golfrewind.com

I suppose that anytime you hit the ball where your aiming you can't consider it luck.... BUT, that was a very difficult bunker shot by a women who has one of the worst sandie percentages on Tour, much less jarring one. It was a prayer that was answered and I'm sure that Ms. Kim would be the 1st to admit it.

I'd have said it was a lucky shot...but even moreso due to the reason wazmankg mentioned. Birdie Kim's sand save percentage for 2005 was 38.6%, so it was hardly likely that she'd hole that shot or even get up and down. The pace of the shot when it caught the flagstick indicates that it would have been well past the hole had it not gone in.

If Michelle had stayed playing junior golf, do you honestly believe that she wouldn't have won titles? There are many people who have won lots of junior and amateur titles, and then won nothing at a higher level. Pressel could well join this exclusive list. Maybe she won't, but amateur success doesn't guarantee lpga success, in my opinion.


But don't forget, that "chance" ended in failure. She did have an approach shot from the fairway, to try to get it close to give herself a chance of a birdie putt, and she made a dogs dinner of her approach shot.

I'll be surprised if she figures in the Nabisco which is a long hitters course.
The US Open gives her the best chance because there is so much more to it than length. The other 3 majors will be difficult for Pressel. Wie should do well in all 4. She has had high top 4 finishes in the Nabisco, lpg & British Open.

In this case, I believe she would have...but "would have" doesn't translate into the experience. Hence, that part of her mental game is lacking...she could pick it up quickly or she might not.



As guys like Jim Furyk and David Toms have proven recently, you can be a major winner and pretty consistent winner on tour without overwhelming length. Paula Creamer is not a long hitter either, but I don't think you'll find too many out there who find it such a detriment that she won't be able to compete in the majors.

You know, many of you act like it was a given that Morgan would have won if Birdie hadn't made her sand shot. How do you know that Morgan might not have made an even worse shot feeling that all she had to do was par in. Golf is funny that way. Don't forget Morgan did shoot a 75 that day which means that par and/or birdie was not a guarantee. I'm not trying to take away from Morgan's great second place finish, but let's not take away Birdie Kim's play which put her in position to finish in first place. Birdie shot a 69 and 72 the final two days to Morgans 70 and 75, so Birdie was playing quite well and if it had gone to a playoff, who know who would have won.

No one was hitting that 18th green on Sunday. Who knows what would've happened had Kim not holed that shot. It was obvious that Morgan was devasted when she learned of it and it probably had an effect on her play from there on in. She went from thinking she needed a par at best, maybe bogey to tie to needing a bird.

Sure. But let's not forget there were plenty of ways Morgan could have made up that one stroke. She could have birdied that same hole. She could have not collapsed in round one after blistering the front nine. As someone mentioned, Birdie shot 69 and 72 over the weekend. Morgan would have won by if she had been able to simply match Birdie's weekend play. Instead she shot 70 and 75. If both had parred the last hole, Birdie still would have shot a better final round than Pressel!

Any way you look at it, Birdie played better than Morgan over the weekend and richly deserved her win, lucky shot or no lucky shot.

Well I never said that she didn't deserve it. Whomever shoots the lowest score deserves it. They both had their ups & downs over the 4 days, but that shot was the difference and the Golf Gods were smiling on her. It was Tiger at 16 @ the last years Masters. It was Watson at 17 @ Pebble in the US Open. Sure there are always other things one can always point to, but those shots were the difference makers. Staring at bogey & making bird during crunch time. Watson said he was trying to make it. Tiger said he was just trying to get a makeable putt. They are 2 of the best short game players in history. Ms. Kim is not. I suspect she would've been happy with anything within 15'. She slam dunked it for the trophy. More power to her. Morgan had a great tournament. The 1st of many for years to come I suspect. I'd also wager that she won't often be battling it out with Ms Kim.

How many people made birdie on that 18th hole all week? Wasn't it something like 4, with Birdie's being the sole birdie on the weekend? As I seem to remember, the 18th hole there was ridiculously difficult. Not making an excuse, but it makes Ms. Kim's birdie even less likely.

Good point about Ms. Kim there, wazmankg...has she even been in contention since?

In golf every single shot played in a tournament is a difference maker.
There are many shots over the 4 days that Pressel could have played better. She didn't and she came 2nd. That's just the way it is. 2nd is a very good finishing, fair play to her for that.


A great tournament? Would you go that far? Then how many great tournaments has Wie had?
I think Pressel will probably have some top 5's, and maybe win, but she won't be winning 3 titles next season, in my opinion, whereas Creamer might well.

How'd Paula get into this? BTW, if we're talking about Creamer, I think she'll win more than either of them this season...unless the dreaded "sophomore slump" hits her.

Wie has the ability to absolutely light up the scoreboard. She can go much lower than Pressel, particularly on a long, difficult course. However, Wie is less consistent than Pressel and will play a lot fewer LPGA events. It's a tough call. I went with Wie simply because she is the golfer with truly the most impressive overall talent.

68 in a PGA tourney!? Come on, she's going to crush people on the LPGA eventually.

I mentioned Creamer because she and Pressel can be realistically compared over the full season, given that they will both play a full season.

Wie is due to play 8 events, whereas Creamer and Pressel are due to play about 25 events or so.

If Wie were to win 0 from 8, and Pressel 1 from 25, there are many people on here who would be shouting how it would show that Pressel is actually the better player, whereas obviously it wouldn't.

If you want to be even fairer, perhaps, comparing Pressel's year to Creamer's rookie year would be fairest.
Will she win twice?

How about if we compare them all in tournaments they play in together this year? Debating the odds of winning based on the number of events they play is silly. I say the proof will be there when they play in the same events. If it happens to only be 8 (due to Wie's limited eligibility) then so be it. How will they do head to head in those 8 tournaments? Is there a fairer way to settle this debate?

I realize that you and I just will never see eye to eye on this one...to me, a win's a win and that's the only "obvious" thing about that aspect of it. Like I said though, I believe both will win this season, so then we can argue if one win is better than another.