Nancy Lopez returning to a new world of golf - can she smoke LPGA's best?
While everyone spent the last few years glorifying the young guns of the LPGA - and are currently checking their watches to see if any of them are actually going to have a real accomplishment in the pro game - Nancy Lopez was working to get back in the game.
Now, while Morgan Pressel, Michelle Wie and Natalie Gulbis look at Paula Creamer’s five career victories as some type of otherworldly standard, a woman with 52 career wins and three major titles is ready to play a few rounds at the age of 50. Lopez said she plans to play five or six LPGA Tour events this year, starting with the $2.6-million Ginn Open in Reunion, Fla., in April.
“I know I have to get in real good shape to try to compete with the young girls, but I think I still have the mental capacity to go out there and play good golf,” Lopez said. “Let’s just see if I can make it in the hole a little faster than I have the last few years.”
Personally, I think it’s great to see Lopez give the best in the women’s game one more shot, and disagree with The Golf Blogger when he wrote: “I would hate to see her tarnish her reputation with a silly Michael Jordan-like comeback.”
Lopez can’t tarnish her reputation on the course, her legacy is set, and all she can do is add to it. Of course, perhaps, she’ll need to remember that these aren’t the carefree days of the late 1970s anymore, and giving the easily recognizable, “Let’s have a toke” sign, like she did in her famous Sports Illustrated cover shot, just won’t fly today.
|« Using steroids a no-brainer at the Golfer Supremacy Rankings||The real March Madness: Golf world's hysteria over protecting par »|
You said Paula Creamer has 5 lpga victories. She only has 3 lpga wins. She also won twice on the weaker Japanese Tour.
WKW specifically stated
"Paula Creamer's five CAREER victories."
Nowhere did he say that she had five LPGA wins.
What did you do, Stanley? Start drinking already?
St. Patrick's day isn't until tomorrow.
Understood. In any event, that reference to Paula was just a sidelight and has no bearing on the gist of the blog.
Stanley is fond of nitpicking.
Thanks for correcting the article and noting the error.
It isn't nitpicking. The 2 japanese tour victories are very different to lpga victories. If they are the same, then Ai Miyazato with 11 japanese lpga victories has proved to be a far better player than Paula Creamer is.
Generally people respond to the general message of the blog, where did your post come from?
The general message of this blog is that Nancy Lopez is returning to the LPGA on a limited basis, not Paula Creamer, Ai Miyazato, or the number of wins either has on the Japanese tour.
You're chastizing Joe Cool for the same thing you're doing.
Now, Stanley, what do you think of Nancy Lopez returning to the LPGA tour? I personally think she has no chance of winning an event or finishing top ten. When she attempted a modest comeback, a few years back, she didn't come close.
Your interest in Nancy Lopez's comeback is very welcome. Some people were probably under the impression that you thought the lpga tour was basically pitty-pat golf, played on courses geared for amateurs, and almost in slow motion. Where could they have got that idea?
Anyway, it's nice that you are showing the interest in the tour. I agree, Nancy won't do very well. She obviously showed some promise in practice because she has been talking a big game, and how she is going to give the youngsters a run for their money and how well she is playing. Practice is one thing though and competition is another.
By the way, the issue does relate to someone else. There is a certain someone who Nancy complained about because Nancy said that person was playing on a tour where she didn't have a chance to win.
Okay that person was only playing a couple of events.
Nancy intends to play 5 or 6 events.
Does Nancy have a chance to win on the lpga tour?
Alex doesn't think so. I don't think so.
Should Nancy take her own advise and not play where she doesn't have a chance of winning?
And before anyone says that Nancy has earned her right to play with her achievements, that is not the issue.
The issue is that Nancy said that players shouldn't play where they don't have a chance to win.
WE KNOW that Wie hasn't won against this level.
That was a ridiculous comparison; there is no equivalency between Bubbles' forays into men's golf and Lopez' desire to compete on a tour that she once dominated. Moreover, there is no other place where Lopez could realistically compete. Also, she has earned her stripes at this level, on the premier pitty-pat golf tour in the world.
The only other thing I'll say is that I don't really consider 5 or 6 events a "comeback"; it's more like what a ceremonial golfer does.
