Women's US Open - Official Thread

[royalwulff]

Wie has done it again. She quit mid-round, once again saying it was her wrist. What I really can't understand is why they ( her camp ) allow her to contuine to play with an injury. I understand that if she truly is injured then perhaps hitting the ball may help, but until whe is healed why let her play only to withdraw? I am not even going to get into the debate as to whether she is really hurt or not.

[Q.Q.Quillume]

Wie has done it again. She quit mid-round, once again saying it was her wrist. What I really can't understand is why they ( her camp ) allow her to contuine to play with an injury. I understand that if she truly is injured then perhaps hitting the ball may help, but until whe is healed why let her play only to withdraw? I am not even going to get into the debate as to whether she is really hurt or not.

I'm not saying it's not her wrist, but on the other hand, her "camp" doesn't have a lot of credibility these days . . .

[royalwulff]

I'm not saying it's not her wrist, but on the other hand, her "camp" doesn't have a lot of credibility these days . . .

I would have to agree with you.

[iacas]

Wie has done it again. She quit mid-round, once again saying it was her wrist. What I really can't understand is why they ( her camp ) allow her to contuine to play with an injury. I understand that if she truly is injured then perhaps hitting the ball may help, but until whe is healed why let her play only to withdraw? I am not even going to get into the debate as to whether she is really hurt or not.

I believe she's really hurt, but I also think it's mostly in her mind. She and David Leadbetter have said it's not as strong as it used to be, but doctors have obviously cleared her to play. How much of it has to do with what's in her head versus how weak it actually is, why, that's the $10,000,000 question, right?

I'm not saying it's not her wrist, but on the other hand, her "camp" doesn't have a lot of credibility these days . . .

As I've said, the only thing I can fault them for in WDing before the 88 was that they didn't fess up to the reason beforehand. I don't fault her for WDing - it would have been stupid to card an 88+.

I don't doubt that her wrist is still bugging her. BUT that being said, they've been telling us the doctor says it's fine. It's not like the course has a ton of rough. I wonder if her sponsors will care if she takes the REST of the year off to try to recuperate fully so she can try to get her LPGA card at Q-School (if she wants to do that - she probably won't care if she is actually going to school and doing it full-time).

[lamebums]

4. She's not Michelle Wie.

Fair enough. I'll pull for her, then. Just like the other guy said.

[royalwulff]

Ok I have a couple of questions;
1. I have read on another site, that since this is a USGA event and not a LPGA event, does the 88 rule that is a LPGA rule still apply?
2. I can't help but wonder what her sponsors are thinking about her right now, this has to be somewhat of an embarrasment for them. Will they even keep her on as a spokesperson? The other part of this is, I wonder how many tournaments her contracts say she has to play?
I do think that there are some mental issues going on right now.

[iacas]

Ok I have a couple of questions;

I don't know, but:

a) remember it only applies to non-members b) Michelle wasn't in danger of shooting 88 either day.

[royalwulff]

I don't know, but:

non members or members?

[iacas]

non members or members?

Non-members, as I said. Michelle Wie is not a member of the LPGA Tour.

[Shindig]

non members or members?

I believe the Women's Open is like the US Open, only for women, in that the respective tour "co-sponsors" the event, in the sense that prize money paid counts towards that tour's official money list, wins, etc.

The LPGA's rule of 88 - which I don't believe Wie was in danger of violating this week - states that a non-member who cards an 88 or worse in an official round in a sponsored event is gone for the year from LPGA events (no more Monday qualifying, no more sponsor's invites, etc). Being a member of a tour is like having your card; if Lorena Ochoa were to card an 88, she could play the next week if she wanted to do so, as she's an LPGA Tour member. Michelle Wie isn't a member of the tour, on purpose, as it would keep her from being able to play opposite events without permission. So, the relevant question is: if someone were to shoot an 88 at the U.S. Women's Open, and that someone were to be a non-member of the LPGA Tour, would said someone be prohibited from playing in LPGA event sfor the rest of that year?

[royalwulff]

Thanks for the help, that really cleared things up for me.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ....

This is for Shindig, a couple of posts before this one --

The LPGA's 88-and-out rule does not apply to the US Women's Open or the Women's British Open because the two events are not conducted either directly or jointly by the LPGA.

Even your Oldsmobile should be happy.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[Shindig]

Greetings ....

Good to know. I guess related, does the PGA Tour have anything to do with the US Open or British Open, or do they just count those events towards money list, card exemptions, etc?

[golfchief]

Wie isn't a member of the tour, on purpose, as it would keep her from being able to play opposite events without permission.

Sorry ,she is NOT a member of the tour because she is not old enough.

[Shindig]

Sorry ,she is NOT a member of the tour because she is not old enough.

Minor issue (pun intended). If she applied for an exemption, especially had she done so on her 17th birthday, I doubt she'd have been rejected.

[iacas]

Sorry ,she is NOT a member of the tour because she is not old enough.

As Shindig said, that's unlikely to be the reason. She's never applied, and since she's now graduated from high school, she would likely have been granted the opportunity. Others have gotten in at 17, particularly after graduating. Pressel had to wait until she was 18, but was given an exemption to Q School, and so on.

[Q.Q.Quillume]

Per http://www.lpga.com/content_1.aspx?pid=5394∣=2 Morgan Pressel was granted full LPGA Tour membership starting in January 2006.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Pressel was born May 23, 1988.

Since Morgan didn't turn 18 until May 23, 2006, it appears to me Morgan had full LPGA Tour membership almost five months before turning 18.

Per http://www.lpga.com/content_1.aspx?pid=5394∣=2 -- The LPGA Constitution states that any female (at birth) 18 years of age or over shall be eligible to apply for membership in the association's Tournament membership; and that women between the ages of 15 and 18 may be granted special permission to apply for membership by satisfactorily demonstrating to the Commissioner their capacity to assume professional and financial responsibilities required of the association's Tournament membership.

So, clearly Michelle Wie is old enough.

[iacas]

Since Morgan didn't turn 18 until May 23, 2006, it appears to me Morgan had full LPGA Tour membership almost five months before turning 18.

This is a lot more informative than checking her birthday:

(Dec. 19) -- LPGA commissioner Carolyn Bivens has granted Morgan Pressel an exemption from the tour's minimum age requirement of 18, and she will be eligible to play as a full member when the season begins Feb. 16 at the SBS Open in Hawaii. The tour had originally ruled that Pressel could not play as a member until her 18th Birthday on May 23. But Bivens reconsidered the matter after Pressel finished T-6 at Q school earlier this month. Golf World, citing sources, reported in its Dec. 16 issue that Pressel's new petition would be successful.

So, clearly Michelle Wie is old enough.

She'd have to apply for an exemption from the rule, and she probably wouldn't win enough money this year to "earn" her card for 2008. She'd probably still have to go to Q School.