[utep10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino i say she would be wasting her time playing junior tournaments. she's obviously good enough to win on the LPGA tour...why should she or would she want to play against other teenage girls on 5600 yard courses? that won't make her better.

Good point. I would like to see her start winning some tournaments at some level though. I believe that winning is a learned skill.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by utep10 Good point. I would like to see her start winning some tournaments at some level though. I believe that winning is a learned skill.

it's not as though she's never won anything. she won the USGA women's public links amateur tournament a couple of years ago and she won every prestigious amateur tournament in hawaii by the time she was 12 years old. i'm assuming you mean you want to see michelle win on the LPGA or PGA tour soon. i doubt you want to see her win the hawaii high-school state tournament.

"learning to win" is a silly phrase, IMO. people say she needs to "learn how to win." what does that mean? you mean, "she needs to win." everytime she comes close in a tournament and doesn't win, isn't she learning how to win? she just isn't winning. when i'm learning to ride a bike, i fall down sometimes. when i'm learning to read, i mispronounce some words and don't understand others. same with michelle...every second place finish is another lesson learned for her. most golfers say that you just have to keep putting yourself in position and the wins will eventually come. they'll come for michelle soon.

 

[plainsong]

To me, it means that the strategies you'd use to win change at each level. Maybe not easier or difficult as such, since the laws of physics don't change, it's just different.

I think in the case of a woman playing against a male field, this makes you different from the rest of competitors. Of course individual men are different from each other, but what you need to figure out are your own strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of your competitors. Then you need ot figure out how to use what you have to be competitive from the same tee. For instance it's not going to be the length of the drive... or will it? She's a tall drink of water, but young still. I haven't seen her play, it's just common sense, you have to learn to use what you have against what they have.

So there's a double difference there, and I think the biggest handicap is experience. Dad's a big golf fan, and he rattled off the names of ten other women he'd like to see do this over her. But they don't for whatever reason, probably financial. I mean, it's so tough to earn money at sports anyway, changing leagues is a big risk no matter who you are.

 

[skyline889]

Okay first off, I'd just like to say that Michelle is a really nice person, I had her in my Japanese class and she wasn't stuck up or snobby, she was actually really friendly and down to earth, I have no problems with her as a person. That being said, I really don't see what the point of her competing in the PGA if she's just going to perform miserably, I mean I know ten mill a year is nice, but there's a point where the embarassment just isn't worth it. I have no problem with her competing in the PGA rather than the LPGA, I just think it would probably be better if she would just stick to the LPGA and hone her skills more, before stepping up to the PGA, this way she'd actually be a competitive player, not just another sales pitch.

 

[Ticky]

What I see is a young athlete - be the person male or female - becoming "victim" to the capitalist machine that runs professional sports and the various sporting brands that exert a hefty influence over their sponsored athlete. At 16 years old, a person is just not mature or savvy enough to navigate the "locker room politics." I think Wei should get an advisor who would look after her professional career and personal well-being and balance off her interest against the interest of everyone else who gets to gain from her fame.

Furthermore, is it me or has there been a trend towards promoting the "good looking" female athletes? (ok - we'll leave the debate over whether Wei is good looking to another thread. But, I'm sure her sponsors is of the opinion that she is.) First tennis, now golf.

If this continues, I don't think female athletes would ever get the professional respect they deserve.

 

[mulveling]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong Ok, then go out and prove it. I just don't think that arguments were ALL X is < or > ALL Y really float. Men and women are built differently, each giving them strengths and weaknesses, but ALL is never greater or less than ALL. Welcome back to the early 20th century. I feel that our understanding has been enlightened since then, and that time has evolved. But yet, to ask these tough questions gets the response to simmer down. It's really sad.

He doesn't need to prove anything. Go look up the top results for track/field events, swimming, weightlifting, etc. Usually the top woman won't even crack into the top 100 men in the world (that is generous; often it will be much much worse like several hundreds or in the thousands). Of course the top woman will be able to beat the hell out of most men, but at elite levels of competition that's not enough - the natural hormonal and strength advantages cannot be overcome. In golf, tennis, etc, strength is fairly important as well. A woman might be able to keep up with the top men in cardio fitness (I don't know really) but the strength is still going to be a handicap for them in most sports.

Nobody is saying that all men are better than all women in any sport. Just that the elite level competition in most sports is not really feasible for women to compete in.

 

[mulveling]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong I think in the case of a woman playing against a male field, this makes you different from the rest of competitors. Of course individual men are different from each other, but what you need to figure out are your own strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of your competitors. Then you need ot figure out how to use what you have to be competitive from the same tee. For instance it's not going to be the length of the drive... or will it?

This does not cut it at elite levels. You can't make it just by being clever and persistent. You need immense talent AND you need top training/coaching AND you need to be built for it. Men are better built for most sports. It's a matter of nature, not rights.

 

[john_jcb]

If you look at the statistics for the top 150 golfers on the PGA tour you will be amazed at how little difference there is between the top and bottom. The difference in average scores per round is 3 strokes between #1 and #150. Being able to consistently hit drives over 300 yards greatly improves your odds. It is a lot easier to hit a spot on the green with a 9 iron or a wedge than it is to use a 5 iron. Putting is the other bit separator and it is here that there is no difference between men and women. If you look at the scores oon the other tours you will note that they too post some really low rounds. The big difference is being able to do it for four straight days week after week. This is what separates the top 150 from the rest.

