| |
Main
Date: 16 Sep 2006 00:35:54
From: Tranny
Subject: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
than Wie is a golfer.
Sad really.
Tran
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 18:01:08
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
sfb wrote:
> We'll concede that Miss Wie has entered men's golf tournaments, but whether
> she has actually played against men is open to debate.
>
She missed the cut by one and two shots in a couple of tourneys. I'd
say she actually played against them in those tournaments. No debate
needed.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 17:58:21
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> jeffc wrote:
>
> > But she's not now. And Wie HAS BEEN ranked as high as #2.
>
>
> I thought you had to play a certain number of events on a certain tour
> to be ranked.
>
> Ed
No. On the LPGA tour they just divide your accumulated points by 20 (or
more if you played more than 20) to get an average. Previously there
was not a minimum of 20 and Wie ranked #2 with her average. When they
divided her points in seven tournaments by 20, she dropped to 7th (or
8th?). Still pretty good. The Golfweek rankings have a minimum
number of events to be ranked.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 22:45:15
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
As an OT aside to this thread ... in Texas Hold 'em poker a lot of the
starting hands (2 cards) have names. I've heard a pair of jacks referred to
as a Kournikova ... it looks good but hardly ever wins. Maybe it will be
renamed the 'Wie' ...
Bob
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 15:34:40
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
jeffc wrote:
> But she's not now. And Wie HAS BEEN ranked as high as #2.
I thought you had to play a certain number of events on a certain tour
to be ranked.
Ed
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 01:02:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
On 18 Sep 2006 15:34:40 -0700, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>> But she's not now. And Wie HAS BEEN ranked as high as #2.
>
>
>I thought you had to play a certain number of events on a certain tour
>to be ranked.
The Rolex calculates in such a way that playing fewer events decreases
your ranking tremendously. They didn't like Wie at #2, so they
change the rules to a different calculation bumping her down.
The Sagarin has a minimum that she hasn't reached - what it does
though is exclude her from the ranking, although if you plug in her
name, you find she's 1* (she would be #1 if she qualified).
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 14:33:54
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
> How much do you understand about statistics? Do you consider seven
> specially selected data points to be a good comparison to 20 semi-randomly
> selected ones?
I aced statistics, quantitative analysis and logic as an undergrad and
in graduate school. Thanks for asking. I'm not sure what you are
referencing with 20 semi-randomly selected data points. If you are
talking about Annika's scores, then you are mistaken because they are
all used. I'd say that although seven is a small sample size, the fact
that they took place in major tournaments and that they are similar to
Wie's finishes last year make them legitimate.
> >> > due the fact that (a) it's
> >> > only for the last year and Annika's won 3 times this year versus 10
> >> > times last year, (b) it's strength of field and (c) it only uses your
> >> > score, so no bonus points for winning. Because of (c) it can't be used
> >> > to determine the best player in the world.
> >>
> >> But that's exactly what people use it for, isn't it?
> > I don't know. Do you have an example of where people used it as such?
>
> This thread. Your messages. You're using it precisely that way, just as
> everybody else does.
No, I didn't. If I did, I would be arguing that Wie is the best player
in the world since her rating is almost a stroke better than Annika's.
> > The ratings are based on your stroke averages, not places.
>
> It's not score people fight for, it's place. Tiger Woods is probably the
> only player in the world who will still fight with everything he's got for
> birdies on the last few holes when he's sitting on a 12-stroke lead.
> Every other player on the planet would simply cruise to a win.
First, that has no relevance to our discussion about the validity of
the golfweek rankings. Those rankings are determined by stroke average.
Second, it is a rare occurrence when strokes and finishes are
substantially statistically different. How often does someone blow
strokes that make a difference in their score but not their rating? And
how often is that statistically significant. If someone blows 5 shots
in one rounds, it's still less than .1 shot fluctuation for the year.
You're grasping at straws.
> > Btw, in the six tournaments this year that Wie and Sorenstam have played
> > in together, Wie finished ahead of Sorenstam in four (3 vs 6, 5 vs 9, 2
> > vs 8, 26 vs 31), they tied one and Sorenstam finished ahead in one (her
> > win vs Wie's third). While I'm sure that Wie would take Annika's record
> > considering she won the US Open, I don't think anyone can complain about
> > a system that has Wie ahead on rating.