You cannot expect a Wie Warrior like Stanley to grasp the fact that Nancy has won enough events on the LPGA to earn a LIFETIME exemption. She has EARNED a lifetime exemption. She can play in any LPGA tournament that she so desires from now on.
And Judge, this thread proves that the Wie-wee's simply can't resist interjecting Bubbles into any discussion no matter how far-fetched. If someone were to bring up the price of fish in Palestine, to the Wie-wee's, Bubbles latest "injury" would be germane to the subject.
Speaking of Lard Butt and her injuries, what is the latest scuttlebutt on her Purple Heart? One of her lackeys came out and admitted that she didn't have a fracture. Jennifer Mario said that she doubted that it was even sprained. And what about the other wrist "injury?
That one is over four months old. Soon it won't matter because summer will soon be here and time for "heat stroke." I tell you, these Wie-wee's have more excuses than Bruno Hauptmann.
No, the here issue IS NOT anything that Nancy Lopez has said about any teenybopper with long earrings taking up space at a PGA tournament to which she hasn't earned a spot.
The issue here to everyone but you is can Nancy compete with the rest of the girls and women on the pitty-pat tour.
If Nancy Lopez says that red wine should never be served with poultry, that won't have any relevance on this thread either.
Since when have YOU ever had cause to pay close attention to the main theme of any thread in these blogs?
Getting a little carried away with your self appointed postion of moderator, aren't you?
Between you and judge Smuts, you are both very guilty of going off on tangents, especially if you can bash the Wie camp or throw gobs of spiteful comment at anyone that takes exception to your arguments.
As I said before, Alex, you tend to come off sounding like one of those underpriviledged kids in the sand lots. Only difference is that you clean up your language a bit better than they do.
BTW, where have you been for the last 3 weeks? I was almost ready to go looking for records of your deportation/emigration to Russia or some place of the same ilk.
You must have been almost insane with the need to get on the blogs and whip up some more bafflegab about wie and company. I could hardly credit you not defending Miss " 5 times better" and her tanking last week. I see her compadre with the hi lift headlights also crashed in the same tourney. What happened Alex? I thought this would be her break out year? And Annika??? Lorena? Julieta? wow... And no Chris Babbleshat to make excuses?
Have I gone off on a tangent far enough to earn your mighty wrath now, Mr. Moderator? LOL, let 'er rip, oh marvelous one.
Don't worry about Alex. He has actually been posting plenty.
Just look at this long drawn out blog and count the times he has been posting, and how much he has been posting about the lpga tour, the tour by the way, which he thinks is a load of garbage, he still posts about it plenty though.
It's official, it was a wonder to many what would happen.
There was a huge gap of intelligence between Judge and Alex. It was likely that with them spending so much time conversing that they're relative intelligence levels would converge somewhat.
Would Alex increase? Would Judge decline?
It's official Judge is declining and rapidly at that.
Earlier I explicitly stated that, it was nothing about Lopez having earned the right to play on the lpga tour, yet Judge still mentioned it.
As I explained before, but since Judge is soon likely to join Alex in the slowlearners class, a repeat of the explanation:
It is about whether Lopez can win. Lopez stated that a golfer should only play a tournament if she had a chance of winning. She didn't qualify that statement by saying, it's okay if the player has earned the right or anything like that. She simply said that if a player had no chance to win, then the player had no business in playing that tournament.
It is a very good point in relation to this blog that Lopez is not playing by her own rules. She really should have thought it through before shooting her mouth off about it.
Nancy lopez at Q School.. I'd give a lot to see that.
Does anyone know why Nancy Lopez didn't go to LPGA Q-School to try to win fully exempt status? "
Sorry Jim a Hall of Fame member is permanently exempt from qualifying. If they dug up Kathy Whitworth she could tee it up at the Kraft.
One mention of Bubbles and all the old guard Wie Warriors came out of hiding.
putt4par, One-Putt, and even Jim C are all back and posting. All we need now is for Ghet Rheel to see this and he won't be able to resist.
OK, JIm C, I'll start with you. Since your somewhat ambitious prediction that Double Wide would win the Evian and the Weetabix and make the cut at the 84 Lumber fell a trifle short of your expectations, what grandiose trifecta have you extracted from your crystal ball for Bubbles in 2007?
You are in no position to be still harping on about wrong predictions Jim made back at the Evian.
