« Desert tortoise, Californians to keep golf community away from tumbleweedsCurt Gowdy dies, leaves shoes that may not be fillable »


Comment from: putt4par [Visitor]
Hahahaha...I knew that would bring out a firestorm of protest.
And Morgan Pressel isn't even on the list yet. Wait til the Bovine droppings hit the rotating device over that....
This is gonna be very interesting to see all the crying from both camps.
Fun, fun, fun.
Damn it must be good for reporters and bloggers to have an instantaneous subject to get their stories noticed.

2006-02-21 @ 10:28
Comment from: john neal [Visitor]
Actually William, the stats are generally the same as those used for the [Gender Non-specific]World Golf Rankings (GNWGR).

The controversial element is going to be the minimum number of events averaged. For the GNWGR, the minimum number of events over the last two years (the smallest possible divisor) is 40. For the Women's World Golf Rankings (WWGR) it is only 15. Since Michelle has played that minimum number, she is averaged across events she has played, instead of adding 25 fictious events at which she did not make the cut (dividing by 40 to get her average).

That is where fans of Lorena Ochoa, Karrie Webb, etc. have some basis for crying foul. (Paula Creamer fans will most likely stay silent as Paula benefitted as well, she would likely drop out of the top 10 with a 40 tournament minimum).

Who selecte this minimum number? I don't know for certain, but I believe that both the LPGA and the PGA had a hand in it. I expect they had their reasons, and I expect the Sporting Press will inquire of them what those reasons were.

2006-02-21 @ 10:43
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
The rankings are completely fair and represent a VERY accurate picture of the way womens golf stands currently.

William thinks some fans may think that Wie should be ahead of Annika. I don't actually think there is anyone who believes this but the rankings as they stand are very fair indeed.

What is the problem?
Annika is obviously the number 1 golfer and as the points show, she is way ahead of her nearest rival.
In fact she has a similar position to that of Tiger in the mens game and her dominance is similar to his, so that proves just how fair it is.

Creamer is at number 2 and Wie at 3. People can argue all they like about who should be ahead of the other but the fact is it is a pretty close run thing, as is reflected in the rankings.

The rankings are based on a system of awarding points for each tournament, based on the quality of the fields.
That is the same as the mens and is perfectly fair. It is not some ad hoc approach or voting appraoch as William suggests, but is based on real performances.

So William, can you please enlighten us as and give us some specific names of players that you think should be ahead of Wie on that list.
2006-02-21 @ 11:28
Comment from: Gordon [Visitor]
I actually agree with Norman on this one. Given the way the system rewards consistency in tournaments played it should come as no suprise that Michelle Wie is ranked high. She is after all extremely consistent, when she plays, she makes the cut and usually finishes high up on the leaderboard. If the system was based on number of worldwide wins, she would be ranked dead last, but that's a different story. I don't think there are many if any women who should be ranked ahead of her, but I understand where Will is coming from. In no other sport could you ever attain a ranking as high as 3rd in the world without ever having won anything. I think I am in the let's wait and see camp with regards to Miss Wie. I marvel at her talent and her seemingly limitless potential, but I think she has a long way to go before she gets there. This ranking speaks more to the relative weakness of the LPGA tour, for all the talk about great golfers and threats to Annika, the reality is that the 2nd ranked golfer in the world was a rookie last year with 4 wins to her credit, while #3 is a part time non-member who hasn't won anything. Not exactly the deepest talent pool. one last thing I didn't see Morgan Pressel on this list, if Michelle is 3, shouldn't that at least put her in the top 10, after all they have won the same number of titles.
2006-02-21 @ 11:51
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Pressel isn't on the list because she hasn't played in 15 pro events in the last 24 months, she has something like 9. She will show up once she plays another half dozen events. Wie may disappear off the list temporarily as her 2004 events stop counting, depending on her schedule this year.
2006-02-21 @ 12:09
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
If the rankings were designed to divide by a minimum of 40, Paula Creamer would still be number two. Michelle Wie would only drop to 14. Indeed Rosie Jones at 16 has played 40 events and has fewer total points than Michelle Wie.

I would like to raise another issue. Is it really true that the Japanese ladies are stronger than the Koreans?
2006-02-21 @ 12:39
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
The rankings seem designed to satisfy Wie supporters by pro rating her performance--but otherwise support the pros by being hostile to amatuers. Normally an American amateur is limited to 6 LPGA events, plus the US Open if she qualifies. That means the usual maximum would be 14 events per year. For a player with 14 events we do not divide by 15, we omit the player entirely. Of course there are possbilities of other pro events--but the system does seem designed to exclude amateurs based upon too few events to even be considered.

2006-02-21 @ 13:09
Comment from: Kate [Visitor]

I have no problem whatsoever with the rankings--

Its a point system ,and that's how the rankings played out.

Michelle had some quality finishes which helped her...

Grow up and live with it.

Men are cattier than women I swear...
2006-02-21 @ 13:16
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
"Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
If the rankings were designed to divide by a minimum of 40, Paula Creamer would still be number two. Michelle Wie would only drop to 14. Indeed Rosie Jones at 16 has played 40 events and has fewer total points than Michelle Wie.

"The Rolex Rankings make nationality, tour membership and amateur or professional status virtually invisible, providing a definitive answer to the question, 'Who are the best women golfers in the world?'" LPGA Tour Commissioner Carolyn Bivens told AP.

If Carolyn is happy with the method I am happy Wolfie.

Professionals and amateurs alike can appear in the women's world ranking because anyone can earn points by competing in official events on the LPGA, European, Japan, Korean and Australian women's tours, along with the developmental Futures Tour in the United States.

And while the men have a minimum divisor of 40 tournaments over two years, the women's divisor is only 15 which in part explains how Wie, who has played in a limited No of tournaments on sponsors invitations, can be so high up on the list, never having won.

During this period she (Michelle) has teed off in 15 events on the LPGA Tour and has secured six top-10 finishes - three of them in the majors.

She was 4th in the Kraft Nabisco Championship in 2004, was 2nd last year at the LPGA Championship and tied for 3rd at the Women's British Open shortly afterwards.

"I would like to raise another issue. Is it really true that the Japanese ladies are stronger than the Koreans?"

I guess not Jim, that is pure Korean blood that flows thru Michelle's veins. Her first language learned was Hangul (Korean).

This just recognizes when golfers tee it up at the top rated events and finish high in the order they are given credit for their efforts when credit is due.

For all the detractors who have posted derogatory comments about Michelle I only have one thing to say;

Kay Siki Mugga

2006-02-21 @ 13:20
Comment from: Brianna [Visitor]

I don't think any of the most ardent Wie supporters believe that Michelle should be ahead of Sorenstam...

William--I'm sure you read the AP report on the rankings...

Creamer played in 35 tournaments to Michelle's 15 tournaments.
Even though Michelle hasn't won, she had very high finishes. Her lowest finish in her 15 tournaments was 23rd at the Women's Open.

Even with Creamer's wins she had numerous low finishes that hurt her point total and 2 of her 4 wins were not LPGA tournaments.
Creamer has never finished higher than 3rd in an LPGA major which also hurt her score.

