Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 15 Oct 2006 22:21:03
From: Michel Oui
Subject: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Julie Inkster, paired with Michelle Wie during the final round
of the Samsung World Classic, bettered Wie by 10 strokes.
Inkster, who has a daughter the same age as Wie, shot a final
round of 65 vs Wie's 75 (yes, she waxed Wie's ass).

Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa. That was a
slight improvement on the 23 stroke disadvantage she had while
trying to make the cut against the men in September's 84 Lumber
Classic. Wie was one of only two women in the field who failed
to post at least one round under par.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 18:14:09
From: Indiana_John
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

> Great arguments above, but what the heck are you guys talking about?
> I've never seen Michelle Wie ranked 1st in any world ranking system. I
> only know of the World Golf rankings or whatever, that had Michelle as
> a distant #2 to Annika before they changed the divisor. That was early
> in the year, and the #2 ranking was based on the fact thet Wie was
> consistently finishing 2nd or 3rd in majors and in the top 5 of all her
> tournaments more than 50% of the time.

Yes, using a minimum 20 tournaments/year as a divisor is idiotic. Even
Tiger isn't playing that much. Michelle deserved to be ranked #2 (and
would be #3) using her real number of tournaments.

Golfweek had her rating as higher than Annika's earlier this year.
Their rating is basically an average scoring method. There is no bonus
for winning. Shooting -20 and even in two tourneys is equivalent to
shooting -10 in two tournaments.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 18:10:49
From: Indiana_John
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

> Yes, I understand the math that produced those results. But many people
> don't seem to understand that there's a problem with it.

There isn't a problem with it. You can say that the sample size is too
small, but other than that, there is no problem with it.

> If you flip a coin 8 times and it comes up heads 6 of those times, then
> you would conclude that the coin should land on heads 75% of the time. *I*
> wouldn't conclude that, but you would, if you're consistent. You should
> be willing to give me odds of, say, 3 to 2, on a series of 1000 coin flips
> and you should expect to win money by betting on heads every time.
>
> Obviously, you would lose your money. We know that because we know that
> the more times you flip a coin, the closer to 50% the results will get. We
> happen to have special knowledge about coin flips that allows us to know
> this without testing it. This special knowledge is enough to tell us that
> there was something wrong with our 8-flip test. We didn't get the results
> we already know we should have got, so we try to figure out what the
> problem was. The problem, in this case, is that we didn't use enough
> samples to produce an accurate result. Eight wasn't enough.

Actually, no. There is no problem with the 8-flip test. You are
comparing something where we know what the results of the flips beyond
8 are (50-50). We do not know what would have happened if Michelle had
played in those tournaments with Annika. What we do know is: Michelle
has averaged about the same as Annika in the tournaments they have both
played in over the last two years. Michelle has averaged better than
Annika in the majors the last two years. Annika has won more
tournaments than Michelle (that they have both played in) over the last
two years. Most people (including me) consider Annika to have a better
performance over the last two years because of that. The LPGA ranking
system weights towards wins and that is why Annika is clearly ahead of
Michelle in that regard. The Golfweek rating measures consistency and
that's why Michelle was ahead of Annika. Her average scores were
better. There is no flaw in that system. Anything beyond that is
speculation. We don't know why Annika won more tournaments outside of
those tournaments that Michelle played in. We don't know if it was
variance. We don't know if the fields were weaker. Most importantly, we
don't know how Michelle would have performed in those other
tournaments. To compare this to coin flipping is clearly incorrect. You
are just speculating.

> The special knowledge we have about Annika and Michelle is that Annika has
> won more than a dozen tournaments in the last two years while Michelle has
> won none. It's true that Michelle has only played in 16 tournaments
> during that time, so she's had fewer chances to win. But Annika has only
> played in 28 tournaments in that time. If Michelle is truly better than
> Annika, then you would expect Annika to have played in 200 or more
> tournaments to have that many more wins than Michelle. Actually, it's
> incalculable since Michelle hasn't won any tournaments at all, yet, and
> you can't divide by zero.

Our "special knowledge" only tells us that Annika performed well in
tournaments without Michelle. that's it. I believe that Annika has also
played more than 28 times. More like 38. I'm not sure what the 200
reference is. It seems you obviously confused yourself.