People could easily bring up your describing a 485 yard par 4 as routine on the pga tour, or how you claimed that Wie hadn't hit a 595 yard par 5 in 2 when she had.
So give up harping on about those mistakes Alex, because you have made plenty.
Jim made a prediction. He was wrong. No big deal.
Why would anyone think it a meaningful comparison to compare career victories for a 20 year old and a 50 year old?
Nancy Lopez may be exempt from qualifying for certain Majors--but she is listed as a non-exempt LPGA player. I would certainly say that there should be exemptions from the minimum number of tournmants for older players--and perhaps for younger ones as well who are say under 21 and still attending school.
Yes, young fellow, we all make mistakes, and fortunately for most folks, there are a few things that one can do to rectify those mistakes.
When you first started posting on these threads, I was philosophical. I figured that you were an undereducated or possibly uneducated lad from peasant stock. You wrote as you probably speak, rambling, at times incoherent, and seldom on topic. You hadn't gone to school very long or very often, but you were just clever enough to be dangerous.
However, the incessant drivel emanating from your keyboard of late has caused me to re-assess your intellectual capacity, or rather, lack thereof.
I now know that little , if anything, can be done to ameliorate your situation. Your trouble began on the day that you were conceived and was exascerbated on the day you were born.
I hate being the one to tell you this, Stanley, but as the old adage says, "Beauty fades, but stupid is forever." You are the poster child for that old maxim.
How do you feel now, my friend?
Jim C doesn't believe you when you informed him that Nancy is exempt from qualifying for her lifetime.
Now, I can understanding his disbelief of me, since I am the enemy, a Wie skeptic of the first magnitude.
But you are Jim C's comrade in blogging, you are Wie Warrior emeritus.
How do you account for Jim C's deviation from the party line?
There is no party line when it comes to Michelle Wie issues.
The only one on the blogs who adheres to party lines is yourself, and that party is called the kiss Judge Smails ass party. It is hardly any wonder that you are struggling to attract new members.
As regards education, you showed your own level when referring to a certain golfer as "Lard Butt" earlier in this blog.
Had you referered to an actual heavy golfer like Pat Hurst as Lard Butt, it would have simply showed your lack of class. Refering to a much slimer golfer as that, shows not only your lack of class, but also your lack of intelligence.
However on the lard butt comment, Alex went too far. It's one thing to try to annoy the Wie Zealouts, and that can be lots of fun.
But Alex's comment has no place on the blogs. He is only letting himself down by saying things like that.
I suppose you're right. Maybe the old handle of "Double Wide " would be more appropriate.
I wonder, though, how did any of the Wie-wee's know to whom I was referring?
Probably, because you mentioned her name about 5 times in that post before referring to her as lard butt. Alex you really need to get a grip of yourself, you are losing it quickly, then again, did you ever have it?
On the Nancy Lopez issue, she deserves to enter those tournaments because she is one of the most successful female golfers ever. She earned her exemption, and if she plays well or if she plays badly, she still deserves to play on the lpga tour if she chooses that.
That's a long way away from Michelle Wie. Up to the end of 2006, Wie had yet to win on the lpga tour, yet she had been given 6 freebies in pga events. Why was she given those? Why not Tadd or someone with a similar amount of golf skills?
You are a big poo poo pants, who does poo poo in his pants.
Sorry readers, I was just trying to post at a level that Alex can understand. Sorry about that.
What did you think would happen when you started dumbing-down society? Eat your heart out, little Ronnie.
The golf on the LPGA tour is mediocre, at best, in my opinion, but even I wouldn't go to the extremes to which you've gone to denigrate it.
Nancy Lopez has won 48 times on the LPGA tour by, in your words, "playing crappy golf with the worst swing tempo in the history of professional golf." What does that say about her competition?
She didn't win her first LPGA tournament until 1978. She won the bulk of her victories in the "80's and quite a few in the '90's, with the last coming in 1997. I realize that there have been many, substantial changes made in equipment, but I doubt that the changes would make a Hall of Fame player into a stumblebum.
I'd still like you to explain how a woman who won 48 LPGA events and another four worldwide could have done these things with such a miserable game. I am admittedly not too fond of the women's game, but I'd never go so far as to say a champion had the worst swing tempo in the history of the sport.
She had 48 lpga wins as Alex said. Only 3 were majors, but even so, it's still impressive.