So Chill Out William, there's no conspiracy that's just how the rankings are calculated. I just hope you don't let your bias against Michelle cloud your judgment-(although it looks like it alredy has)

2006-02-21 @ 13:27
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
"Comment from: Brianna [Visitor]

I don't think any of the most ardent Wie supporters believe that Michelle should be ahead of Sorenstam..."

You're so right Brianna, Annika is the "Queen" of womens' golf. Unfortunately there are many new Maids'in Waiting who are trying to "dethrone" her while she is out of the castle skiing.
2006-02-21 @ 13:49
Comment from: John [Visitor]
While they say the women's divisor is 15, its not. Check #133 on the list - Julieta Granada. She has 11.23 points and 13 official events. Points per event - 0.86 putting her at 133. If a divisor of 15 was used, she would be at 0.74 and 158th on the list. Check the math -

The LPGA fact sheet says that a new player can be ranked with 8 events. Morgan Pressel SHOULD be ranked and isn't. Where depends on the math.

This system is full of holes. The math is the math, but the underlying assumptions are suspect to say the least.
2006-02-21 @ 13:59
Comment from: June [Visitor]
Only thing that really shock me regarding this news is the fact I am reading this tuff from William's, not from Baldwin's blog. To me, this is even bigger news than Michelle at No.3.

2006-02-21 @ 14:54
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Gordon said:
one last thing I didn't see Morgan Pressel on this list, if Michelle is 3, shouldn't that at least put her in the top 10, after all they have won the same number of titles.

You were doing so well earlier in your comment where you were pointing out how finishes help.
Pressel obviously didn't do as well as Wie, but yes she will be up there as soon as she gets to 15 events in the 2 year period. Number 10 is a fairly good guess and a pretty accurate estimate of where she is at. Wie could be number 2 soon & what will William have to say then?
2006-02-21 @ 15:55
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
People have mentioned Wie going out of the world rankings because of not playing the 15 events over the two year period.

The Facts:
- her 15 events are due to end if on May 9th, because that is when she played the Mitchelob in 2004.

who's to say she won't play another womens event before then. It doesn't even need to be an lpga event.

Also, she has confirmed only the Fields and the Nabisco. Nothing else has been confirmed on her lpga schedule, so we don't know when she will play.

Her 8 events are likely to be:
- The 4 majors.
- The Fields Open.
- Samsung.

That leaves just 2 more openings.

It is stated that the world rankings "will determine the field for the HSBC Women's World Match Play Championship and the Women's World Cup of Golf".

If she plays these two events, are these counted in her exemptions or are they not counted since she would have qualified for them?

Perhaps this is the lpga's way of getting her into these events, without giving her more exemptions!

Anyway, as I stated, we don't know when or where she is going to play and I have a feeling that she will play if it is necessary to hold her ranking.
2006-02-21 @ 16:06
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
One-Putt said:
I guess not Jim, that is pure Korean blood that flows thru Michelle's veins. Her first language learned was Hangul (Korean).

Firstly are you sure that Korean is her first language?

I don't believe it is, because Grace Park said that Michelle speaks in broken Korean and that is speaks it with an accent.
Also an article stated before that Michelle was tried to learn the Korean language.

As regards the Korean blood thing, sorry but I think we all just have human blood, there is no such thing as Korean blood and she would be none the lesser if she received a blood transfusion from an Australian guy.
I understand your sentiment, about thinking Korea is great and stuff, but I think there are great people and complete idiots in every country no matter where it is.
That applies for Korea as it does anywhere else.
2006-02-21 @ 16:13
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Interesting to compare the Rolex ratings to the Golfweek/Sagarin ratings which some people like better. Wie isn't strictly eligible for the Sagarin ratings because it requires 10 events in the last year and she has only 7. However if she is rated on the 7 events, the results are (including Wie and Pressel who had 8 events):

1 Sorenstam 67.87
2 Wie 68.72
3 Creamer 69.56
4 Pressel 69.63
5 Kerr 69.78

Wie is 2nd and halfway between Creamer and Sorenstam. This seems to validate the Rolex results. I assume Wie does better in the Sagarin because it only includes events from the last year.
2006-02-21 @ 16:16
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Sorry about the last post, and a number of errors
- "that is speaks it with an accent" should be "that she speaks it with".
- "Michelle was tried to learn the Korean language" should be "Michelle was trying to learn the Korean language".

An edit button would be nice, even if you were only allowed to edit for a short time only.
2006-02-21 @ 16:16
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John said:
The LPGA fact sheet says that a new player can be ranked with 8 events. Morgan Pressel SHOULD be ranked and isn't. Where depends on the math.

John a new player is ranked when they play 8 events in the last year.
Julieta Granada probably did this, I'm guessing that is why she is on the list.

Pressel has only played 7 events. Hmm, but she she played the SBS, which would make it 8 events in the last 12 months.
So why isn't she on it.
Okay, it is confusing actually.
2006-02-21 @ 16:30
Comment from: June [Visitor]
To Norman,

In a strange way, I can assure you that the first language she ever learned would be Korean. As a fellow Korean living in the States, the way new born Korean babies learn the language is that up until they went to preschool, they mostly and often only speak Korean. But as soon as they went to preschool and start to mingle with other kid, they learn English pretty much as a second language. But they pick up so fast and so good like all babies do. By the time, they grow up and become a teenager, English is pretty much their native tongue.

One side note is that most Korean kids don't want to speak Korean once they start using English in preschool. Some downright refused to speak Korean even to his or her parents. (I guess they don't want to be looked as different in front of other kids) But most of them communicate with their parents with Korean. But the level of Korean language they developed didn't go much further once they got into school system.

So I can imagine Michelle would speak not so perfect Korean, although it is more than passible.
2006-02-21 @ 16:57
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
We were right all the time.
This is definitely a kick in the butt for all the Wie detractors.
Where is under par and his mate. I told you so, and this feels great.
Go Wie.
William, who said Wie was better than Annika, please find the blog that stated it?
Alan M
2006-02-21 @ 18:57
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
There is a problem when ratings are divided by the number of tournaments played. Recent tournaments are rated more heavily when points are given--but they are weighted equally when the number of tournaments is counted. Thus if the most recent year counts double, a palyer with two good years would get X+2X = 3X points in N + N = 2N tournaments. For an average of 1.5X/N. If she had for some reason just had the one good year, and no tournaments the previous year she would have 2X point in N tournaments for an average of 2X/N. Compared to just the one good year she would lose 25% of her rating if it had been preceded by another equally good year.
2006-02-21 @ 19:10
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par, June is back! And this time, she's/he's not alone! Alan has joined forces with him/her and has called you and all other Wie skeptics out! I think we're Dooooomed!
2006-02-21 @ 19:11
Comment from: John Neal [Visitor]
Does anyone know where the full official description of how the Rolex Womans World Ranking is to be computed are published? I have seen the Info Sheet at LPGA.com, but it does not explain a rationale for why Morgan Pressel is not listed ( as just one example of things that look strange. )

I think the rankings are a good idea and probably much needed in Women's Golf. But it will only work when everyone understands it. Note that I did not say agree with it, that will never happen, just understands it just as everyone understands the World Golf Rankings althhough many disagree with them.
2006-02-21 @ 19:32
Comment from: Gordon [Visitor]
Alan--What exactly were you right all along about? The fact that she is an excellent player, with talent and potential to spare. No argument there. I think Wie's detractors have pointed to her lack of wins not her talent. These rankings don't change the fact that for all the hype and promise she has not yet won. I have no problem with her high ranking it is a testament to her consistently high finishes and generally strong play, but gloating over this does not prove the Wie doubters wrong it actually gives them more ammunition. Now people can claim that she is not only overhyped, but no they will claim that she is ranked too high. She still has much to prove, that is unless you think a number 3 ranking and 0 wins is good enough for the chosen one.
2006-02-21 @ 19:35
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Gordon, number 3 in the world sounds pretty good to me for a high school student, talented or not. What would you consider successful?
2006-02-21 @ 21:09
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Paul W [Visitor]
Gordon, number 3 in the world sounds pretty good to me for a high school student, talented or not. What would you consider successful? **

How about winning an LPGA tournament?

