the fact that she has won nothing of substance since 2003( a women's pub-linx no less) picking her to win is pretty idiotic.

I admire you're willingness to go down with the ship, but enough is enough. Her behavior at the Ginn was contemptable, as was her play. Her "teams" skirting of the rules was laughable, as were her excuses and new reports coming froming this weeks pro-am suggest that she has not learned anything from it all, as evidenced by her treatment of her pro-am partners and her refusal to acknowledge that she has done anything wrong. The fact is that Michelle is a spoiled brat, with questionable golf ethics and morals who is surrounded and supported by pea-brained "yes" people.
06/06/07 @ 13:23
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails,
Uh... Do you really think men want to play in LPGA events? If they did I'm sure they cuold. Has any men tried to get into an LPGA event? I don't think any men have. I don't think she's hurting any men from playing in tournaments. First, it's only one spot she's taking and she beats out a lot of men when she plays. So, the only thing she is hurting is men's egos who don't want women on their turf. Also, Michelle brings in the money for the sponsors not that guy with the worst score. Unfortunately (or fortunately) it has to do with money for those companies who exempt her. And she deserves them because she's a great player.
I would have absolutely no problem with men playing on the LPGA. I'm not a feminist. Michelle deserves what she gets, she brings interest, money, and entertainment to the game. I'm sure if a man as good as her, will get just as much popularity and will receive as much if not more endorsements as her(and at higher amounts). If they want, they could probably play LPGA, PGA, and any event he wants. If it's true that men can't play LPA events, I'm sure they can challenge it and he can play. It's all fair.
I don't like when women use the women card or when blacks use the black card, etc. to get special treatment. Neither do I like it whn someone blames their gender or race on hardships. (Unless it's true)
06/06/07 @ 16:47
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
starie,

When you say that you are not a feminist, I believe you. Now it's your turn to believe me.

starie, you are an imbecile, beliee me.
06/06/07 @ 18:12
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Alex, show some class. I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to the definition of a feminist of the person I was talking to. Anyway what I said is true, sorry if your feelings were hurt. And as far as literacy rate, what degree do you have?

Isn't interesting this article is supposed to be about Lorena not getting the media and popularity that she deserves (which is true) and that Michelle is getting too much. And yet, it's turned into a men vs. women thing. In my original comment, I tried to make it equal critizing both men and women who bash Michelle unfairly. I believe in equality, which I tried to make it perfectly clear. Sorry you did not get it when I said I don't mind if men play in LPGA events.
06/06/07 @ 18:59
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Alex, show some class. I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to the definition of a feminist of the person I was talking to. Anyway what I said is true, sorry if your feelings were hurt. And as far as literacy rate, what degree do you have?

Isn't it interesting this article is supposed to be about Lorena not getting the media and popularity that she deserves (which is true) and that Michelle is getting too much. And yet, it's turned into a men vs. women thing. In my original comment, I tried to make it equal critizing both men and women who bash Michelle unfairly. I believe in equality, which I tried to make it perfectly clear. Sorry you did not get it when I said I don't mind if men play in LPGA events.
06/06/07 @ 19:04
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Jim C, totally agree with you! It's the interest that attracts those sponsors that exempt her.
I think she deserves sponsor exemptions because they think so. It's their money and butt on the line. Either they are really smart or like her critics would say, really stupid. So far seems like they made a good choice, yeah? People are watching her play and discussing her actions. And those who continue to talk about her, whether they like her or not, are contributing to her popularity and keeping her noticed. You know I think if those Michelle-bashers want her to go away, maybe they should stop talking about her! Then I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have wrote 3 extra comments! You seem to be a fan, so I decided to vent here. Sorry!
06/06/07 @ 19:20
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie,

If you are not an imbecile, you definitely have not been living on this planet very long. Wow, I just don't know where to start.

Okay, first, men are not allowed to play on the LPGA Tour, as there is a rule to this effect. This, Starie, is why the LPGA Tour exists. Because the women aren't nearly as good as the men, if they didn't have their own tour, they would not be able to make a living. I should add that a male professional did lobby to be allowed to play in the women's US Open; of course, his efforts were fruitless.

Next, it's obvious that you haven't long been a golf fan. If you think that Bubbles beats out great numbers of men when she plays, I suggest that you actually take a look at where she finished in her last couple of men's events. Also, I should point out that Tadd Fujikawa, who doesn't get the benefit of a rolled out red carpet because he has the wrong chromosome configuration, not only made the cut in the Sony where Bubbles missed it but also finished about 20th. Oh, and Master Fujikawa is YOUNGER than the Bubbles.

