Wie's Ranking

***iacas*** · February 23, 2006

Just two questions... having seen Wie come in at third on the world golf ranking .

a) Where would you place Wie in the women's world golf ranking?
b) What would your top five be with approximate scores?

My answers:
a) 16th. Just below Natalie Gulbis (14 or 15).

b)
1 - Annika Sorenstam - 18.73
2 - Paula Creamer - 8.88
3 - Cristie Kerr - 8.23
4 - Ai Miyazato - 7.99
5 - Lorena Ochoa - 7.14

I think too much weight was given to international play. Who is Yuri Fudoh? Who knows, but she's in 4th place ahead of Cristie Kerr.

**NM Golf** · February 23, 2006

Well once again Michelle Wie gets something handed to her without deserving it. Ranked 3rd in the world without winning a dollar as a professional. Wow, I wish people gave me stuff without me earning it.

Part A
IMO you should have to perform as a professional before achieving a rank. The amateur crap should be tossed and professional acheivements should stand alone. And since beaker has no professional achievements nor has she even passed a Q School. She would be dead last .00 Right next to Lisa Chang. #540 in the world.

Part B
1. Sorenstam 18.47
2. Creamer 9.65
3. Cristie Kerr 8.55
4. Lorena Ochoa 8.2
5. Some Asian player (I really can't keep them all straight)

I answered this post because I am so tired of Michelle Wie I could scream. As soon as she wins I will cut her a break. As far as my top five well I will be the first to admit I know little about the LPGA tour as I find most womens, no make that all women sports, painfully boring to watch. Now I am not a male chauvinist I think women are great, smart, successful, all those things.(I live with three) The bottom line is most of the women on this list compete at a high level and some have done so for some time (ex. Juli Inkster) To put Michelle Wie ahead of them is a slap in the face to all they have done to try and legitamize and popularize womens athletics.

**ragontona** · February 24, 2006

Beaker? Dude, she's sixteen. Not even Morgan Pressell got that personal.

Look, I'm no Michelle Wie apologist. But she's catching a helluva lot of flack for something she absolutely had no control over. All she's done is play her game, which is still very much a work in progress. The World Ranking system is obviously flawed. I'm sure that this will cause them to take a closer look at the formula used to generate the rankings.

Yeah, no way in the world she should be ranked #3, I agree. The way the system is set up helps her in that she hasn't played many tournaments, but the ones she did play she did very well in. But as she plays more tournaments, "it'll all come out in the wash," as my dad used to say.

I look at these initial rankings like the preseason poll in NCAA football or basketball. Pretty much meaningless. The only thing that matters is winning during the season, and how the rankings look on December 31st will be a better indication of that.

We live in a world of hype, of "next big things," and we reward potential more than accomplishment (look at what first round picks make in the NFL). That's the way things are now. And you best believe if I was a sixteen year old with the potential to make millions and ensure my family's security for generations to come, I'd do exactly the same thing. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

There's no doubt that this girl has game, and in five years, we may be looking at a 21-year old like we've never seen before, male or female. I say we sit back and enjoy the ride.

**NM Golf** · February 24, 2006

Beaker? Dude, she's sixteen. Not even Morgan Pressell got that personal.

The beaker thing isn't mine but you are lying if you don't see the resemblance. And what does being sixteen have to do with looking like beaker?

**jeffgladchun** · February 24, 2006

Well once again Michelle Wie gets something handed to her without deserving it.

Exactly. For once she needs to earn something. It seems like women's golf is trying to manufacture her into some sort of superstar. I'm all for that

as long as she earns it.

**Baynative** · February 24, 2006

What are the elements of the rankings? Maybe they givespecial weight to commercial viability or endorsements.

***iacas*** · February 24, 2006

What are the elements of the rankings? Maybe they givespecial weight to commercial viability or endorsements.

Maybe. As I said on our podcast, the only thing I can figure is that their strength-of-field calculations are way off. That's the only way the #4 player is in there.

**kugino** · February 25, 2006

Exactly. For once she needs to earn something. It seems like women's golf is trying to manufacture her into some sort of superstar. I'm all for that

what do you mean she didn't deserve it? based on the

criteria of the world rankings she deserved #3! you might disagree with the criteria, but you can't say she didn't earn her place. you might not like michelle, but you can't fault her for the world ranking - she has no control over that stuff... but is the system flawed? i think so...a minimum of 15 tournaments is pretty small, if you ask me...some wie conspiracy people might think that they put the 15 tournament minimum in place just to get wie in there...sure looks like it, doesn't it?

**jeffgladchun** · February 25, 2006

what do you mean she didn't deserve it? based on the

Yeah, you're right. Wie didn't have any say in her #3 ranking, but the criteria seem a little suspect at best.

PaulaFan · February 25, 2006

This may sound strange coming from a Michelle Wie fan, but I was surprised at her #3 ranking also, and feel that she did not deserve it. She is a great golfer, to be sure, but there is no way she is that good.

