You folks questioned how many times did Tiger lose after having a lead. I don't really know the answer to that question and I'm not inclined to bother to look, but even if there hasn't been too many times, how about this question. How many times has Tiger won when he hasn't had the lead going into the final round? Apparently, from reading all the comments over the years, it appears not very often if ever. Whether or not he got a lead during that final round and then lost it again, I wouldn't know, but Tiger appears to need to be leading going into the final round and I believe that a couple of those win were in playoffs, so he also didn't always have those great final rounds.
When a player goes into a final round in second place, one shot off the lead, and ends up in second place one shot off the lead and people are talking about the great round the leader has played and yet criticizing the second place player who had the EXACT same score for the day, does it not seem odd and unreasonable. Seems like if a 68 for the winner is great playing, then 68 for the second place player should be considered great playing too? Of course, I guess it depends on who that player is.
This next statement only applies to this weeks tournament. It wasnt about having a great round, but for me it was about finishing. She DID have a 2 stroke lead after 11 holes. Ive read alot on here about mental preparation and toughness, and at least THIS week, that was what she was lacking. She has to learn to put it away when she is in that position and I have no doubt that eventually she will.
I also get the impression from some posters that they are skeptical that Wie will ever win. Talk about betting against the odds. The only way Wie will never win is if she is hit by a bus or some similar tragedy strikes.
Posting with a tilt towards the idea that she might never win, or that the poster will only believe in her potential if she puts up a win is just silly. The evidence is starkly pointing to her winning 20 or more LPGA tourneys over the next 20 years, baring injury. I'd put money on that with no problem.
If she wins the Open next week that would be great for her, but it really won't change the odds that she'll be a great golfer. The record she's piled up (considering her age) over the last two years is already enough evidence to convince almost anyone that the odds of her success are highly likely.
Its good that Michelle Wie could care less about winning. You don't need to win to be the best player in the world, as the rankings award consistancy, not winning. Winning isn't everything, unless your Tiger Woods and need your ego stroked everyday.
If you are a professional athlete I would think that winning would and should be at the top of your list...and for everyone else who is sick of Michelle Wie...sorry...the hype is due to an amazing talent that is still budding and though championships are yet to be realized, she is one of many young players in a variety of sport who are singled out for their talent and potential at a young age so that we may follow the course of their careers as drama builds to see if greatness is ever achieved...it is a core drama inherent in sport...
Wie's -1 on the back 9 was the highest score of the top 4 finishers. That's the "mediocre" I was referring to. I'm not saying Wie's 68 wasn't great playing, because it was. Maybe some "inspired golf" of her own on the back 9 would've earned her her first title.
And some people accuse me of picking stats to suit the situation.
What is the back 9 number about anyway?
How about we make it about the last 10 holes:
Webb -3
Wie -3
Davies -3
Kim -4
the hype is due to an amazing talent that is still budding and though championships are yet to be realized, she is one of many young players in a variety of sport who are singled out for their talent and potential at a young age so that we may follow the course of their careers as drama builds to see if greatness is ever achieved...it is a core drama inherent in sport...
Exactly. Somewhere, on some message board, there's probably people bashing Reggie Bush and Lybron James saying that they'll never live up to the hype. Some people probably think that Dan Marino was lousy just because he never won the super bowl.
You folks questioned how many times did Tiger lose after having a lead. I don't really know the answer to that question and I'm not inclined to bother to look, but even if there hasn't been too many times, how about this question. How many times has Tiger won when he hasn't had the lead going into the final round? Apparently, from reading all the comments over the years, it appears not very often if ever. Whether or not he got a lead during that final round and then lost it again, I wouldn't know, but Tiger appears to need to be leading going into the final round and I believe that a couple of those win were in playoffs, so he also didn't always have those great final rounds.
Tiger has 14 come from behind wins on the PGA Tour. He's also had a few in his non-PGA Tour wins...his return from 8 shots behind Ernie Els in the 1998 Johnny Walker Classic comes to mind as well.
The ultimate score someone shoots when playing golf at the level that Wie and Webb played this week is basically about who gets the best bounces on any given day. Webb, Wie, Davies and Kim basically played the same level of golf over 4 days. One more putt lips out for Webb and one more putt finds the cup instead of burning the lip and Wie wins the tourney.
20 - 30 foot putts are some skill and some luck. I have a buddy that's about the same skill level as I am. Sometimes I win, sometimes he wins. Sometimes it's because he plays better that day and sometimes it's because I play better. More often though, it's who gets the best bounces, who's ball hits a branch and finds the fairway vs. the hazard, who has a chip in and who's ball lips the hole and runs 6 feet away. I would say that about half of the time, the winner in our group is the guy that gets the best bounces.
Wie could play at the exact same level she's played at the last 5 or 6 tourneys and over the years win 10 - 20 tourneys simply by getting better bounces than her closest opponents in any given tournament. The scarey thing is that since she's only 16, she's probably going to get much better (short game in particular) and she's going to get a few good bounces as well. Also, when she does break the ice and win a few, the intimidation factor will be there like it is for Tiger. Years from now, the same Wie bashers will be saying that the reason she wins so often is that the level of competition is too low on the LPGA, or that her opponents all roll over from fear. That's what the Tiger bashers from 2004 when he was rebuilding his swing are now saying. It's never praise for his game, it's all about how the competition is weak, scared, or rolls over under Tiger's glare.
Last edited by davehowe : July 30th, 2006 at 12:30 AM.
I just finished watching the replay of the last few holes on TGC and if there is one thing Michelle needs to improve on it would be being more agressive on her birdie putts... that's about it.
I just finished watching the replay of the last few holes on TGC and if there is one thing Michelle needs to improve on it would be being more agressive on her birdie putts... that's about it.
Chickening out on putts is a sign of the pressure getting to her. I'm sure she'll get better at that as she matures.
Chickening out on putts is a sign of the pressure getting to her. I'm sure she'll get better at that as she matures.
Her line is fine on most of them, she may be overthinking them. I noticed it especially on 16. She had the same line as Karrie and left it short right just as Karrie did. No excuse for leaving that short in that situation, down one. Just an objective observation. I still think the Michelle chokes stuff is nonsense.
I know this sounds like I'm playing the age card, and I guess I am, really. But I do think it matters that she's only 16. With this kind of experience over the coming years, she will either fold up her tent and go home or she will become an awesome hall of fame player.
Its good that Michelle Wie could care less about winning. You don't need to win to be the best player in the world, as the rankings award consistancy, not winning.
How many times has Tiger won when he hasn't had the lead going into the final round? Apparently, from reading all the comments over the years, it appears not very often if ever.
TONS of times. The stories of him coming back from 5, 6, 7, even 8 down to win tournaments in the final round are legendary, most of them occuring early in his career. He hasn't done it in a major, BUT he HAS done it PLENTY of times in his 49 career PGA Tour wins.
July 29th, 2006, 09:11 PM
And some people accuse me of picking stats to suit the situation.
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