Now, the next thing I'll address has to be the most inane of all your inanities. You stated that,

"I'm sure if a man as good as her, will get just as much popularity and will receive as much if not more endorsements as her(and at higher amounts)."

Starie, are you for real? Starie, all the regular PGA Tour players are better than Bubbles, and virtually none have her endorsement deals or receive her special treatment. As to this, I think you may want to note that Bubbles has never made a cut on the PGA Tour, whereas all players who are able to remain on tour (scores) make cuts on a regular basis.

Lastly, I should point out that I play better than the level Bubbles has exhibited of late, and I'm no pro.

Starie, I have some bad news for you: You sound like a very young and very silly girl. However, I also have some good news: You don't have to. You can't do anything about being young, but silliness is a different matter. Think about it.

Oh, this exchange proves one thing for sure. To wit: Alex is a lot smarter than I am. After all, he didn't waste time explaining the obvious to someone who has been brainwashed by leftist academia.
06/07/07 @ 00:13
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie,

Here's a little reality test. Please rank the following records for the mile run from best to worst, based on your perception of such a hierarchy:

Boys' American High School Record
Girls' American High School Record
Women's World Record
Men's World Record

I'm curious to see what you believe.

06/07/07 @ 00:20
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
I bet if he was someone who attracts attention and money to the tournament it would happen. If a sponsor company wanted to, I'm sure they would exempt a male professional.
Michelle placed last a couple of times, but there are times she's beat way more than one man too. And as I said she brings interest and money way more than the guy with the one better score than her. Now, if let's say Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, Sergio Garcia, and men of that caliber were the only ones playing in a PGA event than yes Michelle does not deserve an exemption. Because she hasn't reached their level yet and they bring as much interest, if not more.
Hmmm... Who's Ted Purdy? Bryce Molder? Paul Gow? Tom Johnson? Michael Sim? Should I go on? Does the average golf fan know any of these guys? Don't think so. I never heard of them. And you know what they all get to play!!! Now, if some guy that plays worse than these guys deserves to play over Michelle that's ridiculous! Why would anyone in the PGA or involved with that particular event turn down that much money? Too make it simple, would you like $100 and a woman or $20 and keep it a men's only event? Hmmm... business-wise, uh, I would like to make $100 please! More people watch Michelle than John Doe! More people discuss Michelle more than uh let's see again Ted Purdy (Sorry Ted Purdy for picking on you)? Like you guys, it's Bubbles this and Bubbles that! Hey like I said, if you really want her to go bye-bye, maybe you should stop talking about her. If she keeps getting noticed and talked about (good or bad)she'll still get exemptions and still play. Maybe you should research all those guys I mentioned and talk about them and maybe other people will talk about them, and then maybe they will tell others, and so on, and soon they'll be popular all around the world, get to play in tons of tournaments, and oh my gosh, like make a ton of dough! Wow! Contact me when that happens!!! I'll be the first to apologize when they get the Tiger-like treatment for MONTHS AND YEARS! Or even the Michelle-like treatmentfor MONTHS AND YEARS. Make sure you do that, love for you to prove me wrong.
Oh, I love Tadd, he's so humble and sweet! And yes he did better than Michelle at Sony. nad younger. Yes, he's very talented. I assure you we will hear a lot more of Tadd in the future! I agree he doesn't have a sexy body, which is one reason he doesn't get the "red carpet treatment." But also he is probably a lot poorer than Michelle (I'm talking about before she turned pro because obviously she still is), he goes to public school and she graduated from one of the best and most expensive private schools in Hawaii. And she has a lot more connections than he does. If everything was equal he'd be more popular! But in time, he will be getting the treatment he deserves. I hope he continues his golf dreams. He's doing great in Hawaii.
Okay restate that statement: I'm sure if a man as good as her, brings in viewers (TV and radio ratings), brings just as big galleries, brings in a lot of money, makes people discuss him for an extended period of time, is as young or younger(with the same amount of experience), has the equivalent amount of connections, will get just as much popularity and will receive as much if not more endorsements as her(and at higher amounts).
Though I do have to admit, players like Lorena and Annika deserve a whole lot more endorsement money then Michelle. Or more like the likes of Tiger Woods.
Earlier you said "Many of these guys are struggling to make ends meet, and now they have to play second fiddle to a sideshow." When were they first fiddle? And come on if they are stuggling to make ends meet, dude, time to give up play golf as a hobby. Get a job and it will be all good. It's a known fact that more women are in poverty than men. I'm sure they can find a decent paying job. And yes, there are men in poverty too and that's just as unfortunate as the woman being in poverty. BUt However, I'm sure golf is not the answer if you are not that good.
You play better than Michelle. HA HA! LOL! LOL!! I'm laughing hysterically. So, the plot thickens. Oh you poor baby, were your fweeelings hurt? Thanks for proving my point dude!!! What's your real name? OMG! I can't believe you actually said that!! Oh wait, my bad, you mean "exhibited of late." Oh I get it you play better than Michelle Wie the one who broke one wrist and sprained the other? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's possible you could be a better than an injured Michelle Wie that had a bad week! Oh boy, better than Michelle... That's funny.
You want her injured so you can say that.
"Starie, I have some bad news for you: You sound like a very young and very silly girl. However, I also have some good news: You don't have to. You can't do anything about being young, but silliness is a different matter. Think about it."
And you're debating me? That's funny. Silliness, look whose talking!
Oh, however, give yourself at least some credit. You are at least kind of smart. You got me to write back and you actually talked about more intelligable things than Alex. At least you respond more appropriately. I don't necessarily agree with you, but at least your more interesting. And you reply when I talk to you!
06/07/07 @ 17:31
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Alex, psh, obviously you wouldn't put the question if it wasn't men, boys, women, then girls. Whatever, your response doesn't even relate to my response to YOU.
06/07/07 @ 17:43
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Oops, sorry Alex, I read wrong it was Judge Smails' comment. I assumed after all that he wouldn't comment again. I guess I didn't completely recover that someone is proud to play golf "better" than an injured Michelle. Got distracted. Anyway, same answer basically to the question. Thank god for Title IX for school sports. And calling her Bubbles is such disrespect (and silly), what if I made up names for you? How did you come up with Bubbles anyway.
06/07/07 @ 18:50
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie,

