Michelle Wie: Quit embarrassing yourself!

The BBQ Pit
41

I disagree with the OP. I think it’s great that Wie wants to compete against the men, and I think it’s great that she’s good enough to hang with the pack, even if she misses the cut. And it’s not as though she’s horribly outclassed. She missed the cut in the Sony Open by one stroke. She almost made it to the Men’s U.S. Open on her own - she finished first in her first qualifier, and made it to the last qualifier, where the top 16 qualified for the Open. She finished 59th in that one, but had she made a couple more putts she might have qualified as an amateur in the U.S. Open strictly on her own merits. She made it to the quarter finals in match play in the Men’s Public Links, and she has made the cut in a men’s tournament on the Asian tour.

Sports isn’t just about winning. It’s about pushing yourself and competing against the very best. Wie is in a position where sponsor’s exemptions allow her to do that, and that’s what she wants to do. More power to her. There are a lot of men playing on the tour who are barely competitive - men who rarely make a cut, and if they do they rapidly fall behind on Saturday and Sunday. I don’t hear a lot of calls for them to quit. Mike Wier had to go back to Q-school because he couldn’t keep up, but he kept fighting, came back, and won the Masters. A couple of big names have come close to losing their cards because of poor play, but until they do they’re welcome to play and people don’t generally tell them to quit.

A good comparison to Wie would be the older golfers who play tournaments on exemptions because they’ve won them in the past. They’re generally not competitive, and some of them would get their asses kicked by Michelle Wie, but they still show up and play. And generally, people are cool with that until the get so old that it’s clear they really, really don’t belong any more. And even then, some of them continue on. And once in a while, one of them will stand on his head and make a run for it, and energize the golfing world with their performance.

The underdog or comeback story is one of the compelling features of sports. When a old boxer comes out of retirement and defies the odds to win a title again, it’s thrilling. When Ken Rosewall made it to the finals of the U.S. Open at age 39, it became a legendary feat in tennis history. And when they try, there’s always someone telling them to give up - they’re too old, too injured, they won’t be able to hack it, etc.

One of these days, Wie might have the round of her life and finish in the top 10 or better in a PGA tournament. She’ll make history, and inspire girls all over the world to try harder, compete more, and not give up. I think it’s great.

However, as a purely strategic career move, I think it might be smarter for her to go a little slower and work harder on her game. It seems to me that her skills have not improved over the past couple of years, and at her age they should be improving by leaps and bounds. She may have turned pro a little too early, when she should have spent more time improving her game.

42

She did this week. And last time, too, IIRC.

Nope. It’s not the same guys coming in last every week. If she were as good as the poorest perfroming men, she’d get a tour card.

You’d think so, but that’s not what her scores reflect. She’s actually doing more poorly on the PGA over time, not better.

As for here earnings on the LPGA tour, she is somewhat limited until she turns 18. I don’t know the details, but even though she’s now a pro and has her LPGA tour card, the rules limit the number of tournaments she can play until she’s 18. But there are still plenty of tournaments she can play, and she does need to finish High School, too.

43

Right, and the Yankees should trade A-Rod because he’s not clutch.

I’m pretty sure winning is incidental. You learn to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible shots on a consistent basis, then the result is whatever it is. Maybe it’s just the poker player in me, but “she needs to learn to win” sounds to me an awful lot like “she needs to learn how not to get sucked out on.” It’s results-oriented thinking.

I suppose you could argue that Wie needs to learn how to play through pressure situations, but isn’t she doing that already? If everyone on the course and in the media is focused on watching her bring up the rear (to an even greater extent than if she were winning a women’s event), how is that not playing in a pressure-filled situation?

44

I’m not calling for her to quit. And if the men keep failing, they go back to the Nationwide Tour.

Michelle Wie is no Mike Wier. This is just a strawman, Sam. The question is, what’s best for her golf game and career. In fact, why doesn’t she try to make it on the Nationwide Tour if she wants to compete against men? Those guys are damn good on that tour, and she’d struggle to make cuts there, too.

No, that’s not a good comparison at all. These guys are at the end of their careers, not the beginning.