Take Babe who won less times than Nancy, only 42 times, but 10 of those were majors. Obviously Babe's success is far better.
Nancy was the youngest player to reach 10 wins on the lpga tour at 22 years, 10 months and 5 days. How many of the Wieners are willing to bet that Michelle will pass 10 wins before then?
Thank you for coming out with your long range view for Bubbles' success.
Now, what is your prediction for her 2007 season?
A little while back, Jim C also predicted a win for Bubbles in 2007. In fact, he said she would win a major event.
Now , Johnny N seconds the motion, and Jim C further predicts that she will have ten victories by the end of 2011.
Those are indeed some high expectations for a golfer who has yet to win, and is not yet an LPGA member. Remember guys, those are YOUR expectations and not those of any Wie skeptics as has been so often claimed.
If, according you eternal optimists, Bubbles will win an LPGA tournament, even a major, earlier than anyone else in history, and also win ten LPGA events at an earlier age than anyone else in history, are there any other records that she will easily tear down off the wall? Will Nancy's 48 wins be a mere speed bump in Bubbles' path? How about Annika, Mickey, and Kathy?
What amazes me is that you fellows think that Bubbles can perform these miracles, (and miracles is the correct name for such heroics), while she is a college student at Stanford.
If Bubbles accomplishes even a fraction of that, she should be required to wear a red leotard with a large "S" embroidered on the front.
I said she would win in 2007.
I'd rather not bother yet about Jim's prediction of 10 wins before 2011. I'd rather know how much lpga golf she would be playing in order to make a prediction on that.
If she were just playing the 8 events per season, then 10 wins is too much to be expecting.
Predicting a win in 2007 is not that high of expectations considering how her lpga performances have got better and better each season and how close she has already come.
When you referred to Nancy Lopez as a "non-exempt" player, you were absolutely incorrect.
I received this e-mail in answer to my inquiry as to the status of Nancy Lopez:
LPGA Senior Tournament Operations Coordinator
Nancy Lopez will not have to qualify to play in any LPGA events. She has earned LPGA Hall of Fame honors which in turn will allow her to enter any and/or all LPGA events she may desire to enter for her lifetime.
You should listen to your pal, One-Putt.
If Judge doesn't like that, maybe he goes for the women who are shaped like young boys. If that's the case, well that's disturbing really.
Then again, some guys just have strange tastes, so there needen't be anything sinister about it.
There seems to be a strange sort of animus toward women who are proven winners.
As an example, at least one poster here sees fit to take Nancy Lopez to task for some innocuous, off-the-cuff remarks she made concerning Bubbles' ill-fated excursions into the world of the PGA. Pundit RonMon says that Nancy has the worst swing tempo in the history of golf. Jim C sees injustice in the fact that Nancy is exempt from qualifying.
Similarly, many posters on these threads like to downgrade Paula Creamer's five wins, emphasizing that two were on the "inferior" Japanese tour.
And to top it all off, erstwhile poster Alan once called Annika a "cow" because she hasn't borne any children.
These ladies are all proven winners, Annika and Nancy being all-time greats. But no matter, they are in disfavor with these guys.
But, when it comes to Bubbles, they have nothing but adulation of the most fawning kind.In their minds, neither she, her parents, her agents, or the rest of her entourage can do anything wrong. What's missing here?
You asked, "What's missing here?" My answer is: A brain in the cranium of the average Wiebot.
Nobody insulted Nancy Lopez. It was simply pointed out what remarks she made, and by the way, they weren't off the cuff remarks as you claimed, she has made them repeatedly in many interviews.
Nancy does have a very proud record on the lpga tour. It is also her business if she wants to play that's fine. Some people were debating how she would do, and I doubt she will do well, but she does have the right to play.
Anyone who calls Annika a cow is an idiot.
On Paula Creamer, calling her 5 pro wins, as 3 lpga and 2 foreign wins is not downplaying them, it is simply stating facts.
Paula Creamer and Morgan Pressel are good looking girls and both have good figures.
I guess that you're right in that calling attention to the fact that Paula's five wins include two on the inferior Japanese circuit is merely stating facts.
With that as your standard, I'm sure that you will consider my calling attention to the record of Bubbles as 0 Junior titles, 0 Amateur titles, 0 LPGA, 0 Asian titles, 0 uropean titles, and 0 cuts made on the PGA tour as merely stating facts.