2006-02-21 @ 21:25
Comment from: Wayne [Visitor]
George, that's coming up NEXT WEEK! To all the flippant naysayers who didn't even think Michelle belongs in the top 10 -- you've all been exposed.
2006-02-22 @ 00:49
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
For Norman:

Michelle learned to speak Korean as her first language from her parents. She does have an accent when she speaks, but she has taken classes, you can tell when you listen to her diction. Her accent is much like Christina Kim's who is also is a Korean-American.

For all others: The best performances to me are the ones when a player has to adjust during a round. We all have to admit Morgan Pressel showed that determination during her final round and got herself straightened out on the back nine. She hung in and kept working on it until it came around. That is why she will do well.

Jennifer Rosales the defending champion quit after the first round after carding a high score. That is why she will never to be able to keep up with the likes of Paula, Morgan and yes Michelle because there is no quit in these gals, they hang in no matter how bad it goes.

No one is exempt from the "bad" round and personally I have had my share. What matters is if you can put it behind you and score low the next round.

George and others may think winning is the most important thing in golf, I happen to think the most important thing in a golfer is heart. If a Pro or Amateur goes out and plays their best with what they brought to the course that day, they have gained my respect. Sometimes it is just enough to make the difference and put them into a position to win.

2006-02-22 @ 05:37
Comment from: David [Visitor]
Did I miss something? Michelle Wie is No. 3 on the Official Women's World Golf Rankings?

Is this some sort of sick joke?
2006-02-22 @ 08:14
Comment from: alan [Visitor]
If you had read the postings over the last 6-9 months you would understand.
Remember that the Wie supporters are just defending Michelle in response to the avalanche of critics that post on this Blog. This posting is typical.
I along with others have posted stats on many occasions that proved Wie was worthy of the publicity and sponsors exemptions she was receiving. If you venture back I have stated that Wie would be ranked two or three if rankings were available, hence the reason for my comment.
Alan M
2006-02-22 @ 11:39
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
george, Gordon, et al, you guys just don't get it. Now that those knowledgeable folks over at Rolex have spoken, the debate is over. Michelle IS number three and THAT'S IT! Winning tournaments is no longer a prerequisite for greatness. Norman, the number one Wie fan(atic) on the planet, has flatly stated that winning is secondary or maybe tertiary to giving one's best effort. If next week the Kellogg's cereal company comes out with their own ratings with Michelle as number one, Rolex will be a distant memory to these fellows. I really want Michelle to win this week and watch the stark, raving insanity by Wie supporters on this board. V-J day will be subdued by comparison.
2006-02-22 @ 13:25
Comment from: ToddCommish [Visitor]
The simple reality is this: Rolex is a corporate sponsor. Michele Wie is THE corporate shill du jour. Rolex desperately wants to increase the exposure of women's golf, and this is a smart way to do it. You should put as much weight in this ranking as you would in The Sports List who only ranks stuff they can get footage for.

She probably IS the third best women's golfer, she just hasn't proven it. The only reason they use 15 tournaments rather than 40 is that's where Michele gets to #3. If they could've used 10 or 20 and gotten her to #2, they would have. No biggie. Ask her if she'd trade the ranking for one of Cristie Kerr's wins. I'd bet she'd take the W.
2006-02-22 @ 14:24
Comment from: Gordon [Visitor]
Paul W---Number #3 in the world doesn't just sound good it is good. You must be confusing me with a Wie basher, I am what seems to be a rare breed on this site, a Wie skeptic. I fully appreciate her talent and her still developing game. I have no doubts that she will one day win golf tournaments and even make cuts in men's events, both great achievments. I even agree with rankings and think she is probably the 3rd best women's golfer, that is if the rankings mean that she is a safe bet to finish 3rd in any given tournament, she has proven that she can do that. The, "she's a high-school student" arguments are of no relevance here, she is a professional golfer and she should be viewed as such. The rankings have no age requirements and many of her fellow competitors are within a couple years of her age, Morgan Pressel, Paula Creamer, Amy Yang, etc..I recognize her accomplishments, but unlike many on this site I also recognize her weaknesses as well. In other words, I see both sides of the argument. Is the ranking fair, who knows, is it strange to have a world ranking so high when you have never won, yes, whose right in this argument is anybody's guess. The thing that I find most amusing reading these blogs is that none of you will ever be proven right. Michelle's supporters point to her high finishes as proof of her greatness, while detractors claim that her lack of victories prove otherwise. Even if she does eventually win, detractors will say that she should have won more given all of her talent and hype.
2006-02-22 @ 14:51
Comment from: george [Visitor]
Just count me as one of the skeptics, and I have been all along.

I've said Wie has talent, and I wish her success.

I've also argued that a legitimate way to measure success is who won the tournament. That seems to carry the greatest weight when generally analyzing how well somebody does.

I have no animus towards Michelle Wie. I don't know her. I don't know what kind of person she is. I don't know whether she is a teenage Mother Teresa or if she pulls wings off flies. And frankly, as long as Wie is playing by the rules, I couldn't care less.

My scorn -- as I've said many times -- is directed at the desperate, paranoid, touchy, and frantic Wie Warriors. They are truly maniacs, in every sense of the word. Their self-worth is completely wrapped in up the success or failure of Michelle Wie.

They are moons that orbit Michelle, are bound to her gravity, and they depend on whatever light she can provide so they can bask in it.

I pray Michelle wins soon or makes a cut. Otherwise some of these folks could go beyond merely being a case study to needing confinement for their own, and the public's, safety.

2006-02-22 @ 15:20
Comment from: Jim COULTHARD [Visitor]
GEORGE if Michelle Wie does win this week at Fields will, you stop calling Wie supporters names like desperate, paranoid, touchy, and truly maniacs in every sense of the word? Just because she has only an 0 for 1 record as a pro on the LPGA, as compared to Paula Creamer's 2 for 26 record is no reason to go after Wie's supporters with a verbal hatchet. You are a Paula Creamer fan, fine. Isn't it OK for other perople to be Michelle Wie fans? Let's just enjoy the Fields Open this week and see who is number 2 and who is number 3 in next weeks ratings. I think we all know who number 1 will be.
2006-02-22 @ 15:52
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
George, you just proved yourself that you are one of "moons that orbit Michelle" with different perspective.
2006-02-22 @ 16:10
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Jim, you just took the word right out of my mouth.
2006-02-22 @ 16:29
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Gordon said:
She still has much to prove, that is unless you think a number 3 ranking and 0 wins is good enough for the chosen one.