>
> I give up.
You should. You have no argument for the results that I give above.
Wie's record against Sorenstam is 4-1-1 this year. There is no reason
to believe that any system that ranks Wie's scores ahead of Sorenstam
is wrong. While we give more significance to winning and know that
Annika did very well in the other tournaments she played in, thus
putting her ahead of Wie, there is no reason that any system that ranks
performances should be any different.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 12:41:49
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
sfb wrote:
> The answer to the unasked question is always no. The LPGA has as much as
> asked her to apply.
I'm suprised they haven't filled one out for her... approved it and
mailed it to her. :)
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 23:09:07
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
sfb wrote:
> The answer to the unasked question is always no. The LPGA has as much as
> asked her to apply.
>
Really. I haven't heard this at all. Where did you get that info?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 05:29:56
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Bevins on TGC.
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1158559747.181639.205030@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> sfb wrote:
>> The answer to the unasked question is always no. The LPGA has as much as
>> asked her to apply.
>>
>
> Really. I haven't heard this at all. Where did you get that info?
>
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 17:36:33
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
> I get your point, Big_Fan. I don't think she's anywhere near Wie's
> level of ability. I think the comparison is ridiculous. Wie is so far
> beyond Kournikova in talent and peformance.
>
> But, to minimize Kournikova's 16 titles in doubles just didn't seem
> right to me, and I thought it might be worthwhile to have the record
> reflect that she had won something - even if it's not something that
> you or others think is worth something.
>
> Ed
I understand. I do think that Kournikova got more flack for her game
than she deserved. She didn't get to the top ten by just showing up and
being pretty. To be top ten in the world at any of the big sports (and
look that good) means a lot.
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 17:18:50
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
jeffc wrote:
Let's compare apples to apples. What
> is Wie's world ranking? What is Anna's?)
Anna was ranked as high as #8 (singles) at the end of the 2000 season,
moving up from #13 in 1998 and #12 in 1999.
As a doubles player, she was ranked #1 in 1999, #4 in 2000.
Michelle is sure to be ranked higher than #8 once she begins to play
some sort of a regular schedule and actually qualify for a ranking. As
of yet, of course, she hasn't been able to. I do hope she'll apply to
be a member of the LPGA tour at some point. I can't imagine that the
LPGA would turn down such a request? Wouldn't the tour want such a big
draw at more tournaments?
What are they afraid of?
Ed
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 21:13:53
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
"EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158538730.413791.251200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> jeffc wrote:
> Let's compare apples to apples. What
>> is Wie's world ranking? What is Anna's?)
>
>
> Anna was ranked as high as #8 (singles) at the end of the 2000 season,
> moving up from #13 in 1998 and #12 in 1999.
But she's not now. And Wie HAS BEEN ranked as high as #2.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 20:26:05
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Miss Wie has never applied for LPGA membership so the ball remains in her
court not the LPGA's.
"EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158538730.413791.251200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> jeffc wrote:
> Let's compare apples to apples. What
>> is Wie's world ranking? What is Anna's?)
>
>
> Anna was ranked as high as #8 (singles) at the end of the 2000 season,
> moving up from #13 in 1998 and #12 in 1999.
>
> As a doubles player, she was ranked #1 in 1999, #4 in 2000.
>
> Michelle is sure to be ranked higher than #8 once she begins to play
> some sort of a regular schedule and actually qualify for a ranking. As
> of yet, of course, she hasn't been able to. I do hope she'll apply to
> be a member of the LPGA tour at some point. I can't imagine that the
> LPGA would turn down such a request? Wouldn't the tour want such a big
> draw at more tournaments?
>
> What are they afraid of?
>
> Ed
>
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 01:31:29
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:26:05 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>Miss Wie has never applied for LPGA membership so the ball remains in her
>court not the LPGA's.
She knows the rules, and she knows what reasons the LPGA has given for
exceptions. Why rock the boat?
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 22:52:00
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
The answer to the unasked question is always no. The LPGA has as much as
asked her to apply.
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:9mtrg2pmna4vhgicikj1qbu8mp9veucu3n@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:26:05 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Miss Wie has never applied for LPGA membership so the ball remains in her
>>court not the LPGA's.