There is no debate that she is a good golfer and at 16 she is better than virtually all the men and women that play. However I do not think she has the strength and power to play against the card carrying PGA members on a consistent basis. However golf is such a difficult sport that there may be a week where she excels and others do not fare so well and she makes a cut. If she really wants to play on the tour let her go to Q school just like everyone else. She has yet to conquer the best women in the sport as Anna did before she played with the men. Other than that it just seems like a gimmick for the sponsors to make money.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_jcb If you look at the statistics for the top 150 golfers on the PGA tour you will be amazed at how little difference there is between the top and bottom. The difference in average scores per round is 3 strokes between #1 and #150. Being able to consistently hit drives over 300 yards greatly improves your odds. It is a lot easier to hit a spot on the green with a 9 iron or a wedge than it is to use a 5 iron. Putting is the other bit separator and it is here that there is no difference between men and women. If you look at the scores oon the other tours you will note that they too post some really low rounds. The big difference is being able to do it for four straight days week after week. This is what separates the top 150 from the rest.

3 strokes a round is actually quite a lot at that level. over four rounds, that's 12 shots! give any tour member a 12 stroke advantage and he'll win most tournaments. even just 1 stroke a round is a huge advantage.

 

[elrod-tom]

My wife had an interesting point about this fascination with the PGA:

She thinks that what probably happened is that she dominated junior golf at a time when, from a physical perspective, there wasn't much of a difference between boys and girls. Remembering that she's only 16, that girls hit their growth spurts 2-3 years earlier than boys, and that boys gain most of their advantage in strength and explosiveness after they reach puberty, she is very likely accustomed to being the best golfer in her age group - boys or girls.

I have a recollection of just how dramatic that change can be. When I was a junior ski racer, I got my growth spurt a bit later than a lot of my buddies racing in my age group. I have a very distinct memory of finding that some of my buddies all of a sudden got good - VERY good - in a hurry when they hit puberty. I also remember when it finally hit for me, I got a lot bigger, a lot stronger, and a lot better - in a big hurry. I also recall that in the earlier years there was not much difference in results between the best boys and best girls, but that by the early to mid teens that there was a clear difference.

So it's really not too surprising that she thinks that she can take on the PGA...she's accusomed to thinking in terms of being the best - period. She was very good at a very young age, she's dominated junior golf, and is used to being the most skilled player in her age group, regardless of gender. But now nature takes over, and the non-strength advantage that she used to having is not such an advantage any more. While (as has been pointed out) it is not so much the case as in other sports, there are definate advantages to being stronger (which is not to say muscle-bound) while playing golf.

I'll say this again: If she proves herself all the way up the line, including at the LPGA level (reminder: she's not won an LPGA event), then the next logical test would be the PGA tour. Simply put, she's not even close to being ready for this level of competition...and she appears to be wilting from the pressure.

 

[JahJahBinks]

yes, she should focus on winning a LPGA title first.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Gosh Dang it!

 

[bpm2000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong To the first part of the post, I'll give a big . Why is it only the equestrian events where a man and a woman can compete on equal terms? A contact sport is understandable, but comparing golf to basketball is nowhere near comparing like to like. No way, no how, doesn't fly. I agree though, where are the parents in something like this? Or rather, where are the parenting skills?

Apparently it wasn't clear that I was just stating the existence of mens and women's leagues by my "etc." added at the end - sorry you had to misunderstand and feel threatened by it. There was no direct golf/basketball comparison on my part and if you interpreted it that way then I apologize.

Let me ask you a question: if you are so hung up on this equal playing field - why are you not pushing for the same game situations in mens and womens sports? Why are women hitting further up in golf? Why can't they use the same size ball in basketball? You said it yourself, you will outwit your physical limitation and come up with something right? I don't know this for sure, but I would imagine women came up with the idea for these limitations in-game, no?

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen She gets to drive from ALL the Womens tees too, don't forget! Gosh Dang It!

No offense, but I take it you don't know much about golf.


In any case, MW, is 16 and nowhere near her golf prime. She's obviously good enough for the LPGA. Nevertheless, she does need to get some LPGA wins under her belt.

As for the PGA,.. MW drives far enough for the PGA. She doesn't have the strength to work out of some of the hazards and rough the way the men can. People who play golf will understand that a long drive can be generated by effortless momentum (which is aided by her height), whereas some shots out of the rough and hazards require strength. Furthermore, IMO her short game is just not that good yet. She's obviously not ready to compete on the PGA ( and she might never be ready). That being said, she is out there getting some PGA experience and may be capable of playing on the PGA tour some day.

MW is competing for wins on the LPGA with a long drive and a mediocre short game. When and if she develops her short game, I think she will dominate on the LPGA. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that she will develop that part of the game.

I do know that she would kick my butt on the course.

 

[BlindTiger]

I've read Michelle developed a friendship with John Daly from pairing up together. I think this is great, both long ball hitters and we know JD had some ups and downs.
And, I've seen MW hit from the blues in the TV coverage shown, unless they switched the ladies reds to blues for her.
I don't know about other golfers but playing in the heat is brutal. My friend almost had heat stroke once when he noticed he wasn't sweating. The heat radiating off the grass and not to mention the muggy, stagnant, Michigan air and giant mosquitos is no walk on the grass for anyone.