It is perfectly okay at the moment.
That is the point that so many people miss.
If she were 20 and playing a schedule of 25 lpga tournament per year, 0 wins would not be acceptable.
However, given that she plays only 8 events, it is unreasonable to expect her to have won.
2006-02-22 @ 16:34
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
One-Putt said:
For all others: The best performances to me are the ones when a player has to adjust during a round. We all have to admit Morgan Pressel showed that determination during her final round and got herself straightened out on the back nine. She hung in and kept working on it until it came around. That is why she will do well.

Sorry, but I think you are completely wrong in what you stated.
Pressel herself stated that she was playing well, until just at the start of the back 9 she looked at the leaderboard and found out that she was just 2 shots back. She said that from then on she just could not control her swing and was messing up alot of shots.

Some people would describe that as folding. I merely think the pressure got a bit much and she didn't play her best, but that is perfectly understandable in her first tournament as an lpga professional and in her rookie year as well.

Wie was much the same at her first lpga pro tournament.
2006-02-22 @ 16:43
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex said:
Norman, the number one Wie fan(atic) on the planet, has flatly stated that winning is secondary or maybe tertiary to giving one's best effort.

Actually it was one-putt that said that.
2006-02-22 @ 16:45
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
George said:
I've also argued that a legitimate way to measure success is who won the tournament. That seems to carry the greatest weight when generally analyzing how well somebody does.

Winning is indeed the best position to finish in, in any given tournament.

However the point that keeps been missed, is that when someone starts only 8 events, winning is highly unlikely.
The best anyone averaged, apart from Annika last season was 2 wins, and that was girls playing over 20 events.
2006-02-22 @ 16:50
Comment from: Marriott [Visitor]
Wie was NOT the same as Pressel in her first pro tournament. Pressel finished 5th and Michelle was disqualified, big difference. I'll save you the effort typing---I know Michelle was tied for 4th when she was dq'd, but that does not matter, the fact is that she was disqualified. Also it seems as if Wie fans want to have their cake and eat it too. They talk about how great Michelle is and how her achievments are unprecedented, but when somebody asks her to win, they say, "how can you expect her to win already , she's only 16." Well which is it?
2006-02-22 @ 16:50
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Norman, I think it is reasonable for someone like George and Under Par to expect Michelle to have won because they don't doubt Michelle's talent.

George and Under Par, please correct me if I am wrong saying that you don't doubt Michelle's talent.
2006-02-22 @ 16:52
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
When I stated Pressel's first pro outing was like Michelle's, I was talking about the pressure it entailed and how they both felt the pressure a bit and didn't quite perform at their peaks.

Of course in Michelle's outing she had a runaway Annika to deal with so that is quite a big difference.
2006-02-22 @ 17:01
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Bubbles has immense talent. I have only taken issue with two things. Firstly, the PC way in which the media have been fawning over her, buttressing her cause, and have been seeking to get the red carpet rolled out for her. Secondly, I believe that the Wies have marketed Bubbles in a very calculated and manipulative way, and I resent this.
2006-02-22 @ 17:22
Comment from: kaialii [Visitor]
From what I've been reading on this board, the world ranking system that was established didn't award Annika enough world ranking points. Also, they didn't drop the points fast enough for everyone else in the field.
2006-02-22 @ 17:38
Comment from: John Neal [Visitor]

The bias in favor of other players may well be because the last 13 weeks are weighted the heaviest. The only eligible LPGA tournament during this period was last week's SBS Open where Annika did not play. Anyone playing there will appear inflated against Annika until she gets some recent tournaments under her belt.

Lets give the rankings a month or so before making any final judgements.

Although I still am searching for the answer to why Morgan's 8 events in the last 52 weeks didn't qualify her for the rankings. Anybody seen an official explanation for that?
2006-02-22 @ 18:14
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Norman, you're right. One-Putt did make that statement on THIS THREAD. But yesterday, on Shanks' blog, you had this to say in answer to george's assertion that the issue with Michelle was winning an LPGA event and making a cut on a men's tour. "The issue of an LPGA win (for Michelle) is not as important for me, as it is that she plays well." Posted by Norman at 16:39, 02/21/06
2006-02-22 @ 19:09
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Under Par,

Your point has been well taken and I respect your opinion. I kind of agree with you more or less on your claim that "the media have been fawning over her, buttressing her cause, and have been seeking to get the red carpet rolled out for her and the Wies have marketed Bubbles in a very calculated and manipulative way."

By the way, how do you know Michelle has immense talent?
2006-02-22 @ 19:45
Comment from: Wayne [Visitor]
Latest odds:

P. Creamer -115 (bet 115 to win 100)
M. Wie +105 (bet 100 to win 105)

C. Kerr -125
L. Ochoa +115

To Win It All
P. Creamer +870 (bet 100 to win 870
M. Wie +1000(bet 100 to win 1000)
C. Kerr +1400
L. Ochoa +2000
M. Pressel +2500

Wow, I expect Wie's odds to go down and probably end up being favorite.
2006-02-22 @ 20:17
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Marriott said: "They talk about how great Michelle is and how her achievments are unprecedented, but when somebody asks her to win, they say, "how can you expect her to win already , she's only 16." Well which is it?"

Can you name a female golfer, who you think has achieved more than what Michelle has achieved when both of them were at age 16, in golfing term? If you cannot name one, then Michelle's achievements are unprecedented.

I think many people will come up with a name or even a few but their claims will be equally challenged by others just like Wie Warrior's claim has been challenged. Why? Because each and every one uses different types of rulers to measure someone's achievement.

So until someone comes up with a ruler everyone can agree upon, don't waste your time and energy to challenge someone with your owe ruler.
If you do, enjoy your ride on a merry-go-around.

Women's World Golf Rankings might a good candidate for the ruler but it looks like it has some flaws and not everyone likes it.
2006-02-22 @ 21:12
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
I guess we can eliminate the conspiracy theory that Rolex wanted to boost Wie with it's ratings. Wie just signed a sponsorship deal with Omega watches.
2006-02-22 @ 23:32
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

How do I know Bubbles has immense talent? You may as well ask how I know that Pavarotti (sp?) has a proclivity for singing. If you know golf, all you have to do is watch her swing, witness her ball striking ability and note the shots she executes.

Now, whether or not she will live up to the promise of that talent is another matter.
2006-02-23 @ 05:32
Comment from: David [Visitor]
I remember when they changed the men's world rankings systems because Tiger was too far ahead of everybody else. Had they not changed the system, he probably would have never lost No. 1 (and No. 2) spot.

I think that perhaps the women's system was fiddled to put Michelle and Paula near the top.

But anyway, the new ranking system must be given time to mature. It will surely develop naturally in time to reflect properly every woman's deserved ranking.

For example, who in the hell is Yuri Fudoh? Never heard of her. However, I know she won't be there for long, and that names such as Lorena Ochoa, Pat Hurst, Laura Davies, Grace Park, Se Ri Pak, Jennifer Rosales etc. will soon be further up the list, and the undeserving will fall down the list.

