| |
Main
Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:04:18
From: Ben.
Subject: Mockery at the 84
|
It's ugly. Plain and simple. Ugly.
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 15:59:18
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
sir_troll@yahoo.com wrote:
> Frank Ketchum wrote:
> > <motofrankster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1158265699.204206.217570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >and i would think her sponsors will
> > > eventually be getting negative value from it. i think that day is
> > > probably here right now....
> >
> > You don't understand marketing.
>
> Eventually the marketing value of watching a young chick get stomped by
> a bunch of men will disappear. It's getting to the point that no one
> out there thinks she has a realistic chance of making the cut.
At age 14 (Sony Open) she finished even par after 2 rounds, and at age
15 (John Deere) she finished -1 after 2 rounds. These were two of her
first 3 PGA tournaments that she played in, and she had a realistic
chance to make the cut in both, being 1-2 shots away. She beat dozens
of professional PGA golfers over these rounds. This not only
encouraged her, but brought additional invitations. It also suggested
that if she can come close to making a cut at age 14-15, she really
could compete and make a cut in the next couple of years.
But her relative performance in PGA tournaments, at least, has
regressed. Is she getting worse? Probably not, but everyone goes
through slumps. Should Justin Rose have called it quits after missing
20 straight cuts at the start of his professional career?
The "problem" is that (1) she can only play in 8 LPGA tournaments per
year, so she looks for other opportunities to play, and (2) she's shot
under 70 twice in PGA tournaments. If you don't think there's any
marketing value, then I'm sure the sponsors are crying all the way to
the bank. I'd love to see her have to qualify, or even try more
Nationwide events, but as of now she doesn't need to because she still
generates positive cash flow for the sponsors.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 14:46:59
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
motofrankster@yahoo.com wrote:
> i think it would be dignified if she just played the sony event in
> hawaii every year... then it would be something everyone could look
> forward to.
Good point. That would be meaningful since it's her "home course", and
she almost made the cut there once. I'm a Michelle fan, and I would
love to see her compete with the big boys someday. But unlike others
sports where you are being defended and have to defend others, there's
no significant difference playing against different levels.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 14:26:25
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
Frank Ketchum wrote:
> <motofrankster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158265699.204206.217570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >and i would think her sponsors will
> > eventually be getting negative value from it. i think that day is
> > probably here right now....
>
> You don't understand marketing.
Eventually the marketing value of watching a young chick get stomped by
a bunch of men will disappear. It's getting to the point that no one
out there thinks she has a realistic chance of making the cut.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 14:21:44
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
> cja wrote:
> > sir_troll@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Ben. wrote:
> > > > It's ugly. Plain and simple. Ugly.
> > >
> > > So far, four players have withdrawn after nine holes or fewer. I
> > > suspect Michelle is starting to feel a heat stroke coming on by now.
> > >
> > The WD list is up to 6. Michelle isn't in last place, yet.
>
> Why have those 6 dropped out? Did they start? If not, didn't they
> take away a spot from an alternate who deserved a chance to play?
Brian Bateman: -3 thru 5, +7 thru next 6, bailing out after triple
bogey 8 w/ 2 penalties
Paul Azinger: +4 thru 9, did not continue
Jonathan Kaye: +5 thru 9, did not continue despite closing birdie
Pat Perez: +9 thru 9 w/ 3 double bogeys and a triple, cursed a lot and
then quit
Garrett Willis and Phil Tataurangi did not start.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 14:18:43
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
Bucky wrote:
> motofranks...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > no such thing as bad publicity?..... i was thinking. "dress like me",
> > "use my equipment" and you can suck too.... but you are probably
> > correct.
>
> Eventually the novelty will wear off to the point where she would get
> more publicity by winning a women's tournament than finishing near the
> bottom in the men's tournament. It hasn't happened yet, but unless
> she's able to come closer to making a cut, it's going to happen soon.
> She hasn't shown much improvement in the last year or so.
i think it would be dignified if she just played the sony event in
hawaii every year... then it would be something everyone could look
forward to.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 14:15:50
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
motofranks...@yahoo.com wrote:
> no such thing as bad publicity?..... i was thinking. "dress like me",
> "use my equipment" and you can suck too.... but you are probably
> correct.
Eventually the novelty will wear off to the point where she would get
more publicity by winning a women's tournament than finishing near the
bottom in the men's tournament. It hasn't happened yet, but unless
she's able to come closer to making a cut, it's going to happen soon.
She hasn't shown much improvement in the last year or so.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 22:30:15
From: Darrell Jefress
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com > wrote in message
news:1158268550.033197.24220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> motofranks...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > no such thing as bad publicity?..... i was thinking. "dress like me",
> > "use my equipment" and you can suck too.... but you are probably
> > correct.