You might like reminding that in her first 12 lpga majors, she was in the top 5 in 6 of those events.
You might also like to note that in Paula Creamer's first 11 lpga majors, she has been in the top five once. Indeed she was only in the top 10 once.
Maybe someone could deduce who is the better major performer.
I don't believe Nancy Lopez's remarks about Michelle Wie were innocuous, and if they were of the cuff remarks for which she is sorry, I somehow missed hearing her apology. I also don't believe Nancy Lopez has the worst swing tempo in the history of golf--and recognize that Ron Mon's comments seemed to have nothing to do with Michelle Wie.
I think it would be nice not to call people names like cow, chubby, or double wide. As far as Annika not having children is concerned--I think Nancy Lopez's two pregnancies seriously cut into her career win total, which might easily have been in the 60s if she had not had any children.
You seem to have developed some sort of mental block as concerns Nancy lopez's exempt status.
I thought that I had explained it fully, but obviously you have failed to understand.
Therefore, I will try it one final time.
Nancy Lopez, by virtue of her induction into the LPGA Hall of Fame, has earned a LIFETIME EXEMPTION to any LPGA tournament to which she may choose to enter.
She doesn't have to try to regain fully exempt status, she has that status until the day she dies.
She doesn't need to play and do well in five or six or even one event to regain hger card, she has and will have her LPGA tour players card until she leaves this good earth.
I see no reason for Nancy Lopez, a winner of 52 tournaments worldwide and a bona fide Hall of Fame member to apologize to a pipsqueak like Bubbles for expressing her opinions, opinions which are the unvarnished truth
But what's wrong with that. Paula Creamer has a great butt, and that's the unvarnished truth.
However, she still made the comments about how she thought that players should not compete on tours in which they couldn't win. Then she decided to do exactly that.
Of course she doesn't need to apologise to anyone. It is refreshing to note that she has obviously changed her mind on the issue, otherwise she would take her own advise.
Could you please clarify the status of Nancy Lopez and other retired LPGA Hall of Famers regarding exemptions?
The idea that a player shuld never play in an event where she has no chance to win is ridiculous, How many runners in the New York Marathon have a chance to win? And if Ms. Lopez is going to say that to someone else she should live up to it herself. If Nancy Lopez is not good enough to win on the LPGA--which she certainly has not been in recent years, perhaps she should take her own advice and compete at a lesser level until she brings her game up to the LPGA level.
My point about the apology, is that in the absense of one we may assume the statements she made were ones she stands by much as Akex stands by them. I suspect that Nancy Lopez would react to my mention of an apolpgy in much the same way that Alex did. She would not claim any special status as a Hall of Famer, but she would view Michelle Wie as a pipsqueak or something like that.
Yesterday at 10:52AM, I posted on this thread verbatim the e-mail I received from LPGA headquarters in Daytona Beach. That e-mail was in reply to my request for clarification on the exempt status of Nancy Lopez.
Since you are still obviously skeptical of my posting of that reply, I respectfully suggest that you contact the following person for your answer rather than trusting the opinion of anyone on these threads.
Senior Tournament Operations Director
If you are not satisfied with her reply, then I give up all hope for you.
You're attention to detail on lpga rules means that you should be induced into the lpga fans hall of fame. You are a true fan of the pitty pan golf organisation. Well done.
Alex, you have also taken a great interest in many of the other rulings on the lpga tour, as well as the general play on the tour. If the lpga tour had more dedicated fans like you, it would truly flourish. Well done again.
I really don't have that much interest in the LPGA. It's just that in my profession, attention to detail is paramount.
In addition, I like to encourage others to seek rulings and judgments from those who know, such as Ms. Lawrence of the LPGA.
It would be a great help if you would put your imprimatur on what I have discovered about the exempt status of Nancy Lopez on the LPGA tour. Jim C, your fellow Wie-wee seems to be having a lot of trouble understanding the truth.
As concerns the first sentence of your post, should I be induced, introduced, or inducted into the LPGA Hall of Fame? :-)
You should be indeed inducted, just a typo.
You might also like to note your typo, it's inducted into the lpga fans hall of fame, not the lpga hall of fame, which is for players who have accomplished a great deal on the tour.