The cream always rises to the top, so they say.
2006-02-23 @ 07:34
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
LOL. My feeling exactly. My reaction when viewing the list was also: "Who the #### is Yuri Fudoh?" I thought she was a Japanese cartoon character. The ranking I think gave an overweight to JLPGA. I think Wie will be just fine despite the blatantly biased coverage of Wie by AP. No photo for you Ap. LOL
2006-02-23 @ 08:04
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
UnderPar, one thing the Wie fan(atic)s posting here haven't done as yet regarding the highly respected Rolex ratings is to say how Michelle is WAY ahead of Woods at this stage of their careers. They always come up with that thing about Michelle coming closer to making a cut on the PGA tour than Woods did at an even later age. Somehow they manage to soft pedal Tiger's three junior and three amateur wins BEFORE turning pro. I'm surprised we're not hearing "was Tiger ever number three in the rankings before he got out of high school? No! So that is PROOF that Michelle is far better than Woods was at this age and at this stage of her career." It has been rumored that TIMEX is going to start their own rankings. Such mundane things as tournament victories will have little bearing on the placings. The rankings will be heavily weighted to the more important considerations such as the dollar amounts of premature endorsements, the number of sponsors exemptions wangled, the ability to shed real tears before a television camera, and the size and length of earrings. The initial poll was leaked and and here are the rankings: Michelle Wie 37.42, Morgan Pressel 4.16, Paula Creamer 2.32, Annika Sorenstam 0.17, Field(all the rest)1.62
2006-02-23 @ 09:49
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
John Neal, here's Pressels explanation about why she's not on the Rolex list: "Well, it's been misprinted why I'm not on there, and people think it's because I don't have enough events. But it says that for a new player you need eight events. And I have eight events. Last week was my eighth in the last 52 weeks. The reason why I'm not ranked is because I played in the Open in 2003, and that was before the two‑year mark and before rankings were even considered. My grandpa and Sherry met with Chris Higgs with the LPGA who helped to create it, and calculated that I would be ranked fifth if that Open wasn't counted. "

It doesn't really make sense to me, but it sounds like she will be on the list soon.
2006-02-23 @ 10:08
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Paul W,
it makes perfect sense.

A NEW player can get on the list if she has played 8 events in the last 52 weeks.

Because Morgan Pressel played in 2003, which was before the 2 year period, she is NOT A NEW PLAYER.
That is why she is not on the list.

As she is not a new player, she will have to wait until she has played 15 events in the last 2 years, to get on the list.
2006-02-23 @ 11:13
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex said:
Norman, you're right. One-Putt did make that statement on THIS THREAD. But yesterday, on Shanks' blog, you had this to say in answer to george's assertion that the issue with Michelle was winning an LPGA event and making a cut on a men's tour. "The issue of an LPGA win (for Michelle) is not as important for me, as it is that she plays well." Posted by Norman at 16:39, 02/21/06

Alex, I have repeately stated the above: that her play is the most important thing and her improvement is the most important thing.
One thing you are neglecting to mention, is that I have stated that this is FOR NOW. This is because of her age. If she were 20 or 25, sure wins would be the most important thing, as they are for Annika, but when you are a developing player, it is counterproductive to sacrifice long term gain, to get a guick fix on part of your game which may get you a quicker victory but ultimately slow your progress in the long term gain of becoming the best player you can.

Many people think she should concentrate on lpga and other womens event. I think that this would speed up her getting a win, but I think it would make a mess of the work that she is putting in to try to become a pga tour player. Short term sacrifice can bring long term gain.
2006-02-23 @ 11:20
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Norman, thanks, you're right.
2006-02-23 @ 11:20
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Norman, If I read you right, your stance is that Michelle, by playing in the Fields(on a sponsor's exemption), is making a mess out of her attempt to get on the PGA tour. Why do you suppose then, that BJ and her handlers have her ih the tournament?
2006-02-23 @ 13:00
Comment from: george [Visitor]
** Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Norman, I think it is reasonable for someone like George and Under Par to expect Michelle to have won because they don't doubt Michelle's talent. **

Here's my evaluation of Michelle Wie.

1. Wie is a long driver. Duh. (e.g., any tee box)

2. Wie has the putting yips. Duh (e.g., U.S. Open - 2005)

3. Wie seems to play better with little at stake.

4. Wie seems to struggle when things are on the line.

Summary. Michelle Wie appears to have the physical skills to drive the ball a great distance. Her putting is erratic, especially under pressure. Her ability to close out the rest of the field and win is a huge question mark.

Equally important, however, is my evaluation of the Wie lunatics. I have yet to see a post by any of them that has changed my mind about their need to define themselves vicariously through Michelle Wie.

2006-02-23 @ 14:49
Comment from: george [Visitor]
Hmm, this could finally be the week the psychotherapists who have been treating the Wie Warriors may finally have to find other clients -- or get a whole bunch of new ones.

Why? The good news for the Wie Warriors and terrible news for shrinks is Michelle Wie is one stroke (-2) behind the leaders in the early going of this week's tournament.

The bad news for the WW's, but excellent news for the psychiatrists, is Morgan Pressel is one of those leaders (-3).

But there is more good news for the Wie lunatics: Paula Creamer is off to a slow start at +2.

We'll have to see. The psychiatrists are watching this one carefully.

2006-02-23 @ 15:07
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Yes, the Wiemen are truly ridiculous. But there's something I find more interesting; namely, the social phenomenon whereby many men feel compelled to exalt women at the expense of men.

I think there are two factors: firstly, they've been conditioned to think that this is what a "good person" does. Secondly, I think that many of these characters are members of the rubber suit crowd, if you know what I mean.
2006-02-23 @ 15:34
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

Just an update from the Fields Open

Michelle Wie is 2nd - 5

Morgan Pressel is 15th -2

Paula Creamer is 48th + 1

Leader is at -6
2006-02-23 @ 16:41
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

Pressel rallied in the last 8 holes and is now tied for third with Michelle Wie at -5

Looks like Michelle, and Morgan will be paired together tomorrow!

I hope Michelle watches her back, you never know with Morgan....

Creamer didn't bring it at all --she's tied for 53rd at + 1
If she keeps going like she's going, Michelle will overtake her in the rankings..
2006-02-23 @ 17:44
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Kyle, the pairings for tomorrow are the same as today.

George/Under Par, if you are so uninterested in Wie, who do you continue to post messages about her? Why don't you try actually rooting FOR someone.
2006-02-23 @ 18:17
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]

That's right Paul...my bad...