>
> She knows the rules, and she knows what reasons the LPGA has given for
> exceptions. Why rock the boat?
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 22:44:01
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
"Tranny" <tranny@notrolll.com > wrote in message
news:450b2aca$1_2@x-privat.org...
> Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
> than Wie is a golfer.
> Sad really.
Wie is clearly a better golfer than Anna is a tennis player (did Anna ever
play against men in pro tournaments? Let's compare apples to apples. What
is Wie's world ranking? What is Anna's?) Anna is known for looks and for
keting herself like Paris Hilton (as one person said, Paris is famous for
being famous.) Wie is known for being so good at such a young age.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 20:23:43
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
We'll concede that Miss Wie has entered men's golf tournaments, but whether
she has actually played against men is open to debate.
"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:RckPg.30597$Md4.29183@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Tranny" <tranny@notrolll.com> wrote in message
> news:450b2aca$1_2@x-privat.org...
>> Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
>> than Wie is a golfer.
>> Sad really.
>
> Wie is clearly a better golfer than Anna is a tennis player (did Anna ever
> play against men in pro tournaments? Let's compare apples to apples.
> What is Wie's world ranking? What is Anna's?) Anna is known for looks
> and for keting herself like Paris Hilton (as one person said, Paris is
> famous for being famous.) Wie is known for being so good at such a young
> age.
>
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 15:33:01
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Big_Fan wrote:
> While doubles tennis may mean something, it doesn't mean much when
> analyzing Anna's career. She won two major tournaments in doubles,
> both with tina Hingis. You may have heard of tina? She was a
> fair player at that time.
Yes, Hingis is my all time favorite ladies player. A st player. Very
talented.
While Kournikova's 2 grand slam titles were with Hingis, she also won
doubles tournaments with: Julie Halard-Decugis, Natasha Zvereva,
Barbara Schett, Janet Lee, and Monica Seles.
Of those, only Seles was obviously a first rate singles player.
I get your point, Big_Fan. I don't think she's anywhere near Wie's
level of ability. I think the comparison is ridiculous. Wie is so far
beyond Kournikova in talent and peformance.
But, to minimize Kournikova's 16 titles in doubles just didn't seem
right to me, and I thought it might be worthwhile to have the record
reflect that she had won something - even if it's not something that
you or others think is worth something.
Ed
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 15:02:20
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
> There are AT LEAST five women who could do better in PGA
> tournaments, but they know what Wie is just finding out. She
> will NEVER, EVER, be competitive with the best men in the
> world. Its beginning to look like she might not even make
> a cut. Everyone sorta thought since she was 16 and nearly made
> cuts she would only get better.....it is beginning to look like her
> golf has already peaked.
Five? I'd love to hear their names.
> I'd favor a rule that no woman be granted a sponsor's exemption
> on the PGA tour UNLESS she was an LPGA scoring leader or
> major winner in the last year. Nothing would preclude a woman from
> qualifying the old fashioned way - by qualifying tournaments. And
> that would be supercool to see a woman make a stab at it here
> and there. But getting crushed over and over again.....
Only major winners, but not someone who has finished in the top five in
3 of the last four and five of the last seven. Interesting.
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 14:57:01
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> The World Wide Wade wrote:
>
> > It might, if doubles in tennis meant anything.
>
> Well, I guess we'll just disagree. Not that this means anything, but
> they do play it, there's money for it, there are a number of top
> singles players who play, and the expertise of doubles players is quite
> astonishing, and quite different from singles players.
>
> Some singles players have made excellent doubles players, McEnroe and
> Navratilova, for example.
>
> But if it doesn't mean anything to you, so be it.
>
> Ed
While doubles tennis may mean something, it doesn't mean much when
analyzing Anna's career. She won two major tournaments in doubles,
both with tina Hingis. You may have heard of tina? She was a
fair player at that time.
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 13:49:56
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
The World Wide Wade wrote:
> It might, if doubles in tennis meant anything.
Well, I guess we'll just disagree. Not that this means anything, but
they do play it, there's money for it, there are a number of top
singles players who play, and the expertise of doubles players is quite
astonishing, and quite different from singles players.
Some singles players have made excellent doubles players, McEnroe and
Navratilova, for example.
But if it doesn't mean anything to you, so be it.