The lpga fans hall of fame hasn't been created yet, but your dedication does warrent the setting up of such an organisation.
As regards Nancy, the email you received says she can play as much as she wants, but that is surprising. If that were the case, then Annika, Karrie and other hall of famers could just give up their official membership, and play when they want, and not be subject to rules such as playing every lpga event at least once every four years. That rule is one which has annoyed Annika, because she doesn't like to play much and would rather not bother with certain events. If the info Kathy gave you is word perfect, then why does Annika not just do a Nancy Lopez and play when she wants to play, as well as being allowed to play for pay as much as she wants on other tours.
I have sent the lpga tour a question asking if Annika were to give up official membership, would she then be able to play as many events as she wanted on the tour as a hall of fame member.
Also I've asked as regards Nancy. I'll let you know how they reply to that.
Please don't ask me why Annika does this or that, Annika is not the person in question
It may come as a surprise to you that the PGA has similar exemption rules as regards members of its Hall of Fame. And when a PGA member wins 20 tournaments, that member is exempt for life from qualifying.
You seem to be in the same rut as Jim C.
Annika has the same privileges as Nancy. She is exempt from qualifying for life.
Neither Annika, Juli, Karrie. or Nancy are required to qualify for any event they choose to enter. Period.
And none of those ladies has to "give up their official memberships" to acquire or maintain this status.
Just what part of LIFETIME EXEMPTION FROM QUALIFYING don't you guys understand?
Here is how it works:
- Nancy is indeed a life member of the lpga tour, but it should be noted that doesn't give full membership. She isn't a fully exempt player and is instead non-exempt.
However, that doesn't make a lot of difference because she is well up the non-exempt list and thus gets to play pretty much any tournaments that she wants.
There is an issue in this though. When Nancy enters an event she does take the spot away from some other non-exempt pro, who might well be a promising player who could do very well at the event.
Michelle Wie has often been critisised for taking pga exemptions that others away from qualified players. That is nonsense in that case. When Michelle takes sponsors exemptions, she is not taking them away from qualified players, but simply from other sponsors exemptions.
In Nancy's case, she is very much taking a place in the field which would go to the next alternate player.
Should she have the right to do that? Why not, she is a hall of famer, so of course she should.
However, in the case of Paula Creamer I do agree with Alex. During her win at the SBS Open, she wore a set of pink very tight trousers, and she looked very appealing. I don't know if lard butt is a suitable term, but I guess a butt is made from lard anyway so Alex is probably technically correct.
Anyway, Paula Creamer is a very beautiful young woman with plenty of curvature and whether people like that being discussed or not, this should have a postive effect on the womens game.
Alex has never once mentioned Paula Creamer's derriere.
Lardbutt is a pseudonym for Doublewide,aka Bubbles,aka MI sung Wi,aka Michelle Wie
Whence did your information on Nancy's exemption come?
My came from the Senior Tournament Operations Coordinator, Kathy Lawrence.
You really shouldn't attempt to read into the script your own version of things..
Where are you, Stanley? Did you get the same answer from the LPGA that I did? Is that the reason that you are reluctant to reply?
You probably shouldn't argue with Johnny N because he has been right on rules before. The lpga haven't replied to the email yet. When they do, I will post it in full, no matter what it says. I have no vested interest in its outcome. I actually agreed with your analysis that she could probably play when she wants.
I did wonder about why other players wouldn't just take the Nancy Lopez route, if it meant that they could play all they wanted.
Johnny N has probably answered the question where he says she has non-exempt status but is top of the non exempt list.
I prefer to argue with Johnny N, you, or anyone else who insist on being wrong.
Johnny N has NOT answered any questions.
He said..."Nancy can pretty much play in any tournaments she wants..."
Not true. Nancy can play in any tiurnament she wants. Leave the "pretty much out>"
You Brits have got to realize that there are colors of black and white, everything is noy gray
I find it strange that the LPGA hasn't responded to your request in more than six hours. They replied to me twice in less than ten minutes.
It has been easy to note that you have been wrong in many cases before and you are wrong again.
Nancy Lopez cannot play the Samsung World Championship, that is just one example.
Basically all exempt players get into the field first, then whatever spots left over are filled by non-exempt players.
As those hall of famers are top of the eligibility of the non-exempt members they will get into most fields, but they won't get into some of the limited field events.