There's a great saying that pertains to you:

"It's better to say nothing and have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Alex,

If this silly little cluck can't win the Alan Cup, I don't know who can.

Starie,

You asked who those men you mentioned were. Well, I have an answer: They are all players who are vastly superior to the Bubbles, as evidenced by the fact that they earned their way onto the real tour and have managed to maintain their tour eligibility.

As for my level relative to that of the Bubbles, I cannot imagine shooting 86+ on an LPGA layout. Just so you know, I recently played a round with my sister at her country club; I played from the tips, which makes the course play 7000 yards -- considerably longer than the courses the gals play in their little pond. I'll also mention that the greens were tough and fast. Well, I shot a 76 while missing almost every green. Actually, missing every green . . . maybe I have more in common with the Bubbles than I thought!

Now, let me see if I can enlighten you a little bit (perhaps a fruitless endeavor). Master Fujikawa gets less attention than Bubbles for one reason and one reason only. To wit: He's male and she is female. That's why he has no endorsements, despite being a far better player and prospect.

Next, if you understood golf, you'd realize that results in one particular event aren't very meaningful, as something called "sample variance" comes into play. Thus, the fact that the Bubbles finished ahead of some guys in an event way back when is meaningless. After all, I've seen Mickelson shoot an 80; if I had shot a 76 on the same course on the same day, would you say I deserved to play on the PGA Tour? That's golf.

Moreover, Annika Sorenstam, perhaps the greatest female golfer ever, cherry-picked a PGA layout, played well and still missed the cut, finishing at the bottom of the pack. So, how could anyone in his right mind think that Bubbles, who so far can't hold a candle to Sorenstam, deserves to play the PGA Tour? Such a person couldn't . . . .

Oh, you did surmise correctly. The boys' high school record is considerably faster than the women's world record, 3:52 vs. 4:13. I'm glad to see that your two brain cells were functioning properly on that one.