>
> Eventually the novelty will wear off to the point where she would get
> more publicity by winning a women's tournament than finishing near the
> bottom in the men's tournament. It hasn't happened yet, but unless
> she's able to come closer to making a cut, it's going to happen soon.
> She hasn't shown much improvement in the last year or so.
During her events on the LPGA this spring and summer, I would say she showed
major improvement over '05 in several areas.
I think her problem the last two weeks is pretty simple - at the moment her
game is far from being where it should be, or where it was a few months ago.
If she played the LPGA this week, she'd probably finish mid-pack.
She can't even pull a Tiger and try to convince us she's "close". Based just
on what I saw last week, her game's in the tank. A month from now, could be
totally a different story. (Unfortunately, she's playing right now, not a
month from now.)
DJJ
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 21:55:41
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
On 14 Sep 2006 14:15:50 -0700, "Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com > wrote:
>Eventually the novelty will wear off to the point where she would get
>more publicity by winning a women's tournament than finishing near the
>bottom in the men's tournament.
Except that's not a choice for her.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:56:43
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
cja wrote:
> sir_troll@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Ben. wrote:
> > > It's ugly. Plain and simple. Ugly.
> >
> > So far, four players have withdrawn after nine holes or fewer. I
> > suspect Michelle is starting to feel a heat stroke coming on by now.
> >
> The WD list is up to 6. Michelle isn't in last place, yet.
Why have those 6 dropped out? Did they start? If not, didn't they
take away a spot from an alternate who deserved a chance to play?
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:54:17
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
>
> You don't understand marketing.
no such thing as bad publicity?..... i was thinking. "dress like me",
"use my equipment" and you can suck too.... but you are probably
correct.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:28:19
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
i don't like to be mean-spirited, but i'm thinking this experiment
should be put on hold pretty soon...
i don't see the benefit of it... and i would think her sponsors will
eventually be getting negative value from it. i think that day is
probably here right now.... probably the lesser events though will
always have a wildcard for her.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:45:37
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
<motofrankster@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158265699.204206.217570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>and i would think her sponsors will
> eventually be getting negative value from it. i think that day is
> probably here right now....
You don't understand marketing.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 23:03:55
From: Roger Pattee
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:45:37 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > typed:
>
><motofrankster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1158265699.204206.217570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>and i would think her sponsors will
>> eventually be getting negative value from it. i think that day is
>> probably here right now....
>
>You don't understand marketing.
>
-----------
The question is..
To whom..are they attempting to market?
Wie or her sponsored items?
A young, attractive, gifted, albeit not as good as some wish, teen,
playing men's events and not succeeding. The novelity is wearing off
and what is being seen is not good marketing.
Put (keep) Wie in the women's arena. THE market is there for her
clothes, accessories, specific (women's) clubs from her sponsors.
That is the better market.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 04:04:15
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
You so called women's market is already pretty crowded with very good female
golfers. What does Michele Wie bring to the table that will compel women to
run out and buy her line of clothes or equipment? Tiger's clothing line was
a complete flop.
The only Wie ad I've ever seen was for Omega watches which aren't exactly
cheap.
"Roger Pattee" <motordawg1@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:s1epg2h2u3r0gh51vs8a8pdth8iccgoka1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:45:37 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> typed:
>
>>
>><motofrankster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1158265699.204206.217570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>and i would think her sponsors will
>>> eventually be getting negative value from it. i think that day is
>>> probably here right now....
>>
>>You don't understand marketing.
>>
> -----------
> The question is..
>
> To whom..are they attempting to market?
> Wie or her sponsored items?
>
> A young, attractive, gifted, albeit not as good as some wish, teen,
> playing men's events and not succeeding. The novelity is wearing off
> and what is being seen is not good marketing.
>
> Put (keep) Wie in the women's arena. THE market is there for her
> clothes, accessories, specific (women's) clubs from her sponsors.
>
> That is the better market.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:28:06
From: cja
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
sir_troll@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ben. wrote:
> > It's ugly. Plain and simple. Ugly.
>
> So far, four players have withdrawn after nine holes or fewer. I
> suspect Michelle is starting to feel a heat stroke coming on by now.
>
The WD list is up to 6. Michelle isn't in last place, yet.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:11:48
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
Ben. wrote:
> It's ugly. Plain and simple. Ugly.
So far, four players have withdrawn after nine holes or fewer. I
suspect Michelle is starting to feel a heat stroke coming on by now.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 09:11:42
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
> I'd love to see her have to qualify, or even try more
> Nationwide events, but as of now she doesn't need to because she still
> generates positive cash flow for the sponsors.
Quite honestly, just as I might advise any 17 year old male
competitor, it would seem that competing at Nationwide events
might serve he goal of competing at "higher levels" where she
would get to play on the weekend.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 11:36:15
From: Alan B
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:26:56 -0500, in message
<pan.2006.09.16.18.26.56.127833@home.invalid >, Buford Ressup
<buford@home.invalid > scribed:
>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?