If you give more credence to the anonymous information posted on the site you chose to consult rather than that of a senior LPGA official, that is your business.
You can engage in semantics all you want. You can refer to Nancy Lopez as non-exempt, exempt, partially-exempt, whatever. Terminology was never my premise.
What is my contention is that Nancy Lopez is EXEMPT FOR LIFE from qualifying on the LPGA tour.
I'm not asking anyone to believe me. Ms. Kathy Lawrence is available at LPGA headquarters. She responds to inquiries almost immediately, despite what Stanley says
putt4par, do you really want to go there? I mean, after some of the bizarre predictions that you have made on these threads, you really should't be casting aspersions at the postings of others. That would make you fair game
You are really having difficulties with this, arn't you.
Nancy is not EXEMPT FOR LIFE.
She is NON-EXEMPT FOR LIFE.
Obviously you don't understand the difference in the meaning of the two of them. I have tried to explain the difference to you, but sometimes a teacher should just realise that not all students have a good capacity for learning.
The info that putt4parr posted was not anonymous information, it was from the official lpga web site.
If you can find the post or posts where I firmly predicted anything for Ms. Wie, i'd like you to post the links.
What I have always disliked about your continuous attacks on Michelle was the depth of hate displayed for a young female that you have never met, because it must be hate or your year long rant at every opportunity makes no sense otherwise.
No other player (whether male or female) gets your undivided attention and continuous barrage of assinine,demeaning and derogatory comments.
You have mde many disparaging refferences and comments about Jennifer Mario in regards to her book, all because of your problem with Michelle Wie. While you may have a problem with the main character of Ms. Marios book, her class act as an author cannot be questioned. All her references and information appear to be well researched and well thought out. Her material was well laid out and the progression of the story was paced well and accurately within the confines of the material available to her at time of writing the book.
Your excuse for dislike at the beginning of your tirade on the Wie camp,was the hype surrounding Michelle. But you and Smuts ( and others ) have rapidly degenerated into degrading monikors for her and meaningless personal attacks on your detractors.
Your family has my deepest sympathy. Do you keep your spouse and daughters apprised of your deep discontent with the female half of the population? Reading your many posts over the last year would lead anyone to believe that you have absolutely no respect for the LPGA (the pitty-pat tour as you or Smuts refer to it ), you have no respect for most of the players on that tour who ( surprise ) just happen to be female and by references made in your many posts, you have no respect for women.
Does this mean that you don't show these posts to your spouse? Would she whip you if she read them? What about your daughters, are they double-wides and lard-butts or is the only lard you speak of actually between your ears?
So, answer this question for us, Alex. If all the above are true, what is your point in continuous attacks on those mentioned? Don't you have work to perform or are you retired and bored? Or is it the only place you can rant against females ( anonymously ) without getting your ass whipped at home?
Oh, and before you rant about Brits and emigration or any other such thing, I am not a brit. My mail does not cross any ocean to get to me from anywhere in north america. And while I am at it, any typos or mispellings that you may find, are not worthy of mention as they do not add to or detract from the contents of this post.
Try putting semantics and labels aside for a while. Also, it might serve you better to climb down off your high horse and quit trying to demean the intelligence and comprehension of someone who is head and shoulders above you in both departments.
In one of your previous posts, you made reference to the fact that Nancy Lopez cannot play in the Samsung World Championship.
Since that event is "By Invitation Only" and consists of only 20 INVITED players, NONE of whom have to qualify, the issue of Nancy's exempt status is not germane as cocerns the Samsung. The fact that a non-winner, non-qualifier like Bubbles was invited to the Samsung, along with the ever-popular Gwladys Nocera says a lot about the credentials of the selection committee.
But, putting that aside, you said that the Samsung was"just one example" of events in which Nancy could not play, the implication being that there are several others that she could not enter.
Leaving out any other limited field, invitation only events, what other LPGA tournaments this year are off limits to Nancy Lopez ?
Wow! You've really gone out on a limb! After predicting that Bubbles could win last year, and having that prediction failing to come to fruition, you have vitually went all in with your latest prediction for Bubbles.
You have boldly gone where several others have gone before! You have predicted that Bubbles "has a chance to wih this year." Now that took some spunk!
I'm prepared to go you one better. I predict that Annika, Lorena, Juli, and Morgan ALL have a chance to win on the LPGA tour this year. How do you like that for boldness?