Lastly, as a professional writer, I can tell you that you need to take a course in English composition.
06/07/07 @ 22:40
Comment from: Greg [Visitor] Email
Starie,
Some people just do not get it. It is clear to me that Judge Smails either he can not see through his machismo attitude or has a lack of confidence in the male population. It sounds to me that he is intimidated by a seventeen year old girl and apparently you.
Michelle is a fantastic golfer. Life is full of challenges, it will only make one stronger. When and if she recovers competely from her injuries, she'll start rising to the top.
On the topic of Lorena, she is a definte joy to watch. Does she deserve more media attention? Probably yes. I'm sure she gets a lot of it in Mexico.
06/08/07 @ 15:49
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails,
First, I am not trying to write like a "professional." Yes, there were at least a dozen grammatical errors in my last message. I am not getting paid or getting anything from this forum. I am not trying to impress you or anyone. So, forgive me if I am not writing grammatically correct. The fact that you have to pick on something that has nothing to do with the subject matter, says a lot.
Hmmm... maybe my writing skill does suck because even though I keep repeating myself in some of my points you just cannot get it through your thick skull. So, here's a quote I found on why she deserves the exemptions: "Professional golfers, fans, and media critics have remarked that allowing Wie to compete in PGA events takes away opportunities from more deserving golfers who need more playing time to attempt to earn a PGA TOUR exemption for the following season. However, a tournament sponsor has a maximum of only four completely unrestricted exemptions available, and those exemptions are often used to invite players (including amateurs) who can increase ticket sales and tournament visibility. The first four exemptions offered by a sponsor must be offered to PGA TOUR players or other competitive players. (Wikipedia, 2007)” Exactly, what I was trying to tell you twice. None of those men I mentioned has increased sales or visibility. Another point is other than the fact they are officially in the PGA and maintain eligibility; the average fan knows nothing else. You know, I think I believe and support Sony, Nike, Omega, John Deere, SK Telecom, Casio, and all the other companies that either exempt her and/or give her endorsement money over one professional writer. I am pretty sure the CEOs and other executives have their MBAs, some kind of M degree, and/or PhDs. Those companies have been successful for a long time and know what they are doing for Michelle (and to the golf industry).
She has beat a significant amount of men (and boys around or the same age as her), just not good ones. Significant meaning she did not take a “deserving” man’s spot because she has beat more than one man before. Examples: 1) “She became the first female golfer to qualify for a USGA national men's tournament (2005), when she tied for first place in a 36-hole qualifier for the U.S. Amateur Public Links.” 2) “In the Men's Public Links (2005), Wie made the top 64 in the stroke play rounds to qualify for match play. She lost in the quarterfinals to eventual champion Clay Ogden.” 3) Tied for 35 (with 6 others) in the SK Telecom Open (2006), which she made the cut. 4) “On May 16 (2006), Wie finished first in a local qualifying tournament for the Men's U.S. Open. According to officials with the sponsoring United States Golf Association, Wie was the first female medalist in a local qualifier for the men's U.S. Open. Several weeks later, she competed against 152 players (135 professionals, including 48 PGA Tour players) in the final stage of U.S. Open qualifying at Summit, NJ vying for one of 16 available spots in the men's U.S. Open at Winged Foot G.C. Wie finished 59th and did not advance.” So, that means 58 men beat her, but 93 men loss! She did it the regular way that time- no exemptions and beat that many professional men. This is meaningful, this could not happen by luck. I bet if she could consistently do this every time if she chose to and therefore “sample variance” does not come into play. 5) “On July 13 and 14 (2006), Wie played in the John Deere Classic on the PGA Tour, finishing the first round at 6 over par. On the second day, her score rose to 8 over par for the tourney and 10 shots above the projected cut line. She withdrew from the tournament after the 9th hole, citing heat exhaution. (Wikipedia, 2007)” If she just took care of herself that day she would have made it. 6) In the last Sony Open, she beat 3 men. She was last in two men’s events. These are all since she turned pro, which is not “an event way back when.” If you call this is still meaningless, you are in denial.