Ed
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 11:46:13
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
> > Like I said, head-to-head she's played as well as anyone, not losing any
> > more than she has won and usually doing better. What part of that do you
> > not understand?
>
> But you didn't stop there. You said a case could be made for Wie being
> the #2 player over the last two years.
And I stand by that statement, considering Wie finished in the top 5 in
six of her seven tournaments this year and was equal to or better
head-to-head against every player on the LPGA tour.
> > I never said that she was the best player in the world.
> > I was disagreeing with someone who didn't say she was a top ten player
> > when she's obviously fighting for the #2 spot behind Annika.
> >
> > And why do you have to exaggerate your weak points by saying "help them
> > past their emotional pain"?
>
> First, it's called hyperbole (look it up),
In this case, it was just an idiotic statement.
> and second, I don't see any
> weakness in any points I'm making.
Of course you don't.
> >> Oh wait, according to the ranking you're quoting, Annika is ginally
> >> better than Michelle. I guess it must have been the 12 victories, 3 of
> >> them majors, that helped her eke out a slightly better rating, eh?
> >
> > Actually Wie's rating is higher than Annika's
> LOL. That statement alone should set off all sorts of alarms in your head.
Not really. What part of six out of seven finishes in the top five,
including three out of four majors do you not understand?
>
> > due the fact that (a) it's
> > only for the last year and Annika's won 3 times this year versus 10
> > times last year, (b) it's strength of field and (c) it only uses your
> > score, so no bonus points for winning. Because of (c) it can't be used
> > to determine the best player in the world.
>
> But that's exactly what people use it for, isn't it?
I don't know. Do you have an example of where people used it as such?
> > You could finish #3 all year
> > and be ranked #1, but it IS a good system for determining how
> > consistently well a player is doing.
>
> Actually, it's not.
Actually, it is an excellent system for doing so. Much better than any
other you can name.
> I understand the system, and I'm pretty sure I'm beginning to understand
> why it fails when applied to golfers. The system evolved as a way to rate
> a large number of competitors when every competition consists of one
> entity (person or team) playing against another entity in a season in
> which the overwhelming majority of possible pairings never take place.
>
> As for debating it, I'm not really interested. I will, though, give you
> an idea to mull over that may or may not lead you to the same conclusions
> I've reached about it.
>
> There is a difference between how a golfer plays when he's "fighting" for
> 40th place versus when he's in contention, or even trying for a top 5
> finish. The difference in money, prestige, and self-confidence between
> 40th place and 50th place is virtually zero, but the difference between
> 3rd and 13th is huge.
>
> Now, go and think about that for a while, and come back when you
> understand the implications it has in the ranking system.
Apparently you don't understand the system if you think that involves
places, which you obviously believe by comparing 40th vs 50th and 3rd
vs 13th. The ratings are based on your stroke averages, not places. You
need to look at your own statements and realize that the system does
exactly what I says it does, measures consistency. Whether you think
the difference between 10 shots when you're at the top of the
leaderboard or at the bottom is personal opinion, but has nothing to do
with the definition of consistent play.
Btw, in the six tournaments this year that Wie and Sorenstam have
played in together, Wie finished ahead of Sorenstam in four (3 vs 6, 5
vs 9, 2 vs 8, 26 vs 31), they tied one and Sorenstam finished ahead in
one (her win vs Wie's third). While I'm sure that Wie would take
Annika's record considering she won the US Open, I don't think anyone
can complain about a system that has Wie ahead on rating.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 18:29:38
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
long&left wrote:
> EdSmithers wrote:
> > Big_Fan wrote:
> > if you don't
> >> think she's a top ten player in the world, then you aren't paying
> >> attention.
> >
> > I hear you. I love her. Love her game. Can't wait for her to apply to
> > be on the LPGA and play regularly. I'd love to see her succeed to
> > whatever level her game can take her to.
> >
> > Talentwise, you are right on the money. Nobody is going to argue with
> > you on that.
> >
> > I can't wait for her to actually become a top ten player once she's a
> > member of the tour and plays something like a full schedule. She's a
> > monster. Why she won't apply for the tour is beyond me. Pressel did. Am
> > I wrong about that?
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Pressel did when she was 17 years old and had almost graduated from high
> school. She was almost 2 years older than MW when she got on the tour
> --
> Dave
> You are meant to play the ball as it lies, a fact that may help to touch
> on your own objective approach to life. ~Grantland Rice
What he said^. Morgan was going to turn 18 during the summer anyway I
believe?