> What I'm getting at is the obvious absurdity of *any* ranking system that
> would put somebody who has never won above somebody who has won 13 times
> in the last two years. If you genuinely don't see a problem with that,
> then there's no point in discussing it.

It isn't absurb in any way. First of all, golfweek only uses the
current year, so that cuts Annika's wins down to 3, not 13. The
golfweek rating measures consistency. If you bet on Annika vs Wie over
the last two years, you'd break even (they tied in the head-to-head
tournaments they played in). If you bet on majors, then you'd win if
you chose Wie. It would be comparable to putting someone who had two
second place finishes ahead of someone with one first place and one
sixth place. We value first place more, but a rating system of
consistency would place the second place finisher higher. (This is
similar to the college football problem a few years ago. Many computer
ratings (including Sagarin) only showed the strength of a team. They
didn't value win/losses. They were great for determining how good teams
were and how tough schedules were, but they were terrible at deciding
who "deserved" to go to the championship)

I'm not saying Wie should be ahead of Annika (or even Ochoa) in world
rankings, but she clearly is in the top five and it's ludicrous to
penalize someone for playing in only all of the big tournaments. Btw,
Tiger doesn't play 20 tournaments a year.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 12:00:43
From:
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Joe User wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:10:51 -0700, Indiana_John wrote:
>
> >> A version of this scenario has been happening for Michelle. In one
> >> ranking this year, she would have come out as the #1 player in the
> >> world over the last two years, ahead of Annika Sorenstam, who has won
> >> 10 or 12 tournaments in that time, 3 of them majors. Michelle has won
> >> nothing in that time, Annika has won a career's worth of tournaments in
> >> the same time, and the ranking puts Michelle ahead of Annika? Surely
> >> you see that something is seriously wrong somewhere when that happens.
> >
> > The reason for that is that Annika didn't play nearly as well last year
> > as she did this year, and that Annika lost to Michelle more times in the
> > previous two years than she beat her.
>
> Yes, I understand the math that produced those results. But many people
> don't seem to understand that there's a problem with it.
>
> If you flip a coin 8 times and it comes up heads 6 of those times, then
> you would conclude that the coin should land on heads 75% of the time. *I*
> wouldn't conclude that, but you would, if you're consistent. You should
> be willing to give me odds of, say, 3 to 2, on a series of 1000 coin flips
> and you should expect to win money by betting on heads every time.
>
> Obviously, you would lose your money. We know that because we know that
> the more times you flip a coin, the closer to 50% the results will get. We
> happen to have special knowledge about coin flips that allows us to know
> this without testing it. This special knowledge is enough to tell us that
> there was something wrong with our 8-flip test. We didn't get the results
> we already know we should have got, so we try to figure out what the
> problem was. The problem, in this case, is that we didn't use enough
> samples to produce an accurate result. Eight wasn't enough.
>
> The special knowledge we have about Annika and Michelle is that Annika has
> won more than a dozen tournaments in the last two years while Michelle has
> won none. It's true that Michelle has only played in 16 tournaments
> during that time, so she's had fewer chances to win. But Annika has only
> played in 28 tournaments in that time. If Michelle is truly better than
> Annika, then you would expect Annika to have played in 200 or more
> tournaments to have that many more wins than Michelle. Actually, it's
> incalculable since Michelle hasn't won any tournaments at all, yet, and
> you can't divide by zero.
>
> What I'm getting at is the obvious absurdity of *any* ranking system that
> would put somebody who has never won above somebody who has won 13 times
> in the last two years. If you genuinely don't see a problem with that,
> then there's no point in discussing it.

Great arguments above, but what the heck are you guys talking about?
I've never seen Michelle Wie ranked 1st in any world ranking system. I
only know of the World Golf rankings or whatever, that had Michelle as
a distant #2 to Annika before they changed the divisor. That was early
in the year, and the #2 ranking was based on the fact thet Wie was
consistently finishing 2nd or 3rd in majors and in the top 5 of all her
tournaments more than 50% of the time.

