golfrewind.com

Golf is not a Player A vs. Player B game. The statistics are interesting, sure, but I don't feel they tell us anything.

Her 273.2 yards average from yesterday would actually be 190th on Tour:

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/101

Only 193 players are ranked.

But they had the potential to. Like I said, she just simply lacks the length to compete on Tour, it's that simple.

I understand that, of course. However, this is competitive golf.

Time will tell.

You mentioned what you thought were meaningless stats.
Then you take Michelle's first round driving average, which is measured on 2 holes, and compare that to the pga tour average driving list, which is based on the whole season, do you think that gives an accurate stat?

Actually that stats tells nothing. If she had happened to knock out 2 of her longer drives on those 2 holes, then her average could be up near the top of the tour driving stats, but that wouldn't mean anthing either.
eg. her 2nd round of the Sony she averaged 300 yards, which would get 12th on the driving stats leaderboard.
And that's pretty meaningless really.

She's long enough alright. Although, more length would certainly be an advantage, as it would to any player, and she has been working on that.
Let's put it this way, Monty averages about 285 yards, and he has done okay. She is about 275-280, she could do with 10 more yards, but at 16, she should get stronger.

I understand it, I'm just not so sure it really tells us anything. I don't feel that the sample is big enough to have any great meaning.

You're absolutely right, she certainly hasn't maxed out her distance potential. However, I'm not sure there are 20 yards laying around that she can eventually pick up, and I think that's the minimum she would need to pick up to really compete on the PGA Tour. As regards distance vs. accuracy, accuracy is great, sure, but it's become a bomb and gouge tour. The reality is, she is currently and will likely to continue to having to hit long(ish) irons into greens on all but the shortest PGA Tour courses, and her long game - at this point anyway - isn't very good.


She's playing. I was speaking of competing in terms of being a factor. My feelings about her ability to compete and/or have any real success on the PGA Tour stems from her golf game, not from her being a female.

Incidentally, her Total Driving from yesterday's round would put her 193rd on Tour in that category. I'm not sure about her other rounds she's played on Tour.

I'm not saying it's written in stone, I just think the numbers bear it out at this point.

I think driving statistics a bit more meaningful than who-shot-what in their first X Tour events. There's no reason to get so upset.

Yes, she should, but she is not long enough, nor accurate enough. She did hit some nice short shots yesterday, but she needed them due to poor play from tee to green.

Let's see how she plays today - the pressure should be off.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.golfweb.com/print/story/9159274

Basically, in the first two rounds of the Sony in '04 and '05 as well as the John Deere last year, she was 10 yards shorter than the players who made the cut, about a club further back, give or take, and her approach shots were about 10 feet further away. It's actually more her GIR that stands out than her distance or driving accuracy.

In any event, this is a better sample. As you pointed out, one round surely isn't enough to judge on, but as I said, I think the numbers will bear it out overall.

Since mr was talking about her driving averages.

Sony 2004: 271 yards.
Sony & John Deere 2005: 266.1 yards.
Sony 2006: 286 yards.

Make of those what you like, but as I stated before, 4 holes per tournament to be measured on makes proper measures pretty difficult to estimate.

As demonstrated the numbers show that Wie is on pace with other golfers who became successful on the PGA Tour. The main difference in that comparison is that Wie is spotting them about 5 years .

I don't think any of them could shoot a 68 at the age of 14 and 15 on the PGA Tour.

She's seemingly been around so long that many of her detractors don't want to hear about her age anymore, but it is still a very valid point and will continue to be for couple of more years. She's 16.

It certainly is a valid point, though - and looking at the LPGA Tour, this is clearly obvious - women/girls mature much faster than men. Top women's players in many sports - golf, tennis especially - are generally much younger than the top male players. Same goes for the up-and-comers.

Her age certainly is relevant - and certainly makes what she does all the more remarkable - but I do think when you declare yourself a professional it does diminish somewhat in terms of an excuse/reason for your play.

Tiger was busy winning U.S. Junior and World Junior championships at that age. Not any less remarkable than one 68 and a whole bunch of upper-70's on Tour. I'd actually argue more impressive.

Actually two 68's, a 70, and a 71, and whatever else.

I am a big tennis fan, and I knew that the case that top women tennis players were younger than the top men is often stated, and I believed it was exagerated, so I looked up the ages of the top 10 players.

Average womens age: 25.0
Average mens age: 24.0


I was shocked by the results. I expected it to be closer than people thought. However I did not think that the exact opposite of what many people said is actually the truth.

I believed that the top women were slightly younger, than the top men.

So there it is:
Men mature younger than women at tennis.
Who would've thought it?
Ages are stated for proof:

Rankings:
1 A. MAURESMO 27 years old
2 K. CLIJSTERS 23 years old
3 J. HENIN-HARDENNE 24 years old
4 M. SHARAPOVA 19 years old
5 N. PETROVA 24 years old
6 E. DEMENTIEVA 24 years old
7 S. KUZNETSOVA 21 years old
8 P. SCHNYDER 27 years old
9 M. PIERCE 31 years old
10 L. DAVENPORT 30 years old

Mens
1st Federer , R. 24 years old
2nd Nadal , R. 20 years old
3rd Nalbandian , D. 24 years old
4th Ljubicic , I. 27 years old
5th Davydenko , N. 25 years old
6th Blake , J. 26 years old
7th Ancic , M. 22 years old
8th Stepanek , R. 27 years old
9th Robredo , T. 24 years old
10th Baghdatis , M. 21 years old

It could also be interpreted as Men lose their competitive edge in tennis at a younger age than women.

I wonder why no one has brought up the age for top gymnasts.

Women mature physically probably 2-3 years sooner than men, so comparing Michelle to 18-19 year old males would be fair, IMO. The fact that there have been few young winners on the PGA tour in recent years is a fairly recent statistical anomoly, IMO. The fact that there have been a number of successful young gals recently can be attributed to a number of factors, the most prominent one being the large influx of great non-US golfers, mostly Korean. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about the relative difficulty of acheiving success at a young age from recent events.

Ok, name the teenaged male grand slam winners... there must be more men than women who have won grand slams, right? After all, men mature younger.

So, let's have a look at that list:

1. Boris Becker
Um...
Um...
Going once, going twice...
2. Oh yeah, Michael Chiang
3. Edberg (19)
4. Wielander (19)

Now, women:

1. Sharapova
2. What's-her-name Williams
3. That other Williams
4. Martina Hingis
5. Monica Seles
6. Chris Evert
7. Steffi Graf
8. Vicario
9. Majoli
10. Henin-Hardenne
11. Hanna Mandlikova
12. Sabatini
13. Tracy Austin
14. Kuznetzova
Probably more, I stopped looking.

You really got me on that one.

Basically the same thing happened in tennis as is happening in golf. The womens side of it started at a low base. Then young players were able to get onto the relatively weak tour.

That is why alot of youngsters were able to break through. However about 5 years ago, quite a big number of youngsters broke through and got to the top. Then everyone thought, hey being a teenager is a big advantage in womens tennis. But it wasn't that, because these same women are still dominating at 23+ years of age, and it has become much more difficult for the youngsters to get near the top of the sport, because the womens tennis tour is actually at a quite decent level.

As regards gymnastics, that has nothing to do with golf.
In athletics, women often mature later. In the 5,000 metres for example, sometimes the medals are often all over 30. Also women sprinters can be fairly long in the tooth.

Oh, and Juli Inkster is playing pretty well.