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 16:55:28
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Big_Fan wrote:
if you don't
> think she's a top ten player in the world, then you aren't paying
> attention.
I hear you. I love her. Love her game. Can't wait for her to apply to
be on the LPGA and play regularly. I'd love to see her succeed to
whatever level her game can take her to.
Talentwise, you are right on the money. Nobody is going to argue with
you on that.
I can't wait for her to actually become a top ten player once she's a
member of the tour and plays something like a full schedule. She's a
monster. Why she won't apply for the tour is beyond me. Pressel did. Am
I wrong about that?
Ed
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 17:10:12
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> Big_Fan wrote:
> if you don't
>> think she's a top ten player in the world, then you aren't paying
>> attention.
>
> I hear you. I love her. Love her game. Can't wait for her to apply to
> be on the LPGA and play regularly. I'd love to see her succeed to
> whatever level her game can take her to.
>
> Talentwise, you are right on the money. Nobody is going to argue with
> you on that.
>
> I can't wait for her to actually become a top ten player once she's a
> member of the tour and plays something like a full schedule. She's a
> monster. Why she won't apply for the tour is beyond me. Pressel did. Am
> I wrong about that?
>
> Ed
>
Pressel did when she was 17 years old and had almost graduated from high
school. She was almost 2 years older than MW when she got on the tour
--
Dave
You are meant to play the ball as it lies, a fact that may help to touch
on your own objective approach to life. ~Grantland Rice
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 13:27:02
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Buford Ressup wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 06:14:29 -0700, Big_Fan wrote:
> >
> > I forgot to mention, the Golfweek/Sagarin rankings don't list Wie because
> > she's only played in seven women's tournaments. The leader in those
> > rankings is Sorenstam, with a 68.51 rating. Wie's would be 67.83 if she
> > had enough tourneys played. Since she plays on the toughest fields, I
> > think that reflects accurately how good of a player she is. She just isn't
> > a finisher yet, unlike Sorenstam. Other than Annika, I believe you can
> > make a case for Wie being the #2 player in the world the last two years.
>
> Right. I'm sure Annika Sorenstam, Lorena Ochoa, and Karrie Webb are all
> bitterly jealous of Michelle's handful of near-misses. Good thing all
> three have actually won many tournaments, several majors among them, in
> the last two years to help them past the emotional pain of not being as
> good as Wie.
Lorena Ochoa has won a major? She won the Takefuji classic, Sybase
Classic and Wendy's Championship for Children. Whic of those are
majors? Do you really think that Wie wouldn't have a tour win at won of
these minor events if she played 20 of them a year? Like I said,
head-to-head she's played as well as anyone, not losing any more than
she has won and usually doing better. What part of that do you not
understand? I never said that she was the best player in the world. I
was disagreeing with someone who didn't say she was a top ten player
when she's obviously fighting for the #2 spot behind Annika.
And why do you have to exaggerate your weak points by saying "help them
past their emotional pain"?
> Oh wait, according to the ranking you're quoting, Annika is ginally
> better than Michelle. I guess it must have been the 12 victories, 3 of
> them majors, that helped her eke out a slightly better rating, eh?
Actually Wie's rating is higher than Annika's due the fact that (a)
it's only for the last year and Annika's won 3 times this year versus
10 times last year, (b) it's strength of field and (c) it only uses
your score, so no bonus points for winning. Because of (c) it can't be
used to determine the best player in the world. You could finish #3 all
year and be ranked #1, but it IS a good system for determining how
consistently well a player is doing.
> So, do you think there might be something fundamentally wrong with the way
> Golfweek/Sagarin calculates golf rankings, or do you really think Michelle
> ought to be ranked ahead of Annika if not for those 3 majors Annika won in
> the last two years?
Go back and look at the system, understand how it works and then come
back here and debate it.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 06:14:29
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> pete z wrote:
>
> > Doubles? tina won a doubles grand slam at 49. There's no comparison.
>
> Okay. tina's still an awfully good player, despite that "ancient"
> number. Some folks think that Kournikova has indeed won something, and
> I was just tossing it in the hopper.