Regards

Date: 19 Oct 2006 20:51:18
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

> Great arguments above, but what the heck are you guys talking about?
> I've never seen Michelle Wie ranked 1st in any world ranking system. I
> only know of the World Golf rankings or whatever, that had Michelle as
> a distant #2 to Annika before they changed the divisor. That was early
> in the year, and the #2 ranking was based on the fact thet Wie was
> consistently finishing 2nd or 3rd in majors and in the top 5 of all her
> tournaments more than 50% of the time.

It could have been possible for M.W. to get the #1 ranking in the Rolex
rankings without a win if she would have had a very high finish in the
Women's British and Annika had a poor showing. Obviously that did not
happen and they have since changed the system to add the divisor, which I
too think is absurd, but I also feel it is equally absurd that someone who
has not won a tourney in the two year ranking period could possibly be ahead
of someone who had 12 or 13 wins and 3 majors. I would not care if M.W. had
finished 2nd in every tournament and Annika had finished DFL in every
tourney she did not win, in my opinion, Annika would have still clearly been
the best player in Women's golf over that two year period.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 18:20:28
From: Joe User
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:10:51 -0700, Indiana_John wrote:

>> A version of this scenario has been happening for Michelle. In one
>> ranking this year, she would have come out as the #1 player in the
>> world over the last two years, ahead of Annika Sorenstam, who has won
>> 10 or 12 tournaments in that time, 3 of them majors. Michelle has won
>> nothing in that time, Annika has won a career's worth of tournaments in
>> the same time, and the ranking puts Michelle ahead of Annika? Surely
>> you see that something is seriously wrong somewhere when that happens.
>
> The reason for that is that Annika didn't play nearly as well last year
> as she did this year, and that Annika lost to Michelle more times in the
> previous two years than she beat her.

Yes, I understand the math that produced those results. But many people
don't seem to understand that there's a problem with it.

If you flip a coin 8 times and it comes up heads 6 of those times, then
you would conclude that the coin should land on heads 75% of the time. *I*
wouldn't conclude that, but you would, if you're consistent. You should
be willing to give me odds of, say, 3 to 2, on a series of 1000 coin flips
and you should expect to win money by betting on heads every time.

Obviously, you would lose your money. We know that because we know that
the more times you flip a coin, the closer to 50% the results will get. We
happen to have special knowledge about coin flips that allows us to know
this without testing it. This special knowledge is enough to tell us that
there was something wrong with our 8-flip test. We didn't get the results
we already know we should have got, so we try to figure out what the
problem was. The problem, in this case, is that we didn't use enough
samples to produce an accurate result. Eight wasn't enough.

The special knowledge we have about Annika and Michelle is that Annika has
won more than a dozen tournaments in the last two years while Michelle has
won none. It's true that Michelle has only played in 16 tournaments
during that time, so she's had fewer chances to win. But Annika has only
played in 28 tournaments in that time. If Michelle is truly better than
Annika, then you would expect Annika to have played in 200 or more
tournaments to have that many more wins than Michelle. Actually, it's
incalculable since Michelle hasn't won any tournaments at all, yet, and
you can't divide by zero.

What I'm getting at is the obvious absurdity of *any* ranking system that
would put somebody who has never won above somebody who has won 13 times
in the last two years. If you genuinely don't see a problem with that,
then there's no point in discussing it.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:10:51
From: Indiana_John
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

> > Btw, Lorena Ochoa pulled ahead of Annika Sorenstam in Golfweek's
> > rankings. She now has a 68.21 ranking vs 68.37 for Annika. Michelle
> > Wie's is 68.28, but she doesn't qualify due to not playing enough
> > tournaments.
> > Annika is still way ahead in the Rolex rankings. She has 17.24 vs 11.66
> > for Lorena. Michelle's rating is 6.06 (10th). If they didn't have the
> > ridiculous rule of 20 tournaments/year minimum (which they just
> > implemented a few years ago), she would have a rating of 10.6.
>
> There's a very good reason for that rule. It's so that somebody won't
> play in a handful of tournaments and skew the results just because she got
> on a hot streak in several of them. If you picked a random player and
> took her best 8 tournaments of the year, her ranking would jump way up.
> Annika's would be even *more* out of reach.

It wasn't Michelle's eight best tournaments. It was her only eight. To
compare that against the best of Annika's would be a poor comparison.

If the rule was so "very good", they would have implemented it
immediately.