The following is the golf records she has set and has not been been broken by anyone else. She has not set any other records, but so what this proves she’s great. “1) The youngest player ever to qualify for an adult USGA-sanctioned tournament – 10 years, 298 days (2000 Women's U.S. Amateur Public Links). 2) The youngest player ever to qualify for an LPGA tournament – Age 12 (2002 LPGA Takefuji Classic). 3) The youngest winner (male or female) of an adult USGA-sanctioned tournament – Age 13 (2003 Women's U.S. Amateur Public Links). 4) The youngest player to make a cut in an LPGA tournament and major – Age 13 (2003 Nabisco Championship). 5)The youngest player to play in a PGA Tour event – Age 14 (2004 Sony Open). 6) The lowest round by a female in a PGA Tour event (also the first female to score a sub-70 round in PGA Tour history) – 68 (2004 & 2006 Sony Open). (Look she did it twice! ) 7) The youngest player to play in Curtis Cup history – Age 14 (2004). 8)The first female to qualify for a USGA championship that is generally played by males at Pittsburgh sectional for the 2005 U.S. Amateur Public Links Championship. - Age 15. 9)The youngest female to make a cut in any professional male tour event - Age 16 (2006 SK Telecom Open). 10)The first female to make a cut on the Asian Tour - Age 16 (2006 SK Telecom Open). 11) The first female medalist in a men’s U.S. Open qualifying tournament – Age 16 (2006 U.S. Open Local Qualifying at Turtle Bay Hawaii) (Wikipedia, 2007).”
As far as Annika, of course she is one of the greatest players in the LPGA. She has set a lot (22) of records herself . She deserves a lot more endorsement money and credit that people give her. When she played The Colonial she got flack, but she deserved to be there. She played with Dean Wilson in that tournament. He seems like a nice open-minded person who publicly said he does not mind if Annika and Michelle play with the men. He even got to be in Annika’s book. She did play Skin games with men and competed pretty well.
If the PGA deserves to be a men’s only tour then maybe it should be renamed the MPGA. There then should be a rule stating that the MPGA is a men’s tour only. Or really, the LPGA should take out the discriminatory ruling that only of “the female gender” can participate. I found the guy who challenged the LPGA in 2005, which obviously did not get far. Unfortunately he’s not someone who has power in the golf industry. He is probably better than Michelle now, but then again he was 33 when he almost won the 1999 British Open. He turned pro at age 21, but did not officially start his rookie season until two years later. I think he finally won a semi-notable tournament last year. Maybe someone like Tiger, Arnold Palmer, or even an LPGA player should protest and send a petition around to change the LPGA ruling. I really think it can be done; someone just has to work hard.
The point about Tadd getting less attention than Michelle is stupid- because he is male and she is female. It is more like the reasons I stated or more accurately, let’s see what the Fujikawas said in this article in the Honolulu Advertiser: “But Tadd wants to stay in school, play junior tournaments, compete in USGA amateur events and attend college, along with accepting a few pro exemptions. Turning pro is a tempting prospect financially, but it's not on the Fujikawa's radar now. Remaining an amateur can be incredibly complicated.” For every offer the Fujikawas consider, there is usually an e-mail to the USGA asking how it would affect Tadd's amateur status, according to Lori. Often, the answer is no.
"Everything we do they have to go through," Lori said. "People don't realize what we've got to go through. Tadd is not able to do something other golfers his age can. It's only because of our status right now. With Tadd's reputation now ... he has a lot of influence."
The Fujikawas have had to decline a series of favors for friends and strangers after detailing the request for the USGA. An educational video on recycling for elementary students was nixed.” “The family's travel party to Japan this week for the JGTO's Chunichi Crowns is 10, with family, friend/caddie Garret Hayashi and "a ton of omiyage." The Fujikawas could use financial help for the travel expenses, but can take nothing.”
"Including Tadd and I," Lori said. "They didn't approve it. Maybe if it was a junior tournament it would be OK, but it's a pro event and international. It (travel expense) has to get approved by the USGA and Japan Golf Association. Both didn't want to make a decision at first. Then the USGA said no so Japan did too. It's hard." “All the offers, and the need to qualify for USGA events, has made Fujikawa's scheduling an intricate puzzle. He will play in the AJGA's Thunderbird International Junior next month in Arizona, with Kono, Kimberly Kim and Ayaka Kaneko. He is also planning to play the U.S. Open local qualifier at Turtle Bay and has accepted an exemption to play in the PGA Tour's Reno-Tahoe Open in August (Miller, 2007).” For more: http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/SPORTS09/704250396/1032 I know he definitely will get more attention soon.
I found this interesting… “Judge Elihu Smails is the comical bad guy in the 1980 comedy Caddyshack. Smails is a pompous snob, prone to white pants and yachting caps. The judge's lucky putter, which he calls Billy Baroo, has become a pop culture in-joke of its own.” Copyright © 1998-2006 by Who2?, LLC.
Good choice of name.
Lastly, take your own advice.
06/08/07 @ 22:27
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie, little child, unlike you, I knew exactly who Judge Smails was; I didn't have to look it up.