>
> I'm sure you're right, overall. Kournikova, despite not winning a
> singles title, was a top ten player in women's tennis for a while. I
> suppose if Wie ever applies to get on a full time tour (like Pressel
> did on the LPGA, for example), we'll find a lot more about her. If she
> becomes a top ten player on the LPGA, I'll certainly agree.
>
> Of course if she plays some Ryder Cup at some point (referencing an
> interview from last week), I'll definitely defer.
>
> Ed
I forgot to mention, the Golfweek/Sagarin rankings don't list Wie
because she's only played in seven women's tournaments. The leader in
those rankings is Sorenstam, with a 68.51 rating. Wie's would be 67.83
if she had enough tourneys played. Since she plays on the toughest
fields, I think that reflects accurately how good of a player she is.
She just isn't a finisher yet, unlike Sorenstam. Other than Annika, I
believe you can make a case for Wie being the #2 player in the world
the last two years. Her record compares well against every other
players, both in finishes and head-to-head results. That clearly puts
her in the top ten players in the world, which puts her ahead of Anna
Kournikova (in talent, not looks!).
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 01:51:34
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
On 16 Sep 2006 06:14:29 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
>I forgot to mention, the Golfweek/Sagarin rankings don't list Wie
>because she's only played in seven women's tournaments. The leader in
>those rankings is Sorenstam, with a 68.51 rating. Wie's would be 67.83
>if she had enough tourneys played.
Entering her name in http://www.golfweekrankings.com/sagarin/lpga.asp,
you get that number - with a ranking of 1*.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 13:26:56
From: Buford Ressup
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 06:14:29 -0700, Big_Fan wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention, the Golfweek/Sagarin rankings don't list Wie because
> she's only played in seven women's tournaments. The leader in those
> rankings is Sorenstam, with a 68.51 rating. Wie's would be 67.83 if she
> had enough tourneys played. Since she plays on the toughest fields, I
> think that reflects accurately how good of a player she is. She just isn't
> a finisher yet, unlike Sorenstam. Other than Annika, I believe you can
> make a case for Wie being the #2 player in the world the last two years.
Right. I'm sure Annika Sorenstam, Lorena Ochoa, and Karrie Webb are all
bitterly jealous of Michelle's handful of near-misses. Good thing all
three have actually won many tournaments, several majors among them, in
the last two years to help them past the emotional pain of not being as
good as Wie.
Oh wait, according to the ranking you're quoting, Annika is ginally
better than Michelle. I guess it must have been the 12 victories, 3 of
them majors, that helped her eke out a slightly better rating, eh?
If you took 2 or 3 of those victories, changed them to a missed cut, and
left Annika with only 9 or 10 victories in the last two years, I bet that
would put Annika at #2 in the world, behind world #1 player Michelle Wie,
who hasn't won anything at all since she was 12 years old.
So, do you think there might be something fundamentally wrong with the way
Golfweek/Sagarin calculates golf rankings, or do you really think Michelle
ought to be ranked ahead of Annika if not for those 3 majors Annika won in
the last two years?
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 06:06:41
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> pete z wrote:
>
> > Doubles? tina won a doubles grand slam at 49. There's no comparison.
>
> Okay. tina's still an awfully good player, despite that "ancient"
> number. Some folks think that Kournikova has indeed won something, and
> I was just tossing it in the hopper.
>
> I'm sure you're right, overall. Kournikova, despite not winning a
> singles title, was a top ten player in women's tennis for a while. I
> suppose if Wie ever applies to get on a full time tour (like Pressel
> did on the LPGA, for example), we'll find a lot more about her. If she
> becomes a top ten player on the LPGA, I'll certainly agree.
>
> Of course if she plays some Ryder Cup at some point (referencing an
> interview from last week), I'll definitely defer.
>
> Ed
She is a top ten player. She is ranked #7 in the world (despite the
fact that her overall points would put her at #2, but they changed the
rules to require a minimum 14 tournaments per year). In seven
tournaments this year she finished in the Top 5 six times, including
three majors. She's made enough money to be ranked 14th on the LPGA
money list (but they won't put non-members on the list), despite
playing less than half as many tournaments as the others. if you don't
think she's a top ten player in the world, then you aren't paying
attention.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 05:38:49
From:
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Tranny wrote:
> Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
> than Wie is a golfer.