> Now, what are the odds that the 8 tournaments Michelle played in just
> would have happened to be her best 8? Very very low, obviously. But they
> wouldn't have to be the best 8 to skew the results. They could just be 8
> tournaments that produced better averaged results than she would have
> gotten over a full schedule. Or worse results. Either way, the result is
> inaccurate with only a handful of results to look at.

Considering she played in four majors and four other fields that were
the strongest of the year, I don't consider her results to be skewed in
any way.

> There has to be a minimum number. Otherwise, a college amateur could play
> in the Women's Open, have the tournament of her life and come in third
> place, and subsequently be ranked as the #1 player in the world, because
> *nobody* averages 3rd place in all their tournaments. But there are quite
> a few players who could do it in a single tournament, or even in a very
> small number of tournaments.

Wie's done it in eight tournaments, and all of the top tournaments. Not
exactly the same.

> A version of this scenario has been happening for Michelle. In one
> ranking this year, she would have come out as the #1 player in the world
> over the last two years, ahead of Annika Sorenstam, who has won 10 or 12
> tournaments in that time, 3 of them majors. Michelle has won nothing in
> that time, Annika has won a career's worth of tournaments in the same time,
> and the ranking puts Michelle ahead of Annika? Surely you see that
> something is seriously wrong somewhere when that happens.

The reason for that is that Annika didn't play nearly as well last year
as she did this year, and that Annika lost to Michelle more times in
the previous two years than she beat her.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:40:54
From: Joe User
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:33:34 -0700, Indiana_John wrote:

> Michel Oui wrote:
>> Julie Inkster, paired with Michelle Wie during the final round of the
>> Samsung World Classic, bettered Wie by 10 strokes. Inkster, who has a
>> daughter the same age as Wie, shot a final round of 65 vs Wie's 75
>> (yes, she waxed Wie's ass).
>>
>> Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa. That was a slight
>> improvement on the 23 stroke disadvantage she had while trying to make
>> the cut against the men in September's 84 Lumber Classic. Wie was one
>> of only two women in the field who failed to post at least one round
>> under par.
>
> Do you live just to bash Michelle Wie? Where do these idiots come from?

From the same place that produces these idiots who breathlessly declare
Michelle to be the greatest ever 16 year old of either sex or the most
talented golfer in history or better than Tiger was at 16 or whatever
they're saying these days.

She hasn't shown herself to be the greatest anything, yet, nor has she
shown herself to be a failure in any sane sense of the word. She's just a
very talented teenage golfer who has had some awesome results against
professional women. It's still an open question as to whether she can
kick it up one more notch and start actually winning tournaments.

I think she can, but only if she doesn't destroy her own confidence first.
At her level, it's all about concentration and confidence. The physical
skills are obviously there.

> Btw, Lorena Ochoa pulled ahead of Annika Sorenstam in Golfweek's
> rankings. She now has a 68.21 ranking vs 68.37 for Annika. Michelle
> Wie's is 68.28, but she doesn't qualify due to not playing enough
> tournaments.
> Annika is still way ahead in the Rolex rankings. She has 17.24 vs 11.66
> for Lorena. Michelle's rating is 6.06 (10th). If they didn't have the
> ridiculous rule of 20 tournaments/year minimum (which they just
> implemented a few years ago), she would have a rating of 10.6.

There's a very good reason for that rule. It's so that somebody won't
play in a handful of tournaments and skew the results just because she got
on a hot streak in several of them. If you picked a random player and
took her best 8 tournaments of the year, her ranking would jump way up.
Annika's would be even *more* out of reach.

Now, what are the odds that the 8 tournaments Michelle played in just
would have happened to be her best 8? Very very low, obviously. But they
wouldn't have to be the best 8 to skew the results. They could just be 8
tournaments that produced better averaged results than she would have
gotten over a full schedule. Or worse results. Either way, the result is
inaccurate with only a handful of results to look at.

There has to be a minimum number. Otherwise, a college amateur could play
in the Women's Open, have the tournament of her life and come in third
place, and subsequently be ranked as the #1 player in the world, because
*nobody* averages 3rd place in all their tournaments. But there are quite
a few players who could do it in a single tournament, or even in a very
small number of tournaments.