Now you’re talking sense! :slight_smile:

45

As John said, a tournament is 4 rounds of golf. Par is usually around 70 for one round. After two rounds the low seventy players and ties play on. The cut can range anywhere from several strokes over patto several strokes under par, depending on the difficulty of the course. Most tournaments are won by just a few strokes or less, so a final score of 270 might win, with several other golfers a couple of strokes behind. Anyone in the top ten will likely earn $100,000 or more, on up to one million. So, one or two strokes can be seen as a small difference (i.ie, 2 out of 270) or a huge difference (missing the cut by one = $0, mising it by 20 =$0)

She is not getting paid to lose. Where did you get that idea? She is getting paid by Nike to endorse their products. If she continues to lose, that contract will be lost as well.

It means that there is more to winning than raw talent. You have to understand course managment. You need to learn to pace yourself, and not to get too high or too low. Most importantly, you need to know how to handle the pressure of competing for a title, something she will never learn if she is never in the hunt.

Up to a point, that is true. What seems to elude you is that there is no value in getting your ass kicked every time you compete. The LPGA, where she has never won a tournament, is plenty of challenge for now.

They deserve to be there because they qualified through Q-School. That avenue is open to her, should she care to prove that she deserves to be there.

Any of those guys would clean up on the LPGA. There is a reason that they do not allow men.

46

It’s a lot more than just learning how to play under pressure. It’s being able to hold up for 4 days, how to play in the last group on Sunday when conditions are toughest, what shot to make when and how to guage your opponent(s). There are lots of men on the PGA who have 2 or 3 good rounds, but can just never seem to close on Sunday.

47

An interesting tidbit found on wikipedia: Wie cannot officially become a member of the LPGA Tour until her 18th birthday, unless she petitions for an exception to this rule as some players, including Morgan Pressel and Aree Song have previously done. She has not chosen to file such a petition. Since she is not an LPGA member, she is limited to playing in no more than six LPGA events per year and only when granted entry to the events by sponsor exemption. Her earnings also do not appear on the official ADT money list and she is not eligible for Rolex Rookie of the Year honors. Nor do her statistics appear on the LPGA’s web site. However, as a professional, she is allowed to collect prize money. In addition, she may enter any non-LPGA events to which she is invited or qualifies, such as the US Women’s Open, and she appears in the Rolex World Golf Rankings.

From what I understand, she HAS been playing in LPGA events, but is limited by her age. Why not let her play “with the boys”? Hell, she’s been kicking ass in the LPGA events she HAS participated in. The girl is 6’1" at this age… with drive that would make most men drool (hardee har)… I say let her play with the big boys. When she turns 18 and joins the LPGA, she’s going to make a lot of noise. Given time, she probably will be able to compete with the men.

What she has the potential of doing is changing the face of the sport, bringing young girls and young women to golfing and so on…

48

She needs to learn how to play well in pressure situations. She has shown no evidence of that; quite the opposite .

To paraphrase Lee Trevino, real pressure is standing over a fifty dollar two foot putt when you only have ten bucks in your pocket. He would have eaten her alive.

Only for exceedingly broad definitions of “kicking ass.” She has yet to win.

49

Keep in mind that some of the biggest women’s tournamnets (men’s, too) are not officially LPGA events (PGA for the men), so they don’t count as part of the 6. For instance, the US Women’s open doesn’t count, and I’m sure the British Open wouldn’t count either.

Two words: Nationwide Tour. And if that’s too tough for her, she could try the Hooter’s Tour. Now *that *might be interesting!

50

Pressure schmessure. It’s about putting the ball in the hole. That’s all about practice, not pressure. Plus, I think she’s under more pressure and scrutiny in a PGA event than in an LPGA one.

Anyway, it’s her choice, her career, her life. She’s the one who should be making decisions about what’s best for her game, not observers on a message board. If this is the kind of competition she craves and enjoys, then who is anyone else to tell her not to pursue it? I think it’s riduculous to say she’s embarrassing herself when she’s performing so far above what has ever been expected before from a teenaged girl.

51

A few points. Why can’t she learn to hold up for four days without making cuts? Hell, in her practice time she can play 14 rounds per week if it’s a question of stamina. Also, yes, conditions are toughest on Sunday, but the course conditions (and, for her, the public scrutiny) on Thursday at your average men’s tournament are tougher than on Sunday at an LPGA major. I’ll grant that shot selection (i.e. balancing expected value and variance) is important and comes into play especially at the end of tournaments, but can’t it be learned academically, or with the help of a trusted caddie? Finally, surely ‘guaging your opponents’ is a very minor part of the game when there is almost nothing you can do to affect them, and when your strategy will be virtually unchanged no matter what you expect them to do.