Now, you wasted your time writing information that has been regurgitated by far greater minds then yours (which takes in a lot of territory). You mentioned that Bubbles lost to Clay Ogden, and you still maintain that she deserves her exemptions; does that mean that Ogden deserves them as well?

The fact is, Starie, that you don't have to point out the financial motivations operative in the golf business, as I understand economics far better than you ever will. The point was that you implied that Bubbles deserved her exemptions by virtue of her lacking playing ability and that she was hurting no one by taking them; I only pointed out that both assertions are untrue. If you have now modified your position (perhaps because it was that time of the month and you were speaking based on emotion), I will accept that. Of course, I never denied that Bubbles was akin to a freak show carnival act and that the sponsors were playing the barker, drawing in the patrons with tall tales about the oddity under their tent. Hey, P.T. Barnum would be proud.

As far as her "beating men," I addressed that adequately, but perhaps you don't know what sample variance means. Anyway, Tadd Fujikawa beat all but about 19 men at the Sony, but as far as he is concerned, I don't think gratuitous exemptions will be forthcoming. And should they? No, because his one performance does not mean that he is actually superior to the players he bested. Again, that's golf. Perhaps you don't understand this, though, because you don't seem like you could be much of a player.
06/08/07 @ 23:06
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
First, I sure hope you knew who was Judge Smails since you picked that name. How dumb would that be if you had to look it up? As I said before, good choice of name for yourself. Fits you well and it proves my point about men like you. I had to look up Judge Smails, because I was not even born when that movie came out. I also had to look it up because I am not a golf fanatic freak. I do not watch every little thing about golf. I like to watch certain players, but I have a much wide variety of interests.
I actually did not pay attention to golf until Tiger came on the scene(Unless, you count pulling out my dad's golf clubs and hitting around the yard). I did not start watching the LPGA until Michelle. I think the general public has done the same. I have noticed more golf coverage because Tiger and Michelle have increased ticket sales and viewer ship.
I “regurgitated (information) by far greater minds” because I thought maybe (and you implied) I was not writing clearly enough and they would explain better. Obviously, you just plain old do not get it. You are right; I did waste my time copying and pasting information I already knew (except for a few topics such as why Tadd is not getting attention and about Jean Van de Velde, the stupid LPGA rule). I just wanted to make sure I was not ASSuming.
You know what is funny? You pretend to be a big shot golf fan, but I did not notice until now that you put this statement: “To wit: He's male and she is female. That's why he has no endorsements, despite being a far better player and prospect.” Even I know that amateurs do not receive endorsements. If you recall, Michelle did not have any endorsements as an amateur. She got Nike, Sony, and Omega when/after she turned pro. Even a person who does not watch any sports would know that fact.
The point you made about Tadd is interesting. First, you were all pushing that because he is male he does not get the attention and endorsements. Then I prove your point wrong and it is “I don't think gratuitous exemptions will be forthcoming. And should they? No, because his one performance does not mean that he is actually superior to the players he bested. Again, that's golf.” However, I agree with this statement. If he keeps playing like in Sony and improves, he will have a bright future. Right now, he’s doing it the traditional way with a few pro exemptions.
As far as Clay Ogden, if he brings an increase of ticket sales and tournament visibility, then YES. Of course he deserves the exemptions. If somebody offers it to him he should take it. Just like Tadd, he played well in Hawaii and he got an exemption to Sony.
If you really understand economics, you would understand me as well as many smarter businessmen and women, why Michelle receives the exemptions. Whether they should rethink their criteria to playing skills rather than money and promotional reasons... it is up to them. Maybe they should to see what happens. BTW, I got an A in my economics class. “The point was that you implied that Bubbles deserved her exemptions by virtue of her lacking playing ability and that she was hurting no one by taking them; I only pointed out that both assertions are untrue. If you have now modified your position (perhaps because it was that time of the month and you were speaking based on emotion)” About this statement, first, I did not imply that Michelle deserves her exemptions because of her “lack of playing ability.” If you took it that way, it’s all in your head. Second, I already explained (at a great length) about her “hurting” the man that would have got to play. If you did not get it, it is your problem. Third, saying that it’s the time of the month and speaking on emotion is a poor excuse for you. I cannot believe you would sink that low. Then again, your Judge Smails. I dare you to tell your mother, wife, sister, and any other woman that because they do not share your opinions, they are “having that time of the month and speaking based on emotion.” See what they say/do, they would be pretty delusional if they just took that insulting statement.
You know when one has to make up or exaggerate something to make someone else look bad, he or she is too proud to admit they are wrong.
Anyways, the real issue now with Michelle, is her wrists and those sponsors who are pushing her to play. Michelle is pretty stubborn to keep playing with an injury. She really should rest it more, like Phil Mickelson. If she does not watch out, her career would be ruined because of stubbornness.
The following has nothing to do with golf, but I am curious about your opinion.
-What do you think about women being in the military? Should the women be allowed to fight or keep being nurses?
-Can a woman handle being the President of the United States? FYI, my presidential pick is not Hillary Clinton.
-Why do you think women are in poverty? One of my male classmates had a real idiot answer for this one. I’m hoping you are a lot smarter. Of course, if you do come up with a similar answer, at least you (I think) are not in a profession that should know plausible reasons why. What do you usually write about in your professional career?


06/12/07 @ 22:06
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie,

I don't know how much more time I should waste with you, especially since you misread something I wrote, subsequently misquoted me and then, based on your inaccurate conception of what I said, claimed I wasn't making any sense. That's very poor reading comprehension.

Second, you proved nothing I've said wrong.