A version of this scenario has been happening for Michelle. In one
ranking this year, she would have come out as the #1 player in the world
over the last two years, ahead of Annika Sorenstam, who has won 10 or 12
tournaments in that time, 3 of them majors. Michelle has won nothing in
that time, Annika has won a career's worth of tournaments in the same time,
and the ranking puts Michelle ahead of Annika? Surely you see that
something is seriously wrong somewhere when that happens.

> Thanks for playing. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 dollars.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 00:28:54
From:
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>
> > > Ever since the kid turned pro, she's gotten worse. I don't know what's
> > > going on. She should be financially set for life so maybe she just said
> > > "fuck off world."
> >
> > Prove it. Show me that her last year as an amatuer was better than
> > this past year.
>
> Hey stupid. Nike isn't paying her $20,000,000 a year to finish last.
> THINK

Yawn. Can't prove it. No problem. I won't hold it against you.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:45:51
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

> > Ever since the kid turned pro, she's gotten worse. I don't know what's
> > going on. She should be financially set for life so maybe she just said
> > "fuck off world."
>
> Prove it. Show me that her last year as an amatuer was better than
> this past year.

Hey stupid. Nike isn't paying her $20,000,000 a year to finish last.
THINK

Date: 16 Oct 2006 16:33:34
From: Indiana_John
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Michel Oui wrote:
> Julie Inkster, paired with Michelle Wie during the final round
> of the Samsung World Classic, bettered Wie by 10 strokes.
> Inkster, who has a daughter the same age as Wie, shot a final
> round of 65 vs Wie's 75 (yes, she waxed Wie's ass).
>
> Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa. That was a
> slight improvement on the 23 stroke disadvantage she had while
> trying to make the cut against the men in September's 84 Lumber
> Classic. Wie was one of only two women in the field who failed
> to post at least one round under par.

Do you live just to bash Michelle Wie? Where do these idiots come from?

Btw, Lorena Ochoa pulled ahead of Annika Sorenstam in Golfweek's
rankings. She now has a 68.21 ranking vs 68.37 for Annika. Michelle
Wie's is 68.28, but she doesn't qualify due to not playing enough
tournaments.

Annika is still way ahead in the Rolex rankings. She has 17.24 vs 11.66
for Lorena. Michelle's rating is 6.06 (10th). If they didn't have the
ridiculous rule of 20 tournaments/year minimum (which they just
implemented a few years ago), she would have a rating of 10.6.

Thanks for playing. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 dollars.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 04:20:28
From: Michel Oui
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Indiana_John wrote:
> Michel Oui wrote:
>> Julie Inkster, paired with Michelle Wie during the final round
>> of the Samsung World Classic, bettered Wie by 10 strokes.
>> Inkster, who has a daughter the same age as Wie, shot a final
>> round of 65 vs Wie's 75 (yes, she waxed Wie's ass).
>>
>> Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa. That was a
>> slight improvement on the 23 stroke disadvantage she had while
>> trying to make the cut against the men in September's 84 Lumber
>> Classic. Wie was one of only two women in the field who failed
>> to post at least one round under par.
>
> Do you live just to bash Michelle Wie?

Not bashing, just stating the facts.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:34:11
From:
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

In article <jvyYg.356$3C6.257@trnddc04 >, Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com>
wrote:

> Julie Inkster, paired with Michelle Wie during the final round
> of the Samsung World Classic, bettered Wie by 10 strokes.
> Inkster, who has a daughter the same age as Wie, shot a final
> round of 65 vs Wie's 75 (yes, she waxed Wie's ass).
>
> Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa. That was a
> slight improvement on the 23 stroke disadvantage she had while
> trying to make the cut against the men in September's 84 Lumber
> Classic. Wie was one of only two women in the field who failed
> to post at least one round under par.

And yet, she finished tied for 17th. Not exactly horrible.

B. tin

Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:49:38
From: rich
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

<ti285@umn.edu > wrote in message
news:ti285-77A2CD.10341116102006@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
>
> And yet, she finished tied for 17th. Not exactly horrible.

There were only 20 players in the tournament!

Rich

Date: 16 Oct 2006 15:54:08
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > writes:

> <ti285@umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:ti285-77A2CD.10341116102006@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
> >
> > And yet, she finished tied for 17th. Not exactly horrible.
>
> There were only 20 players in the tournament!