Lorena Ochoa took over the lead at -8

Michelle and Morgan are still tied for 3rd at -5

Creamer is now in 54th place....hope Chris Baldie doesn't know this
2006-02-23 @ 18:23
Comment from: Wayne [Visitor]
Michelle is the 2nd best female golfer in the world, and hopefully by next Tuesday, the Rolex World Rankings will reflect that.
2006-02-23 @ 19:24
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]

Creamer in 62nd place now....
2006-02-23 @ 19:41
Comment from: Jack [Visitor]
You people all need to get a life. Hole by hole scoring of an LPGA tour event early in the season. You should really step back and listen to yourselves. You have idiots attacking Paula Creamer for an even par round, one fool is even calling for her to be removed as the #2 ranked golfer on the basis of one average round. Wie fans are chomping at the bit thinking that this might be her breakthrough tournament and secretly wishing that Morgan Pressel would get run over by a golf cart. It's a bunch of women(little girls) playing golf don't take it so seriously. I was looking for golf course reviews and travel advice when I stumbled onto these blogs, this s**t is funnier then anything currently on tv. Reminds me of a bunch of girls arguing over whose doll is prettier.
2006-02-23 @ 21:47
Comment from: Wayne [Visitor]
Yes, Jackie Pooh -- my doll is way prettier than yours.
2006-02-23 @ 23:35
Comment from: Jason [Visitor]
Quit acting like a wuss--you're an embarassment to mankind. You're the one acting like a catty little girl.

No one here is attacking Creamer, people are just reporting the scores.
She did badly today and people are free to comment on her performance--Why do you have your panties in a bunch over nothing??
2006-02-23 @ 23:45
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]

What the heck are you talking about ??

No one has attacked Creamer here.

Wie haters are a paranoid insecure bunch.
2006-02-23 @ 23:48
Comment from: Jennifer Mario [Member] Email
As to the question, why isn't Morgan Pressel on the list when she's played eight events, let's see what she said about it herself at her pre-round press conference yesterday:

"It’s been misprinted why I’m not on there. People think it’s because I don’t have enough events. You need 8 events, and I have 8 events. Last week was my 8th in the last 52 weeks. The reason why I’m not ranked is because I played the US Open in 2003, that was before the two year mark, before rankings were considered. My grandpa and Sherry met with Chris Higgs with the LPGA who helped to create it, and calculated that I would be ranked fifth if that Open wasn’t counted."

So Norman, you had it exactly right with this comment:

"A NEW player can get on the list if she has played 8 events in the last 52 weeks.

Because Morgan Pressel played in 2003, which was before the 2 year period, she is NOT A NEW PLAYER.
That is why she is not on the list."
2006-02-24 @ 01:59
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
I think Ronnie changed his Nick to Jack?

Either that or he has sought some therapy after Paula's performance.

So how many large did you lay out on your bet Paula Shanks?

Lorena is one pissed off Hombre after choking last week and her score today says it all.

How about the grandmas getting into the mix? Now those are some names absent from leaderboard around the LPGA for quite awhile. Maybe the Inkster is trying to entice her caddie back from Michelle.
2006-02-24 @ 08:07
Comment from: Jack [Visitor]
I'm being called a wuss and an embarrasment to mankind by a a guy that's living and dying with what teeange girls do in a golf tournament, that's rich. Jason, you have just found the only place in the world where an obviously light in loafers guy like yourself can call someone like me names, this is like revenge of the nerds. Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, you passive aggressive b***h Sheryl, you and Kyle are the ones posting with glee how Paula didn't bring it and giving her score and place every two minutes. I couldn't care less about Paula, Morgan or Michelle, they have no bearing on my life. I just think it's funny how into this soap opera all you losers are.
2006-02-24 @ 08:22
Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]



Your mother must be so proud of you calling another woman a b****

I think your post above says a whole heck alot about what kind of man you are and how you were raised.

My post towards you was pretty tame and you're going to call me outside my name. You're a loser.
Don't take it out on me that you've been beat up by women your whole life.

If you "couldn't care less about Paula, Morgan or Michelle" then WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE??

GET A LIFE and some BALLS while you're at it.

2006-02-24 @ 08:36
Comment from: Jason [Visitor]


I know you hated to take some time off sodomizing sheep to post here,

but you're a sad sad man.

You say you don't care about whats being discussed here then

What's the big deal about posting scores---and that wasn't even ME-- that was another guy named KYLE!

Chill out --why are you taking it so personally that Creamer did badly yesterday-- are you some kind of crazy obsessed loser ?
2006-02-24 @ 08:43
Comment from: Jack [Visitor]
Sheryl--let's not get crazy. I apologize for my rude comments to you. You are absolutely right about one thing, I was raised better than that. My mother would be ashamed if she knew I was calling women names, for that I am sorry.
2006-02-24 @ 08:43
Comment from: Karen [Visitor]

Jack sounds eerily like Under Par
2006-02-24 @ 08:45
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Jack, they go batsh.. crazy on this board whenever anyone says anything even slightly amiss about MW. I mean, they have you down as a practioner of bestialty because of your innocuous remarks. You'd better head for the hills if Michelle wins this event! Keep tuned for a lot of laughs, and NEVER take these birds seriously
2006-02-24 @ 09:45
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]

John Z--

Jack was the one who over reacted over somone posting the scores...

By the way I don't think calling someone a b**** is an
"innocuous remark"

I go on this board a lot and I've seen a lot of the
Michelle Wie haters go "batsh** crazy" as well.

So there's guilty parties on both sides.
2006-02-24 @ 10:59
Comment from: sarah [Visitor]
John Z
Do you think Wie has a chance?
2006-02-24 @ 11:13
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Mike, to his credit, Jack did apologize to Sheryl. Thus far, the same has not been forthcoming from Jason, and I doubt that it will be. I have to agree with Jack that posting scores as they happen, a sort of blow-by-blow report, and rooting for and against players over the internet is a little over the top.
2006-02-24 @ 11:13
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Sarah, Is your question "does Michelle have a chance of winning this week?" If it is, my answer is "certainly." In fact, I believe she has as good a chance to win this week as she will have at any time this year. She reportedly knows this course like the back of her hand, she had no travel to deal with, and the conditions so far have been benign which many, myself included, think are best for her. If I were an oddsmaker, I'd say she was about 3 to 2 to win the tournament after the first round.
2006-02-24 @ 11:25
Comment from: Steve [Visitor]

I checked out the posting of the scores above--

there was no rooting for or against players -

it was just scores.

I go on sports blogs all the time and that's just what people do report on scores

I don't understand what the big deal is.
2006-02-24 @ 11:50
Comment from: Jim D [Visitor]


People think its OK to say awful things about Michelle Wie and when people defend her its those crazy Wie fans.

Someone just posts the Round One results and the
Creamer fans go "bats*** crazy"

Nothing bad was said about her other than "Creamer didn't bring it" which she obviously did not.

Wie haters can obviously dish it out but can't take it.
2006-02-24 @ 11:55
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
I noticed Paula was looking a little buffed after working out with the upper body strength coach in the off season. This in an effort to lengthen her driving.

She needs to dump that guy so she will stop swinging like Charles Barkley. Her swing was much smoother last season and more on plane.

2006-02-24 @ 14:04
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
The Wie haters won't be silenced unless Michelle wins the LPGA Grand Slam before she turns eighteen.

They enjoy sitting around in their wife beater shirts sucking on a beer, all while they pick on little girls via the internet.
2006-02-24 @ 14:15
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Mike and Steve, check out One-Putt's latest. Now, Wie skeptics are wife beaters. O-P, what in hell is a "wife beater shirt?"
2006-02-24 @ 18:46
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
John I wasn't implying that you or your fellow Wie haters are wife beaters, that is just vernacular for a sleeveless undershirt in SOCAL.