The Samsung is not an invitation only event.
The only person who got an special invitation in 2006 was Michelle Wie. The other members qualified.
Gladys Nocera qualified as winner of the Ladies European Tour money list. To be precise Laura Davies qualified from that, but Laura had a pre-arranged charity commitment on the Great Wall of China, so the 2nd placed LET member Gladys Nocera took her place.
The other qualifiers were from the lpga tour money list, as well as the major winners.
By the way, in Michelle's limited 7 starts before the Samsung, she made enough money that she would have qualified automatically had her money been included on the money list.
That shows that the special committee who are there to pick a deserving player were correct to pick her.
Please note, this is a special committee drawn of experts, who pick a deserving player, it is not just a sponsors invite.
Anyway, all that information is probably confusing to Alex. As you might be beginning to realise, my knowledge of the workings of the lpga tour are far superior to yours, so maybe you would be better off going back to your general slagging off of other posters.
On your other question, I have already stated that with Nancy Lopez's non-exempt status, she will still get into most lpga events. That is because as a hall of famer, she has a high priority among those non-exempt players.
I've already predicted that Michelle will win in 2007. Putt4parr might have said she may win, but I've predicted that she will win. Are you willing to make some predictions yourself?
Would you be willing to predict no wins?
Have a look at this link:
That's a woman with a really good butt. You and your Wie dreams can only dream of such things.
Your Wie Wie has nothing on the Pink Panther, in the butt department.
We also could predict that my mother has a chance of winning the lottery this year. After all, she does occasionally play it.
Also, given the volume and tenor of the remarks contained in putt4par's last rant, I suspect that his medication is wearing off. Perhaps this can be another area where we can all hazard guesses: What psychotropic drug is putt4par taking?
Well, you know, I have to express my misogynistic feelings somehow; I've been at a loss ever since I got too old to pull little girls' ponytails.
What's your problem with Michelle Wie. She might be young but Judge is right, she is still very nice to look at.
Predicting that Bubbles "No Win" Wie will get no wins in 2007 is like predicting that one will get wet if he falls into the Atlantic Ocean.
I'll be only too happy to predict that Bubbles will go for the horse collar again in 2007
Your first sentence of your post makes this definitive statement:
"The Samsung is not an invitation only event."
Now Johnny N, before you suffer a dislocated shoulder by patting yourself on the back congratulating yourself on your unsurpassed knowledge of the sport of Golf, I suggest that you dial up the website of the Samsung World Championship.
There you will find in bold letters the following description of the type of event to be held at Superstition Mountain: "BY INVITATION ONLY"
I eagerly await your next feeble attempt at equivocation.
Anyway, to give another lesson, an invitational is only a label for an event. For example the Arnold Palmer Invitational. Be assured that Arnie doesn't spend sleepless nights wondering who he will invite and who he won't invite to that event.
There is another example. Maybe you have or haven't heard of it, The Masters. That's the one where they give a green jacket to the winner. That is also an Invitational Event.
In reality there is set criteria for qualification, for example the top 50 in rankings get into it.
In the case of the Samsung, the LET money winner, the 4 lpga major winners get in and then it goes down the lpga money list after that.
Now THAT is some world class equivocation! I knew you wouldn't disappoint.
I have probably been playing golf and following the sport longer than you've been alive.
But don't let that stop you. Keep it up. This is entertaining.
In case anyone out there doesn't realize it, Johhny N is a real smart guy. He must be since he admits it.
When you equate the Samsung with the Masters' and the Palmer, you are displaying your abject stupidity.
I have attended both those tournaments in addition to the Memorial, another invitational
The Masters' has a field of 90+, the Memorial one of about 105, and the Palmer about 125.
The Samsung has a field of TWENTY, four more than the Target which is rightly considered as a silly season exhibition.
How Samsung ever dreamed up the title "World Championship" for an event like that is indeed a mystery.
It has the lowest amount of prize money on the LPGA tour by a wide margin.
I've read Johnny's post a few times, and I haven't found where he equated the Samsung with the Masters. Perhaps hallucinations are your latest trouble. Didn't Johnny just say that the Masters and Samsung are both invitational events.
If you have a dictionary handy, I suggest you look up the meaning of "equate."
Comments are closed for this post.