Third, when I said that Fujikawa had no endorsements, I obviously meant on the horizon. He could not turn professional tomorrow and receive any kind of substantial endorsement deal. Bubbles had under-the-table endorsement offers while she was still an amateur. The problem with you is that you know nothing about golf.

Next, I speak my mind around all the women in my life; this includes my mother, sister and girlfriend. Why would I be afraid to do so? I'm a man.

As to your questions:

No, I don't believe women should be in the military. I should mention that the only difference between me and others is that I'm honest about the fact that I don't really believe in equality. After all, society has long accepted the standard whereby only men have to register for the draft, despite all our twaddle about "equality." And people love to talk about equality in sports, but they never propose to eliminate the separate, protected, inferior little tours, leagues and teams for women. Again, it's all talk.

A woman such as Margaret Thatcher could handle being president, and I would certainly vote for such a woman over a man who was inferior ideologically. Having said that, it's not a role that should be performed by women, and I would lament the fact that an equally qualified or more qualified man did not have the opportunity to step up to the plate.

If women live in poverty to a greater degree than men do, it is only because of single motherhood. Seventy percent of black children and 27 percent of white ones are born out of wedlock nowadays, and most any woman in such a predicament will have a tough road to hoe.

By the way, you know those college professors who teach your classes? The smart ones learn from me.

06/13/07 @ 12:19
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails:
How can I misread or misquote when I copied and pasted your exact words? Maybe you need your memory checked. And your eyes.
I have proved some of the things you said wrong; you choose to ignore it.
About the Fujikawa thing, maybe as a professional writer, you should write more clearly. And if you remember, Tadd has had substantial offers. He had to turn it down because the USGA will not allow it.
Have you really told your mother, sister, and girlfriend that insult? And they take all your insulting opinions because you are a man? What other stuff do you say to them? They are either cowards or you do not know what they are saying behind your back. Wonder why you just have a girlfriend? My advice to her is to never marry you. She probably will have a life sentence of DV he she stays with you.
Thanks for answering my questions. Your answers really completed the picture of you. For the last question, it is not if, it is a fact that more woman are in poverty. However, I am glad you did not come up with a BS answer.
06/13/07 @ 19:09
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie,

Since you aren't the brightest bulb on the rack, I'll show you how you misquoted me. You wrote the following, attributing the phrase in quotation marks to me:

About this statement, first, I did not imply that Michelle deserves her exemptions because of her “lack of playing ability.”

No, I never said that. I said her "LACKING playing ability," which changes the meaning altogether. In other words, since you're a child, I was saying that you implied that Bubbles deserves her exemptions because of her playing ability, and, furthermore, I described that playing ability as "lacking" (a modifier).

Oh, my picture of you was complete from the get-go; you are young, silly, ignorant and as dumb as a rock. The best argument for women being kept in the kitchen is YOU.
06/13/07 @ 19:55
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Did I say that you said "lack of playing ability?" No. Anway, what I said afterward still remains. I did not say she deserves exemptions because of her playing ability.
Your picture may be complete, but it is inaccurate. I got a cumlative of a 3.56 for my bachelors and currently have a 3.8 as a graduate student. One of my classmates who has the same attitude as you (similar statements), has a 2.9 and is on probation for going under the school GPA requirement. No one takes him seriously, and they would feel the same about you. Oh wait, they do, two of them said you are an idiot.
06/13/07 @ 22:28
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie,

There are lots of idiots who get good grades, especially with how education has been dumbed down. In fact, that you would regard a high GPA as proof of intelligence speaks volumes . . . .