It in fact would be more correct for me to label you and your fellow Wie haters as child abusers, rather than wife beaters. Picking on defenseless little girls, you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

I'm sure Michelle would need some intense therapy if she ever found out such vicious and impolite things were being said about her.
2006-02-24 @ 19:30
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Well at least she can afford the best therapist available. Thank God.
2006-02-24 @ 19:38
Comment from: Damon [Visitor]
I'm a little scared to get into this discussion for fear of being called a practioner of beastiality, a child abuser or worse. I do have to say that I have poked around this site and have seen no evidence of anything overly negative said about Michelle Wie or Paula Creamer, Morgan Pressel seems to be the target of most of the abuse. What I see is a lot of pathetic internet hacks attacking each other, not the players themselves. The most common themes seem to be for Michelle to actually win something, for Paula to hit the ball farther and for Morgan to stop talking trash, non of these requests seem to be outlandish. Yet we have (and I'm guessing here) normal, sane adults calling each other child molesters, child abusers, bi**hes, sheep lovers and god knows what else, and for what women's golf?
2006-02-24 @ 21:18
Comment from: John Neal [Visitor]
Yes Damon, For WOMEN'S Golf.

Does that give you a hint as to why Madison Avenue is telling their Big Dollar accounts to grab a piece of this action while they can still get in cheap?

Buy a star, buy a tournament if you can afford it, catch the wave before it hits the shore.
2006-02-24 @ 23:15
Comment from: Damon [Visitor]
Maybe your right John. I had no idea people were so into watching these girls play. The battle lines have clearly been drawn on this site, I just assumed it was more of the fanatical fringe element at work here. All the same I'll probably let this wave pass.
2006-02-24 @ 23:44
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Damon. Allow me to explain my interest in women's golf. Before this summer, I had no interest in LPGA. I can't recall watching more than 5 minutes of LPGA tournament in my life before. I kept hearing about how good this young school girl was. I finally got fed up and decided to check her out, so that I can dispel this notion and point out all the weaknesses she must have. And when I saw her swing, I was blown away. More I learned about her, more impressed I became, in spite of myself. I am probably more of a main stream casual golf fan. While I watch PGA occasionally, I am not a fanatic golf fan. I have gone to PGA tournaments and have enjoyed them. I have not gone to any Champions tournament or LPGA tournament. I have paid good money to see PGA players, and will do so again. However, even if someonoe gave me free tickets, I would not waste my time to see non -PGA tournaments. I would, however, pay money to see Wie swing in person. So, there. That is the extent of my interest in LPGA.
2006-02-25 @ 01:07
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Hey jon I'm glad you discovered the LPGA and started watching. I am a fan of golf in all venues including the amateur tournaments.

Having chased the little white ball for a few years myself now, I enjoy watching any golfer who performs well and respect the effort they put into their game.
2006-02-25 @ 05:47
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
One-Putt, As far as Michelle Wie is concerned, I am not, nor have I ever been, vicious or impolite. I have been critical and objective, two conditions which her fawning and adoring fans would do well to adopt. The fact remains that she hasn't won anything of any consequence despite many well-publicized attempts. Her play thus far on her home course has only been what any reasonable person would categorize as fair. I don't think Michelle needs any therapy, but some of her rabid admirers could probably use the services of a shrink.
2006-02-25 @ 11:09
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Thanks One-putt. Perhaps I have "discovered" LPGA, but I am still not impressed by the quality of the LPGA plays or players. It still is boring, lol. I am tired of the same arguments being insinuated by rabid Wie critics. They should get a life and "root" for someone. Michelle still is the most exciting thing that ever happened to LPGA.
2006-02-25 @ 11:53
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Don't get too fixated on Michelle or the other kids out there jon. If you want to see womens's golf played at the highest level, Annika is still the one to watch. When she is "on" it is truly the best women's golf you can see played from tee to green.

She can yank one into the trees and still pull off a shot that settles in tight to the pin. It is really a sight to behold when you see her play in person. Her distance control is spot on.

The new Chicks are bringing some excitement to the game and causing the latest buzz. Annika is the one ruling the roost for a few more years and adding hardware to her collection.

2006-02-25 @ 13:32
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
One-Putt. Don't get fixated on LPGA, period. If you want to see golf played at the highest level, watch PGA. There is nothing inspiring about LPGA or Annika. Annika may be the greatest woman player in the world, but she won't even make it in PGA. Heck, if push comes to shove, I guarantee you she will be at the botton 5 percentile of any PGA rounds. Michelle is interesting only in so far as she continues to improve and she may be able to play golf differently than other LPGA players. At the level she is at right now without improvements, is just another PGA player.
2006-02-25 @ 14:15
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Argh, LPGA not PGA player.
2006-02-25 @ 14:18
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
One Putt and jon, when you watch a women's event, what do you see? I've seen a few live LPGA tournaments, one in Delaware in 2003 that included Annika, and although it was enjoyable, it did not compare favorably with any facet of the men's game. It was similar to the pitty-pat game played in women's tennis as compared to the men's tennis. Are you fellows observing the women at the Fields? Can you honestly say that you truly believe that any of these women will ever be able to compete on the PGA tour? Guys, they don't play the same game. They never will play the same game. All you have to do is look at the differences in style, strength and even short games and putting to realize the truth.It's apparent to anyone who looks at the games objectively. You guys should really try it.
2006-02-25 @ 14:36
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Alex. I differ with you regarding tennis. I played high school tennis also and am somewhat familiar with it. Women's tennis is more fun to watch than Men's and more popular. Tennis is probably the one sport where women's game is more fun than men's: more rallies, strategies, etc. Men's game has degenerated to serve and return game. Power and the racket technology have destroyed it.
2006-02-25 @ 14:45
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Hey, I wrote the above post, not Alex. ------------Jon
2006-02-25 @ 14:47
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
jon, I didn't say that women's tennis OR golf wasn't enjoyable to watch. It's just that neither game compares favorably with any facet of the men's games in the same sports. Several posters on this board have actually said that a woman golfer will win a men's major eventually; one went so far as to say it would happen within three years, and he wasn't joking. Such nonsense will make this board a laughing stock.
2006-02-25 @ 15:39
Comment from: brad 14 [Visitor]
Wow, William you are a belligerent fool. Another Baldie on here, yay! Another 40 year old despicable over-opinionated person on this blog.

Oh, and on top of all of this, your're a no-good journalist. Maybe you should just go be fat and ugly again. Oh, did I say go back? My bad.

And one more thing, SUCK IT!

Brad Pape--14 year old...yeah, only 2 years younger than michelle, let the bashing begin!
2006-02-25 @ 23:47
Comment from: John Neal [Visitor]
Well William,

Michelle Wie may not be the World's #3 Lady Golfer...but no viable candidate for that slot finished ahead of her at the Fields, and every viable candidate for #3 was there.

Along with #2, who also finished behind her.