We should celebrating the fact that she had
another top-25!

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 15 Oct 2006 22:32:08
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
> Prove it. Show me that her last year as an amatuer was better than
> this past year.

This is not a conclusive proof, but here is one angle: As an amatuer in
2005, her top two finishes in majors was #2 and #3. As a pro in 2005,
her top two finishes in majors was #3 and #3.

Date: 15 Oct 2006 20:22:43
From:
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Michel Oui wrote:
> > Julie Inkster, paired with Michelle Wie during the final round
> > of the Samsung World Classic, bettered Wie by 10 strokes.
> > Inkster, who has a daughter the same age as Wie, shot a final
> > round of 65 vs Wie's 75 (yes, she waxed Wie's ass).
> >
> > Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa. That was a
> > slight improvement on the 23 stroke disadvantage she had while
> > trying to make the cut against the men in September's 84 Lumber
> > Classic. Wie was one of only two women in the field who failed
> > to post at least one round under par.
>
> Ever since the kid turned pro, she's gotten worse. I don't know what's
> going on. She should be financially set for life so maybe she just said
> "fuck off world."

Prove it. Show me that her last year as an amatuer was better than
this past year.

Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:33:43
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:33:04
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

On 15 Oct 2006 19:33:43 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Ever since the kid turned pro, she's gotten worse. I don't know what's
>going on. She should be financially set for life so maybe she just said
>"fuck off world."

It could be - but I've seen teens having highs and lows and saying
"fuck off" for no particular reason. I suspect her problems are
more about her being like them than anything else.

Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:08:06
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

long&left wrote:

> "clearly the class of the woman's game" ??? How 'bout Lorena Ochoa? Now
> there's the class of the women's game!!! There is a poll on TGC tonight
> asking "Do you want to see more of Michelle Wie in 2007?". I bet the
> majority says NO!

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear it was a joke, Ryder Cup, Ty
Tryon, some other clues. Not to worry. She's a great great player and
if left alone a bit, she's going to realize a lot of her potential.

Ed

PS: No reefer her. Not for many many years. Though sometimes my
arthritis makes me wish I had a little. (NO FBI, please...just an old
guy joshing. I'll slosh down my Chivas like the government wants.)

Date: 16 Oct 2006 08:23:30
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

EdSmithers wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>> "clearly the class of the woman's game" ??? How 'bout Lorena Ochoa? Now
>> there's the class of the women's game!!! There is a poll on TGC tonight
>> asking "Do you want to see more of Michelle Wie in 2007?". I bet the
>> majority says NO!
>
>
>
> Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear it was a joke, Ryder Cup, Ty
> Tryon, some other clues. Not to worry. She's a great great player and
> if left alone a bit, she's going to realize a lot of her potential.

and I'm sorry that I missed the humor in your post...
>
> Ed
>
> PS: No reefer her. Not for many many years. Though sometimes my
> arthritis makes me wish I had a little. (NO FBI, please...just an old
> guy joshing. I'll slosh down my Chivas like the government wants.)
>

don't be jokin' around about scotch drinking...it's a religion of sorts
in these parts :)
Dave

Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:28:32
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

"EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160964486.009637.282110@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear it was a joke, Ryder Cup, Ty
> Tryon, some other clues. Not to worry. She's a great great player and
> if left alone a bit, she's going to realize a lot of her potential.
>

I'm beginning to wonder. I think she's done some serious damage to her
confidence by making some bad choices. Sports Psych types say that you can
get your head in a place this way that will keep you from ever playing at
the highest levels.

Makes sense to me. At my level of play, the biggest problem is physical
(with mental aspects a very close second). In the lofty regions, everyone
can strike the ball very well, very consistently from a physical standpoint.
Everything is mental at that point. If your head starts fighting you even a
little bit, you're done as a pro unless you can pull out of the mental
tailspin.

Scott

Date: 16 Oct 2006 14:30:40
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

On 15-Oct-2006, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:

> I'm beginning to wonder. I think she's done some serious damage to her
> confidence by making some bad choices. Sports Psych types say that you
> can get your head in a place this way that will keep you from ever playing
> at
> the highest levels.