> Sad really.
Anna was a pro player ranked among her peers, playing against
her peers, with substantial additional keting potential.
Wie is a sideshow on the greatest golf show on earth. However,
the entertainment only lasted as long as she could beat at
least some PGA pro men.
There are AT LEAST five women who could do better in PGA
tournaments, but they know what Wie is just finding out. She
will NEVER, EVER, be competitive with the best men in the
world. Its beginning to look like she might not even make
a cut. Everyone sorta thought since she was 16 and nearly made
cuts she would only get better.....it is beginning to look like her
golf has already peaked.
I think the PGA pros have been very understanding so far, but
the tide has clearly turned. Sponsors are beginning to say they
will not extend a similar invitation to Wie in the future. It
is point blank degrading to their sense of competition to have
someone out there just for keting purposes, and not for
competition purposes.
I'd favor a rule that no woman be granted a sponsor's exemption
on the PGA tour UNLESS she was an LPGA scoring leader or
major winner in the last year. Nothing would preclude a woman from
qualifying the old fashioned way - by qualifying tournaments. And
that would be supercool to see a woman make a stab at it here
and there. But getting crushed over and over again.....
no drama
-PA
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:13:31
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
pete z wrote:
> Doubles? tina won a doubles grand slam at 49. There's no comparison.
Okay. tina's still an awfully good player, despite that "ancient"
number. Some folks think that Kournikova has indeed won something, and
I was just tossing it in the hopper.
I'm sure you're right, overall. Kournikova, despite not winning a
singles title, was a top ten player in women's tennis for a while. I
suppose if Wie ever applies to get on a full time tour (like Pressel
did on the LPGA, for example), we'll find a lot more about her. If she
becomes a top ten player on the LPGA, I'll certainly agree.
Of course if she plays some Ryder Cup at some point (referencing an
interview from last week), I'll definitely defer.
Ed
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:04:16
From: pete z
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
EdSmithers wrote:
> pete z wrote:
>
> > Aw come on. Wie is a much better golfer than Anna K was a tennos
> > player. Anna
> > couldn't come close to winning anything. That's why they call AK in
> > poker an Anna
> > Kournikova. Pretty, but it never wins.
>
>
> She won 16 doubles titles with a variety of players including 2 Grand
> Slams. I'd think that might count for more than what Wie has done so
> far. But of course Wie has lots of time.
>
> Ed
Doubles? tina won a doubles grand slam at 49. There's no comparison.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:41:18
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
pete z wrote:
> Aw come on. Wie is a much better golfer than Anna K was a tennos
> player. Anna
> couldn't come close to winning anything. That's why they call AK in
> poker an Anna
> Kournikova. Pretty, but it never wins.
She won 16 doubles titles with a variety of players including 2 Grand
Slams. I'd think that might count for more than what Wie has done so
far. But of course Wie has lots of time.
Ed
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 16:13:36
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
In article
<1158370878.879597.302870@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com > wrote:
> pete z wrote:
>
> > Aw come on. Wie is a much better golfer than Anna K was a tennos
> > player. Anna
> > couldn't come close to winning anything. That's why they call AK in
> > poker an Anna
> > Kournikova. Pretty, but it never wins.
>
>
> She won 16 doubles titles with a variety of players including 2 Grand
> Slams. I'd think that might count for more than what Wie has done so
> far.
It might, if doubles in tennis meant anything.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:24:37
From: pete z
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Tranny wrote:
> Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
> than Wie is a golfer.
> Sad really.
>
> Tran
Aw come on. Wie is a much better golfer than Anna K was a tennos
player. Anna
couldn't come close to winning anything. That's why they call AK in
poker an Anna
Kournikova. Pretty, but it never wins.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:29:05
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
"pete z" <pz0326@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1158369877.427266.174810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Aw come on. Wie is a much better golfer than Anna K was a tennos
> player. Anna
> couldn't come close to winning anything. That's why they call AK in
> poker an Anna
> Kournikova. Pretty, but it never wins.
Kournikova made the finals, but finished second, in a couple of singles pro
tournaments, and won some doubles tournaments. She was ranked #8 in the
world in singles.
To say that she couldn't come close to winning is simply not accurate.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 00:53:55
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
On 16 Sep 2006 00:35:54 +0200, Tranny <tranny@notrolll.com > wrote:
>Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
>than Wie is a golfer.
