Wie-ism

I have some younger friends that go to Punahou. In fact, my younger cousin used to golf with her when they were like 10. My cousin says that shes changed alot since they first knew eachother. She was a pretty normal kid before, and now "Is teenager lost in a womans body." as she puts it.

I can only imagine what it'd be like to have so much pressure when you're so young. I do know though, that Korean parents (Well asian parents in general) tend to push their kids really hard. When I played tennis in highschool, I seen TWO pretty good players, get completely burned out by pushy parents. I don't know for sure in Michelle Wie's case, but I know thats how alot of asian parents are. This doesnt apply for sports either, this can be performing arts, education, or anything.

Anyone who thinks Wie should have dominated in the amateur ranks before moving up is pretty stupid.

Dominating the amateur ranks isn't the only way to learn how to win. Seriously, how many winners on the LPGA Tour have dominated the amateur ranks, well hardly any. With Michelle Wie's talent, who gives a @#$! about the amateur events when she could just play tour events and eventually win one that way.

Shes only been playing about 10 of the top LPGA events per year, its unbelievable how idiots think the reason she hasn't won yet is because she didn't dominate amateur events. Eventually shes going to win, starting off on the LPGA tour earlier will just gradually improve her chances. Obviously she wants to make money too.

Burning out, who expects her to burn out. Shes playing about 12 events per year for @#%! sakes, Vijay plays around 30. OMFG, you guys are uninformed pieces of trash.

Vijay isn't going to Highschool, and trying to live his teenage years at the same time.

Remember, we're comparing a kid to a hardened grown, professional adult.

Wie has... Perfect mechanics, tempo, exicution, imagination and simply lacks experiance. Everyone of us would have some choking problems after leading a LPGA event. As long as she doesn't loose focus, she will win, and learn to win on the job, and then (in 3-6yrs) just plain DOMINATE the womens tour.

I also personaly think she should have waited till she graduated from Stanford and dominated the NCAA for a year or two at least. Then go for it.. just cus she would be older and calm.

The media sucks the life out of everything good.
g

Remember, that $ is the root of all that is evil in this world. Endorsements are very difficult to pass up and only a strong willed individule will have the courage to pass it up like we all think we would do if we were in her shoes...

16 is a rough age to start a pro career, but the 4 years at that level will make her better off overall (if she survives) then 4 years at the college level. I am guessing that that is what her final decision was based on.

"4 years of college, beating every little girl they can throw at me, or 4 years on tour where I would end up probably $40 million richer....hum.....decisions, decisions....."

__________________
I'm a golfaholic, no question about that. Counseling wouldn't help me. They'd have to put me in prison, and then I'd talk the warden into building a hole or two and teach him how to play. ~Lee Trevino

Just keep in mind, she's not eligible to play on any regular major tour for another 2 years.

Is that because you need to have a highschool diploma to play? I've read that somewhere. The PGA didn't want these "child stars", so they put in a clause that says you need one to be a member or something.

I think that's better for the game. What was the youngest age person to ever win a major sporting event? I think it was like 13; gymnastics, in the Olympics.

No, Squid, it's because they have 18yrs+ clauses.

I think Paula Creamer's going to be the best of the lot.

She'll win cos Nike want her to win so they can foist their cheesy wares on even more young impressionable people. Nike control TV cos of the sponsorship dollar and TV controls the tour cos of the money they pay for the coverage.

Tv controls the set up of most of the courses, so the muttering on tour goes, pretty much every one suits Tiger down to the ground, as Di Marco said, you are better off 40 yards off-line than 40 centimeters....now who does that suit.....hmmmm.

Wont be long before the LPGA tour courses start changing shape and it isnt going to help Creamer, who apparently isnt the longest hitter.

D.

__________________
Longniddry Golf Club Champ 2005.

In the Taylor Made Bag:

Callaway FT-3 Tour 9.5 Aldila NV 65S

Callaway Steelhead 3 Wood

Callaway Steelhead 5 Wood

Callaway X-16 3-PW

MacGregor Tourney 52 Degree

Cobra Phil Rodgers 59 Degree Rusty

Odyssey DFX 2-Ball

Callaway Tour iX

Boo-hoo. Players should just stop crying about the length of courses and either get more power, shut up and play or just quit.

Michelle Wie's length is overrated. She has no more power than Annika does. They aren't going to start making courses longer just because of Wie.

Wies length off the tee isnt so much over rated as over stated. She is supposedly comparable with Annika and unleashes the occasional bomb, but lets not forget that Annika has a 15-20 yard advantage over players like Creamer, Jones, Diaz, Hurst etc.

I wasnt referring to a lengthening of LPGA venues, that would hurt far too many players. I meant that the courses will start favouring bigger hitters by being less penal for errant shots.

How many times do we see Tiger sailing into the timber only to find when the camera reaches him he has a clear line and a well trod path to play from? PGA courses only seem to really punish the unlucky bounces from the fairway or those slightly mis cued shots that are 5 or 10 yards off line. If you go 40 yards offline you should be pulling another ball from the bag. If you miss a fairway at my home course by 30 yards you are hosed, either knee deep in the hay, in the tall timber or halfway to Norway. There just isnt that kind of penalty on a stadium course if you make sure you dont miss towards the water.

I think if you increase the width of fairways by 10 yards or so but make the rough 20 yards away from the fairway edge truly penal then less players would wind up for a really big one knowing if they really miscue they might get lucky and smack it over everything.

No course should be over 7200 yards (thats an average of 400 yards a hole, remember) especially the great ones that were originally intended to be 6800-6900 off the tips.

D.

__________________
Longniddry Golf Club Champ 2005.

In the Taylor Made Bag:

Callaway FT-3 Tour 9.5 Aldila NV 65S

Callaway Steelhead 3 Wood

Callaway Steelhead 5 Wood

Callaway X-16 3-PW

MacGregor Tourney 52 Degree

Cobra Phil Rodgers 59 Degree Rusty

Odyssey DFX 2-Ball

Callaway Tour iX

Wie always tries to unleash a bomb, while Annika can release bombs but doesen't because she knows its not always necessary.

I like seeing a mixture of courses, long 7600 yard ones and short 6800 yard ones. On the long ones they need more garbage at the 300+ mark and take garbage away from the 270-280 area where short and medium hitters play to. Long hitters should never beable to fly all the trouble, unless the hole is meant to be a risk reward hole. Good short courses are really narrow and penalize long hitters horribly unless they are smart, long courses aren't narrow but they should have huge short hitter landing areas plus more **** at the 300+ mark that can't be carried.

I don't think theres anything they can do about the far offline teeshot, even if they made the rough deeper further away the crowd would pad it down.