Oh, by the way, I'm a social commentator who is read and listened to by millions. How many people care about what you have to say, Starie?
06/14/07 @ 18:03
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails,
Education has not been dumb downed that much, especially in graduate school. Anyway, FYI, I received a full ride scholarship as an undergrad. Last November, I received a scholar award at a statewide conference (I was nominated by a person who is very important in the industry and he has a doctorate). Last month, I received a huge scholarship (pays for a semester and a half of tuition, fees, and books). That scholarship was pretty tough to get- 3 page detailed application, two essays, two letters of recommendations, and my transcript. During their fashion show luncheon, the committee chair told me that the decision was unanimous. Applicants were from various majors and universities in the state. Now, I am not saying I am smarter than everyone in my classes, just smarter than you think.
Here's what one of my friend's said after I told her about you and your first response (imagine if she read your responses to the questions I asked you): “I have a feeling that even if you articulated yourself perfectly, he still would have found something to bitch about.” You know what, she is right. I told her I should of left you in your ignorance bliss from the very beginning. You are so closed-minded that it was a moot point to begin writing back to you. However, since I am “young and silly” I did write back; I learned my lesson.
I may be young and silly, but I am a whole lot better than you- an immature, backwards thinking (as evidence by your attitude about society), closed minded idiot, snob. The fact that you call yourself Judge Smails is just as stupid as Anna Nicole Smith emulating Marilyn Monroe.
If you are read and listened to by millions, you won’t be afraid to tell me your real name (unless you are afraid to lose your credibility as professional writer). Anyway, you really cannot be all that important if you spend your time on here at your age? I’m sure when I am your age, I will have more of a life then you. I would not even think about going on a forum like this, much less argue with a young and silly thing. It’s like if I argued with a 10 year old about whether or not Ashley Simpson has talent. That would be stupid and immature just like you are now. And even at my age, the only reason I commented on here was because I was bored at the moment. I don’t write on forums that often. For this one, I was curious if someone responded, it was you. I kept on writing because I figured, I should finish this off. However, you are obviously not going to change your mind. And obviously, you are going to continue bitch about Michelle instead of take any action from preventing her and any other girl/woman to play on the PGA.
Another thing, if it is true, the only reason millions pay attention to you is because the comments you make can be quite entertaining. Especially, your huff and puff about being a man. I think maybe Alex should join you inyour work.
The male classmate that is like you, my other classmates (male and female) and I do not hate him. In fact, we enjoy hanging out and listening to him because it is so funny the way he thinks. He cracks us up all the time. However, would we choose him to be in our group for a project? No. Do we ask him for help with class or homework? No. I think it may be the same for you and your audience. They may enjoy reading and listening to what you have to say, but would not want to do anything serious with you. (Unless they share the same olden day opinions as you.) I said earlier he is on probation for having a GPA of 2.9; you know why? Because he had the attitude that grades are not important, does not measure a person’s skill level, employers do not even look at grades, etc. He kept telling me, “Why do you want any A? Getting all A’s doesn’t even matter.” And I always said, “If you shoot for a B (3.0) and something goes wrong, you probably get a C. If you shoot for an A and you end up with a B it is a ‘Oops, oh well.’” And guess who was the idiot that had to work his ass off during the last month of Spring semester, so he won’t be expelled?

06/14/07 @ 20:23
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Starie,

I've got news for you, if you think that when one attains a certain position he should not partake of the same things the "little people" (your attitude) do, YOU are the snob. And it is that very attitude that, hopefully, will cause you to be humbled in life.

We agree on one thing, though: For me to waste time debating with an ignorant child such as you is much like you doing the same with a 10-year-old. Thus, I won't be checking this blog again. If you want to waste your time responding, go ahead, but it won't be read by me and probably not by anyone else, either.

Finally, I don't wish you ill; in fact, I hope that God enlightens your mind and opens your eyes. And I can assure you of one thing: You will come to realize that you're on the wrong side.

Adios.
06/14/07 @ 20:36
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails,
I am NOT saying, "when one attains a certain position he should not partake of the same things the "little people" (your attitude) do, YOU are the snob." I am referring to things like this, bashing 17 year old girls. I was in a position where I had a higher position than others and I still hung out with the "little people." In fact, it has been 6 years and I still keep in contact with those "little people." I am not a snob, I only called you that because your name is Judge Smails. Oh and your a snob by your attitude about women. So, you are not being very smart with that point. Don't assume because you are probably wrong.
I guess your last point did not stick. Oh well.
You are right, I am probably wasting my time, but just seeing if you hold your end of the deal. Also, no one else will read it because it does not pertain to them and no one has read both of our responses for the past few days. (Except one person, but it does not look like he's coming back.)
I am not on the wrong side. Why would I want to be on a side that thinks men are God's gift to the world and he can do and say whatever he wants just because he's a man? If you are referring to about Michelle, I am not changing my viewpoint either. If she does disappear from the golf world, it is because of her stubborness to keep playing with an injured wrist.
06/14/07 @ 21:58
Comment from: starie [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails:
Oh, do you think the other people who respond to the original bloggers are "little people?" Oh, that's interesting. I never called the rest of them "little people." Wow. To me the other people here, if they speak their mind respectfully, they can and are not wasting their time. They have a right to say what they want. However, spending time bashing and exaggerating things, that's a different story. Especially, going on and on at the same age or older as you. I really hope you did not mean to call them little people.
06/14/07 @ 22:16

Comments are closed for this post.

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

Dates: January 1, 2014 - December 20, 2014
Play five rounds at two of the best courses in Hawaii for one great price. The package includes two 18-hole rounds at Mauna Kea Golf Course and three 18-hole rounds at Hapuna Golf Course, starting from $500 per person.
Price range: $500