So, if she's not #3, she sure is making it hard for anyone to prove the contrary at this point.
2006-02-26 @ 00:27
Comment from: Steve [Visitor]

If Michelle was an LPGA member--this 3rd place finish puts her 4th on the money list with $72,500

Morgan is 7th with $33,000

and Paula Creamer would be 13th with $13,000

I'm glad Christie Kerr finished well behind Wie she was yapping like an old hag over Michelle's #3 ranking.
2006-02-26 @ 07:45
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

It's amusing to read the comments by the Wiemen regarding what they figure -- using their misfiring neurons -- it will take to silence us. Don't they know? With the expectations they've set for her, she'll have to win virtually all the LPGA events she plays and contend for wins in PGA events. After all, Bubbles isn't just another young female golf prodigy who is set to take the LPGA by storm; nay, she's the woman who is going to rewrite the rules and turn the world on its head by showing all those declining male athletes a thing or two.

Something tells me we'll be able to wax critical with great loquacity for quite some time.
2006-02-26 @ 10:39
Comment from: David [Visitor]
I'm sure she'd like to rewrite the rules concerning the correct method of taking drops.
2006-02-26 @ 10:45
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Under Par, I like that handle you've given her. Bubbles sounds so "appropriate." In all fairness, she did perform quite well AFTER the pressure was off when she started the final round six strokes back. But even on her home course, with a partisan crowd cheering her on, and needing only to drop a very simple putt in the 18th hole to get close to a win or at least into a playoff, she once again could not rise to the occasion. On the other hand Meena Lee DID make a similar putt on 18 to tie the lead and eventually win in a playoff. Therein lies the difference between a winner and a third place finisher.
2006-02-26 @ 10:58
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Yes, she did perform well in the final round. I think you and I are of one mind in that we understand she is highly gifted, we just . . . well, I don't need to explain it.

By the way, Alex, in keeping with our new enlightened mind-set -- the one we spoke of a while back -- I have to ask a question. Don't you think it's now reasonable to predict that Meena Lee will be contending in PGA events in a few years? She could be one of the new age women David was speaking of in that recent piece of a piece of his.
2006-02-26 @ 21:12
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Thank you,vis a vis the handle.
2006-02-26 @ 22:54
Comment from: Joe Cool [Visitor]
The big difference I see with most Korean women golfers versus the field is their ability to make the putts when it counts. Michelle's three putt on no.13 and misreads on 16 & 18 was very disappointing considering this was her home course which she has played more than any of the other players. I notice that she never seeks advice from her caddies when reading a particular putt. Does anyone know why she does this? However, I think her putting overall has improved except when it comes to "crunch time."
2006-02-26 @ 23:07
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, Meena Lee did win at the Fields, but as you should know, winning is NOT an important consideration for many on this board. Besides, her earrings are nowhere near the required size or length. Morgan Pressel did show promise with her ability to pout and weep real tears spontaneously, no mean achievement. But Michelle is the complete package. She has all that and more, plus her own cult. Bubbles will be the great hope of dreamers like David Meyers, at least until the next lanky teenybopper with a fanatical "stage father" comes along.
2006-02-27 @ 10:23
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

Your analysis is spot-on. However, I still think we should lobby sponsors to give Meena Lee exemptions into PGA events. Winning an event on the great LPGA Tour must carry tremendous weight; why, no man has ever done it! I challenge any poster to name one man who has even come close to winning a title on that tour.
2006-02-27 @ 15:51
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, Well, there was Babe Didrickson Zaharias. Did you ever check that broad out? She could have gone bear hunting with a switch!
2006-02-27 @ 18:09
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]

She could have been mistaken for the bear.
2006-02-27 @ 19:10
Comment from: Joe Cool [Visitor]
Joe Cool's prophecy for 2006 is....Michelle will win one of the four Majors on the LPGA tour.
2006-02-27 @ 22:04
Comment from: Tired if the Wie-hype [Visitor]
The LPGA needs Michelle Wie more than Michelle Wie needs the LPGA.

Women's golf is boring. period.

Yes, they are good. Yes, they go out everyday and make a living at it. And No, it's not easy to be a professional womens golf player.

But the truth is... it's boring.

Tiger Woods took men's golf and made it a topic for everyday conversation. Golf became cool. Golf became interesting. And the PGA benefited with sponsors and ticket sales. Money money money...

The LPGA needs Michelle Wie to do the same for women professional golf.

Yes, Michelle Wie is talented. But more importantly, she looks like a model. She's can play golf and she's incredibly beautiful. If talent was all that matters then Annika Sorenstam would be drawing the most crowds and media attention.

The LPGA has rolled out the red carpet and is doing whatever it can to cater to Michelle Wie's every fancy (and ego). Michelle Wie is an investment, and the LPGA hopes she will be the Tiger Woods of women's golf. She is already drawing sponsors and ticket sales. Money money money...

#2 in the world???

Why did the designers of the Rolex world rankings choose 15 as the minimum amount of tournaments to play when the average of all LPGA players is 34? Double the minimum. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that it was exactly the number of tournaments Michelle Wie had entered at the introduction of the ranking system.

318 players enterd 30+ events. Twice the minimum of 15.

21 players entered 60+ events! Four times the minimum of 15!

Quanlity vs. Quantity

The Rolex world rankings takes the AVERAGE of tournaments entered.

When determining average, ideally, you would want to divide the highest possible number into the lowest possible number to produce the best results.

So logically, to attain a high ranking, a player would only have to produce only 15 good results within 2 years.

All a player would need to do is focus entirely on 8 golf courses where known LPGA events are held. That's 8 courses in 1 year! You can effectivly remove the uncertainty of traveling around the world to unfamiliar golf courses.

Why not? It's what the good folks at Rolex decided.

Of course Michelle Wie did well at the Fields open. She practices there. She should have won.

I'd like to see the Rolex world ranking compared next to top prize money winners.

Wouldn't that be interesting. :)
2006-02-28 @ 18:04
Comment from: Dan Kane [Visitor]
****** I'd like to see the Rolex world ranking compared next to top prize money winners. Wouldn't that be interesting. :) ******* Money winners over the past 2 years sure
2006-02-28 @ 19:14
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Other than the Fields open, Wie was less familiar with the courses she played, since she was in most cases playing them for the first time when more experienced players had played them many times before. With the Samsung tournament, for example, Wie was playing against Annika on a course that used to be Annika's home course.

I don't see how she gets any advantage with the Rolex ratings by playing fewer events. The ratings are an average.
2006-02-28 @ 19:23
Comment from: Cheryl [Visitor]
This was from an article I found on Michelle Wie comparing her win-loss record with other golfers and offers a somewhat explanation why Michelle is ranked so high.


• Annika Sorenstam: Sorenstam leads Wie 13-3-1, the only player Golfweek looked at who has a winning record against Wie. However, Wie leads 2-1-1 over their past four common events.
• Paula Creamer: Wie leads 9-3-1
• Christie Kerr: Wie leads 11-10-1
• Juli Inkster: Wie leads 11-7
• Natalie Gulbis: Wie leads 13-8
• Morgan Pressel: Wie leads 3-1
• Yuri Fudoh: Wie leads 4-1
• Grace Park: Tied 10-10-1 (but since 2004, Wie leads 9-6-1)
• Jeong Jang: Wie leads 13-10 (since 2004, Wie's lead is 11-5)
2006-03-02 @ 15:46

Comments are closed for this post.