Maybe it's like NASCAR. You know, where the leader in victories is in
eleventh place in the rankings. Kinda like that.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 07:02:44
From: gp
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
rastafarians,
Very intelligent analysis. thanks.
rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
> sir_troll@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Frank Ketchum wrote:
> > > <motofrankster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1158265699.204206.217570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > >and i would think her sponsors will
> > > > eventually be getting negative value from it. i think that day is
> > > > probably here right now....
> > >
> > > You don't understand marketing.
> >
> > Eventually the marketing value of watching a young chick get stomped by
> > a bunch of men will disappear. It's getting to the point that no one
> > out there thinks she has a realistic chance of making the cut.
>
> At age 14 (Sony Open) she finished even par after 2 rounds, and at age
> 15 (John Deere) she finished -1 after 2 rounds. These were two of her
> first 3 PGA tournaments that she played in, and she had a realistic
> chance to make the cut in both, being 1-2 shots away. She beat dozens
> of professional PGA golfers over these rounds. This not only
> encouraged her, but brought additional invitations. It also suggested
> that if she can come close to making a cut at age 14-15, she really
> could compete and make a cut in the next couple of years.
>
> But her relative performance in PGA tournaments, at least, has
> regressed. Is she getting worse? Probably not, but everyone goes
> through slumps. Should Justin Rose have called it quits after missing
> 20 straight cuts at the start of his professional career?
>
> The "problem" is that (1) she can only play in 8 LPGA tournaments per
> year, so she looks for other opportunities to play, and (2) she's shot
> under 70 twice in PGA tournaments. If you don't think there's any
> marketing value, then I'm sure the sponsors are crying all the way to
> the bank. I'd love to see her have to qualify, or even try more
> Nationwide events, but as of now she doesn't need to because she still
> generates positive cash flow for the sponsors.
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 07:28:57
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
> The Nationwide Tour players are, as a group, just a half a notch below the
> PGA players. Michelle wouldn't make the cut there, either, which is why
> she'll never play a Nationwide event.
Oh, that's just silly. She'd smoke those guys in the Nationwide Tour. I
see better golf after 6 pm when the "9 beers and 4 putts" groups go off
at my local public.
And as for the 84 Lumber, she was -1 over 2 days on the 16th hole, a
decent lengthed par 5. I say she takes that positive and really builds
on it for her next appearance.
Ed
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 05:55:23
From:
Subject: Re: Mockery at the 84
|
Buford Ressup wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:11:42 -0700, oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>
> > rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> I'd love to see her have to qualify, or even try more
> >> Nationwide events, but as of now she doesn't need to because she still
> >> generates positive cash flow for the sponsors.
> >
> > Quite honestly, just as I might advise any 17 year old male
> > competitor, it would seem that competing at Nationwide events might
> > serve he goal of competing at "higher levels" where she would get to
> > play on the weekend.
>
> The Nationwide Tour players are, as a group, just a half a notch below the
> PGA players. Michelle wouldn't make the cut there, either, which is why
> she'll never play a Nationwide event. It's okay to miss the cut against
> the world's best players, but it doesn't look so good if you miss the cut
> against players the public sees as second-rate.
This is a very good point: there are many competitions where a good
female player would be taking on a field of much better players,
without going all the way to PGA level.
Although amateur tournaments are no longer an option, it may put it in
perspective to remember that Michelle lost to a player who wasn't quite
good enough to play in his college team, so that maybe puts her one
notch below the very best college teams (being generous). That's quite
a way below being really competitive in top amateur golf (such as
playing at a standard that would have a realistic chance of winning the
US amateur, or contending for Walker Cup selection).
Again, looking at how some amateurs have acquitted themselves over the
last couple of decades in the pro majors, it's clear that Michelle is
still a million miles away from what we routinely expect of our best
male teenage amateur players. Given that, and the huge step up from
that level of amateur golf to the Nationwide tour, it's pretty obvious
that there's no marketing incentive in MW trying her luck one step down
from the top tour - which is one strong reason why we don't see it
happening.
There's no reason why a good amateur shouldn't make a reasonable
proportion of cuts in pro tournaments (lower than pros, of course; but
nothing as bad as 1 in 5, say), and I would expect Michelle to make
quite a few, if she keeps trying; but it's instructive to compare her
stats with what's needed not to make the cut (i.e. beat the guys who
aren't on form that week), but to score like the top 5 in the
tournament (i.e. match games with the standard that's needed to be in
contention). MW might make a higher proportion of cuts on the
Nationwide; but her stats are so far behind those of reasonable male
pro golfers that she'd have absolutely no chance of threatening the top
of a Nationwide leaderboard on her best week ever.
(I did a quick analysis after the first round of the European Masters,
to see where the differences lay, and it was a real eye-opener.)
|
|