Really? There are certain players who consistently put themselves in good position heading into the later rounds and then fall apart in crunch time? Like who?

Spoiler: Barring several exceptional examples, my response is going to include the words “sample size” and “variance.”

52

Chris DiMarco is the first guy to come to mind. Freddy Couples is in that mode now. Even Ernie Els has fit that category this year. Sometimes it’s problems with their game, sometimes it’s psychological and sometimes it’s something else. Just look at the guys who are high on the money list, but who don’t have any wins-- there are plenty.

53

You really have not played a lot of golf, have you? This is simply and completely wrong.

Again, too much pressure can be bad. No matter how good he is, or how much potential an eighteen year old boxer has, he has no business in the ring with a world champion; yet where would he find more pressure, or more of a challenge, which you continue to claim is the best way to learn? It simply isn’t, and every good coach in every sport knows that overmatching an athlete is a sure way to ruin a career.

This applies to you as well, I assume.

Greg Norman comes to mind.

54

I’m not telling her what to do. I’m just saying I enjoy watching her when she does compete in PGA events and that I’m not going to criticize her for doing it. If she ever wants to quit I won’t criticize that decision either.

Phil Mikkelson is practically a poster boy for sunday chokes as well.

55

Mickelson. And his chokes were really only in the majors, but he’s shaken that off in the last few years. He has 29 PGA wins under his belt.

56

Ok, but what about sample size and variance? :slight_smile:

Seriously, though, those examples might well mean nothing. Assume, for the sake of argument, that all players are equally “clutch” and that “knowing how to win” is not a skill held in varying quantities by different players. Because there are so many players in each tournament – while there are relatively few tournaments and even fewer opportunities to perform in high pressure situations – there are still going to be some players who, just by chance, have more than their share of Sunday collapses, or who frequently crack the top 10 but don’t have any victories to show for it. Likewise, there would be some players who always seem to play well when they’re in contention on Sunday.

In order to prove that the disparity we see in “clutch” performances is a result of some innate ability rather than random distribution, you’d have to show two things. First, you’d have to show that the distribution of clutch and non-clutch performances is different from what you’d expect to see if it were randomly determined. Second, and more importantly, you’d have to show that there is a year-to-year correlaion between clutch performance in the past with that in the future – i.e., that a player with unusually poor clutch performance one year is more likely than a player with average or good clutch performance to have poor clutch performances in the next year, and vice versa.

Now, I’m neither willing nor able to do the research on this question, but if you know of any I’d love to see it. The research probably doesn’t exist for golf, but I will point out that a lot of research has been done on the issue of clutch hitting in baseball. The research has consistently shown that there is no evidence that clutch hitting exists (or that, if it exists, it’s effect is too small to be measured). I don’t see why the result would be any different for a study of golf clutchness.

57

Hey, you should’ve given me a heads-up if you were going to say that! :slight_smile:

Any player on tour will tell you it’s true. And if they think it’s true, then it is.

58

He just choked like a dog in the '06 US Open. That was one of his worst chokes ever. The fact that his chokes only come in Majors only underscores the point that he chokes when it matters.

59

Yeah, but he’d been choking like a dog for 10 years straight before he finally borke thru and won 3 majors in the last 3 years. But yes, learning how to win a major is yet another step in the whole learning how to win process. My point was that Phil had a solid record on the PGA for non-major tournaments and could hardly be lumped in with the othere guys I was talking about. Even DiMarco has a few wins under his belt, but he seems always to be in contention on Sunday but almost never wins. He’s ranked #15 in the world, and hasn’t won in 4 years.

60

I saw something on (I think) the discovery channel about “choking” which claimed that the phenomenon actually does exist in golf and demonstrated that certain physiological manifestations of pressure could affect a players’ swing, causing him/her to get “the yips.” They claimed it was more pronounced in golf because it involves physical motions that are so finely tuned and require such precision in execution that a small change (like gripping the club just a little too tightly) can cause significant consequences in results. They showed that players who can maintain an even keel physiologically (their heartrates and breathing stay the same, etc.) tend to perform more consistently under pressure – not necessarily better, just that they have a reduced potential for making errors in their mechanics. There was a suggestion that physiological responses to stress may have a genetic component.