A valid concern. In golf everyone hits rough patches; SuperWie is no
exception. She now needs to deal with it instead of letting it deal with
her.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:17:21
From: Don Kirkman
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

It seems to me I heard somewhere that bill-o wrote in article
<45339781$0$26066$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >:

>On 15-Oct-2006, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com> wrote:

>> I'm beginning to wonder. I think she's done some serious damage to her
>> confidence by making some bad choices. Sports Psych types say that you
>> can get your head in a place this way that will keep you from ever playing
>> at
>> the highest levels.

>A valid concern. In golf everyone hits rough patches; SuperWie is no
>exception. She now needs to deal with it instead of letting it deal with
>her.

I've also begun to wonder, and have thought about a couple of things
that may be going on. It's obvious that her game has changed over the
past few months, and it's not obvious that she recognizes and adjusts
for those changes.

One thought grew out of a recent local sports item about high school
girls' cross country; it seems that sophomore phenoms often don't live
up to expectations over the next couple of years. The gist of the
article is that those are the years of puberty when girls' hips and
shoulders are broadening (for running, this changes leg strike and
stride angles, etc.), thighs and arms are becoming more muscular, and
weight is being redistributed. Many girls get discouraged with running
during those years.

For those who continue to run or return to running, they often come back
up to their expected levels during their college years, after the body
has pretty much completed the maturation process.

Wie, with an unusually tall slender build, may be at a place where her
swing has changed subtly, so subtly that she hasn't become aware and
adjusted. ISTM her driving has been much more erratic the last few
tournaments that it used to be, and it was deadly to be erratic out in
the desert in last week's tournament. Her teacher(s) need to make those
adjustments, since she won't be aware of the changes--it's the body she
lives in every day and she can't be expected to recognize the
differences from last month or last year.

The second thought is that the long layoffs between tournaments, with
only local golf in between--practice sessions, games with locals, and
whatever else is involved--has taken her head out of the game to the
extent she is managing her game poorly and is fuzzy about her
expectations at the practical level. If you've hit driver in the
bushes, why keep hitting driver the rest of the round? Tiger knows how
to fit the game to the course. Michelle really needs to sharpen that
aspect of her game; maybe that will happen when she begins to play much
more regularly, but it would be nice if it happened sooner.
--
Don Kirkman

Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:45:03
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Michel Oui wrote:

> Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa.

So what. She's so clearly the class of the woman's game. She'd beat you
by more than 21, over just one round. She's pretty and tall and she's
going to be on the Ryder Cup many times before she turns 50 and then
beats the shit out of Ty Tryon on the Champions Tour.

You heard it here first.

Ed

Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:03:28
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

EdSmithers wrote:
> Michel Oui wrote:
>
>> Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa.
>
>
> So what. She's so clearly the class of the woman's game. She'd beat you
> by more than 21, over just one round. She's pretty and tall and she's
> going to be on the Ryder Cup many times before she turns 50 and then
> beats the shit out of Ty Tryon on the Champions Tour.
>
> You heard it here first.
>
> Ed
>

Man, Ed...I used to live in Humboldt Co, CA where there was some GOOD
stuff being smoked...and you musta got some of it in the mail today.
"clearly the class of the woman's game" ??? How 'bout Lorena Ochoa? Now
there's the class of the women's game!!! There is a poll on TGC tonight
asking "Do you want to see more of Michelle Wie in 2007?". I bet the
majority says NO!
Dave

Date: 15 Oct 2006 17:24:00
From:
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

Date: 15 Oct 2006 22:32:46
From: 3putt
Subject: Re: Michelle Wie finishes 21 strokes behind leader

"Michel Oui" <GGOAT@example.com > wrote in message
news:jvyYg.356$3C6.257@trnddc04...
> Julie Inkster, paired with Michelle Wie during the final round
> of the Samsung World Classic, bettered Wie by 10 strokes.
> Inkster, who has a daughter the same age as Wie, shot a final
> round of 65 vs Wie's 75 (yes, she waxed Wie's ass).
>
> Wie finished 21 strokes behind leader Lorena Ochoa. That was a
> slight improvement on the 23 stroke disadvantage she had while
> trying to make the cut against the men in September's 84 Lumber
> Classic. Wie was one of only two women in the field who failed
> to post at least one round under par.

Thanks for the recap