But, what really ticked me off about the rankings is that Morgan Pressel isn't even ranked. Does that make any sense? She is every bit as good as Michelle Wie, so how does Michelle get #3 and Morgan not get rated at all? Yeah, the rankings system needs tweaking a bit.

***iacas*** · February 25, 2006

what do you mean she didn't deserve it?

Wie got in because she'd played the minimum 15 events (Pressel, to answer PaulaFan, did not).

So people saying Wie didn't "deserve" it are mostly, I think, echoing the sentiment that she didn't deserve to get all the exemptions she got that let her reach 15 tournaments.

**NM Golf** · February 25, 2006

Wie got in because she'd played the minimum 15 events (Pressel, to answer PaulaFan, did not).

Exactly, If she wasn't a freakishly tall 16 year old noone would have even heard of her. She has NEVER won any tournament of any importance EVER! I don't think anyone can argue she has the talent to be a fantastic female golfer, but she's not one until she PROVES it. Watch out also, she has been given so much so early without having to prove herself, she could easily fold like a cheap tent in a gale wind.

As far as a conspiracy to get her ranked well........even if there was one you couldn't blame them for it, it sure has caused a buzz about the LPGA.

**Baynative** · February 26, 2006

I've been derisive of the ranking, too. But, her performance in Hawaii may have silenced some of the critics a little. She outplayed Pressel, Creamer and Gulbis - making birdie on 18 would have put her in playoff.

**Baynative** · February 26, 2006

Well itlooks like the news of the LPGA is sketchy at best. The paper said the tourney was over. The LPGA site shows four rounds with one to be played- that would be tomorrow,the 26th. But, it gives the dates as FEB 23-25. PGATOUR .comsays WIE finished at 7 under - the LPGA leaderboard shows her at -13. GO FIGURE ! She is still playing well.

Meena Lee
-7F-14696865 202

Seon Hwa Lee
-117-146566 198
3
Michelle Wie
-6F-13677066 203

Natalie Gulbis
-117-126766 200
T5
Nicole Castrale
-3F-11686869 205

Lorena Ochoa
-2F-11647170 205
T5
Julieta Granada
-117-116965 201

Karin Sjodin
-4F-10687068 206

Cristie Kerr
-3F-9677169 207
T9
Lindsey Wright
-2F-9716670 207

Paula Creamer
-5F-8726967 208

Angela Stanford
-5F-8717067 208

Jeong Jang
-4F-8687268 208

Sophie Gustafson
-3F-8706969 208

Sakura Yokomine
-2F-8706870 208

Morgan Pressel
-1F-8677071 208

**kugino** · February 26, 2006

Exactly, If she wasn't a freakishly tall 16 year old noone would have even heard of her. She has NEVER won any tournament of any importance EVER! I don't think anyone can argue she has the talent to be a fantastic female golfer, but she's not one until she PROVES it. Watch out also, she has been given so much so early without having to prove herself, she could easily fold like a cheap tent in a gale wind.

hmmm, tell us how you REALLY feel about michelle.

you're right that she needs to start living up to her potential, but to say she's never won any important tournaments? what about the women's public links? that's one of the two top women's amateur events...pretty important, if you ask me.

**kugino** · February 26, 2006

Wie got in because she'd played the minimum 15 events (Pressel, to answer PaulaFan, did not).

so who "deserves" to get exemptions? it is, i believe, the prerogative of the tournament to give them out however they please...no one "deserves" to get exemptions, they just get them. it's a gift.

i think you can criticize michelle for hitting poor shots, silly drops that DQ her, not winning, etc...but i find it hard to criticize her for accepting invitations to play in tournaments...who wouldn't? if i had the choice of going through a few rounds of qualifying or doing a monday qualifier, or accepting a sponsor's exemption...hmmm, let me think...i just might choose the option that gets me in the tournament with no stress. how can you fault her for that? i think you have to fault the silly criteria of the world rankings or the companies/tournaments that offer the exemptions, but to take it out on michelle is misplaced, IMO.

***iacas*** · February 26, 2006

I don't fault her for accepting the things. Would you turn down $10k if someone just offered it to you?

Doesn't mean you earned the $10k, though, and it doesn't mean Michelle earned the exemptions more than someone else, for example.

It's a fine line, and I don't fault tournament directors for trying to get Michelle into the field. It gives their tourney a buzz, and that's their job.

I fault Michelle and her family a bit for taking so many of them, for failing to win at the amateur level consistently before turning pro, and so forth.

I said on the podcast this past week (yesterday) that it could happen that Michelle is out of golf by the age of 25. Right now it seems her parents are pushing her more than she's driving herself.

Touredgegal · February 26, 2006

Eric, Looks like you must watch the golf channel too much like other people I know. Your prediction appears to be rather good, and I suspect you're correct cause you use Titleist equipment. Bye the way, I need a new putter, my putter is from 1980 and really bad. I do OK with it but my PRO says I'd be a lot better of with the newer types. Any suggestions on a Titleist model?

Sign In

Wie's Ranking

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap

TST Partners

Posts

Important Information