>Sad really.
How many majors has Anna come in 2nd in?
Or are you implying that Anna could play with the men as longer than
Michelle did before coming in last?
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 17:42:08
From: dannysprung@aol.com
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
sfb wrote:
> While Anna Kournikova never won as a single, she was a top doubles player
> winning multiple Grand Slam tournaments.
>
> "Tranny" <tranny@notrolll.com> wrote in message
> news:450b2aca$1_2@x-privat.org...
> > Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
> > than Wie is a golfer.
> > Sad really.
> >
> > Tran
And you were rated top in the WORLD in what?
That is quite an accomplishment, sorry....
Danny
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 17:01:21
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
sfb wrote:
> While Anna Kournikova never won as a single, she was a top doubles player
> winning multiple Grand Slam tournaments.
>
> "Tranny" <tranny@notrolll.com> wrote in message
> news:450b2aca$1_2@x-privat.org...
> > Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
> > than Wie is a golfer.
> > Sad really.
> >
> > Tran
But she never won a tournament and never got the finals of a grand
slam. Wie has finished 2nd and top 5 at least four times, and she's
just getting started.
Anna's a slight bit better looking. Of course, at 16 she was "dating"
a 26 year old NHL star.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 16:01:19
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
Tranny wrote:
> Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
> than Wie is a golfer.
> Sad really.
How many men's tournaments did Kournakova play in?
"Let's try BAD ANALOGIES for $200, Alex."
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:27:00
From: adam henry
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
On 15 Sep 2006 16:01:19 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>Tranny wrote:
>> Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
>> than Wie is a golfer.
>> Sad really.
>
>How many men's tournaments did Kournakova play in?
i dont know about mens tournaments but she has played in my pants a
few times. until i got tired of that annoying accent that is.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 22:47:33
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
In article <450b2aca$1_2@x-privat.org >, Tranny <tranny@notrolll.com>
wrote:
> Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
> than Wie is a golfer.
> Sad really.
>
> Tran
Please.
Michelle Wie does *just fine* against women. Anna Kournakova: not even
close.
--
'It's obvious to all that my predictions were wrong. Shall I also
admit the sky is blue?'
'Isn't it funny that Final Cut Pro is nowhere to be seen at Pixar? They're
an all PC shop. ' -- 'me finally admitting that Pixar isn't an all PC shop.'
'... when most Pixar movies were made ... Final Cut Pro didn't even exist.'
-- 'So sue me. I just wrote my reks off the top of my head.'
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 09:49:42
From: Craig
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
>
> Michelle Wie does *just fine* against women. Anna Kournakova: not even
> close.
>
Kournakova was a top 10 ranked player and grand slam doubles champion.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 23:56:15
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
In article <450b3b9d@dnews.tpgi.com.au >, Craig <craigvn@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Michelle Wie does *just fine* against women. Anna Kournakova: not even
> > close.
> >
>
> Kournakova was a top 10 ranked player and grand slam doubles champion.
Michelle Wie is ranked 7th among women golfers, *right now*. (Rolex
Rankings 9-11-2006).
Kournikova ranked in the top ten in precisely *one* year of her career.
Only once got into the semi-finals of a Grand Slam singles tennis
championship. She one in doubles a couple of times, but teamed with
tina Hingis: someone who could actually play; who one *five* Grand
Slam singles and was runner-up another 7 times. She was also 275-50 in
doubles.
So nice try.
--
'It's obvious to all that my predictions were wrong. Shall I also
admit the sky is blue?'
'Isn't it funny that Final Cut Pro is nowhere to be seen at Pixar? They're
an all PC shop. ' -- 'me finally admitting that Pixar isn't an all PC shop.'
'... when most Pixar movies were made ... Final Cut Pro didn't even exist.'
-- 'So sue me. I just wrote my reks off the top of my head.'
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:38:41
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
While Anna Kournikova never won as a single, she was a top doubles player
winning multiple Grand Slam tournaments.
"Tranny" <tranny@notrolll.com > wrote in message
news:450b2aca$1_2@x-privat.org...
> Wie's not as good looking, and Anna was probably a better tennis player
> than Wie is a golfer.
> Sad really.
>
> Tran
|
|
