Wie shoots 84 at KPMG states she might be done

[JaNelson38]

> @"Awsi Dooger" said:

> > @mukster said:

> > Am I the only one that feels that MW has been emotionally done for some years now?

> I don't feel that way. She had a swing change and awful season in 2016 but then rebounded noticeably in 2017, determined to make the Solheim Cup team. She played well there and by late 2017 her form and energy were very good. I followed her at Naples CME to end that season. Michelle was in contention to win deep into the back nine. I remember posting here that it was the most excited I had ever seen Michelle and her team in years. They were high fiving all over the place.

>

> It wasn't surprising at all when that form carried over to a victory early in 2018. But as I posted in late 2017, her new swing and technique were good but hardly the equivalent of that great stinger form she showed in late 2013 that carried over into her best season of 2014. It's just a shame Michelle didn't take that stinger style and continue with it the remainder of her career. It was easily the best remedy to partially overcome her height disadvantage, and actually have a tight consistent game out there.

>

> Maybe that stinger style put too much pressure on her body. I'll concede that possibility. There are so many injuries and rationales for them it's difficult to make full sense of it. But that idiotic Leadbetter "A Swing" that I saw in Ocala a few years ago was a moronic disaster and basically wasted a vital year or two of Michelle's late 20s. I remember posting that it looked like a giraffe attempting a contrived version of Lydia Ko's swing. Loops all over the place. Dispersion everywhere. No chance that could ever succeed.

>

> I always think of late 20s as when these LPGA players are mostly gone. You better do it before then. Sure there are exceptions but far more examples. The exceptions are generally the later blooming players. The ones who were prominent early have already been on stage a decade or more. Nobody should be shocked that Creamer and Pressel declined in their late 20s, and now players like Inbee Park and So Yeon Ryu are not quite what they were. Michelle wasn't going to be immune to that. I always expected she would get married somewhere close to 30. You can see by all her varied interests that she wants to have a full life. I'm sure children will follow.

>

> By far the most hilarious post in this thread was the one asserting Michelle should have bypassed college. What a brainstorm. Yeah, I don't want a Stanford education on my resume, and during a time frame when I fit in with the age of the student body and could enjoy football games, etc. No, I want to be hitting range balls every week on the LPGA. I want to be another dullard like Lexi Thompson or Lydia Ko who had the opportunity but gave it away.

>

> I don't look at Michelle's twitter often. But when I do there is invariably a reference to Stanford and her college friends. What a shock. Greatest years of your life and she took full advantage. Those memories and experiences will mean much more to her than any 1 or 2 additional victories she might have had, which is doubtful anyway. If Michelle was going to win big it needed to happen early, in those mid teen years amidst so many chances and before the injuries.

>

> When Michelle is still savoring her Stanford years and contacting old college buddies 3 or 5 decades from now maybe Lexi and Lydia can find some of their trophies and dust them off.

 

Michelle probably made it a point to stay in college all 4 years because that would be her first and only chance to get away from her parents and live a semi-individual life.

 

I hate to sound that way, and there's nothing wrong with being close to your folks, but for a soon-to-be-30 year old to continue to be controlled by overbearing parents is just beyond unhealthy. Her emotional state is probably as destroyed as her physical state.

 

 

[Chief Illiniwek]

> @legitimategolf said:

> Michelle had great showings in pro tournaments as a youth, but she was never a big winner. The 2003 Publinks win was her only sniff at a national championship. The high finishes were impressive, but winning is a whole different deal. To me it is obvious now that Michelle never really had the winning potential. She never dominated any level of competition, outside of Hawaii at least. IMO she got famous because her adolescent swing was beautiful and she cut a distinctive figure on the course, and because she got the full backing of Nike and other big monies. They spent a lot to convince people that she was great. And you know what, judging by this thread, it really, really worked. In 50 years people will still be like, "That Michelle Wie, could've been the next Tiger, if not for XYZ..."

 

You seriously don't think she had insane potential? You don't think a FOURTEEN year old girl missing the cut by a stroke or two at a PGA tour event showed she already had a gear at 14 years old that most seasoned LPGA players could never get to?

[legitimategolf]

> @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > @legitimategolf said:

> > Michelle had great showings in pro tournaments as a youth, but she was never a big winner. The 2003 Publinks win was her only sniff at a national championship. The high finishes were impressive, but winning is a whole different deal. To me it is obvious now that Michelle never really had the winning potential. She never dominated any level of competition, outside of Hawaii at least. IMO she got famous because her adolescent swing was beautiful and she cut a distinctive figure on the course, and because she got the full backing of Nike and other big monies. They spent a lot to convince people that she was great. And you know what, judging by this thread, it really, really worked. In 50 years people will still be like, "That Michelle Wie, could've been the next Tiger, if not for XYZ..."

>

> You seriously don't think she had insane potential? You don't think a FOURTEEN year old girl missing the cut by a stroke or two at a PGA tour event showed she already had a gear at 14 years old that most seasoned LPGA players could never get to?

I think she had a great swing! A really great swing. A swing for the ages. But IMO there's much more to winning tournament golf than having a great swing. Ask Anne Van Dam! Lots of hindsight obviously but Michelle never had the mentality to win in bunches. Look at teen Lydia, she impressed nobody with her swing, but she was the real deal! She was great at winning. On the other hand, Michelle did not win on the LPGA until 2009. IMO she had a unique set of skills that enabled her to compete in a couple of Sony Opens ably. Let's not forget she also played pretty badly in most of her other forays into men's golf.

 

Looking now at Michelle's resume, are you still trying to argue that she had insane potential? And if so, what has prevented her from fulfilling it? People are still so impressed with Michelle, but in my opinion she has proven to us what she is. A fair to middling LPGA pro.

[North Texas]

> @legitimategolf said:

> > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > > @legitimategolf said:

> > > Michelle had great showings in pro tournaments as a youth, but she was never a big winner. The 2003 Publinks win was her only sniff at a national championship. The high finishes were impressive, but winning is a whole different deal. To me it is obvious now that Michelle never really had the winning potential. She never dominated any level of competition, outside of Hawaii at least. IMO she got famous because her adolescent swing was beautiful and she cut a distinctive figure on the course, and because she got the full backing of Nike and other big monies. They spent a lot to convince people that she was great. And you know what, judging by this thread, it really, really worked. In 50 years people will still be like, "That Michelle Wie, could've been the next Tiger, if not for XYZ..."

> >

> > You seriously don't think she had insane potential? You don't think a FOURTEEN year old girl missing the cut by a stroke or two at a PGA tour event showed she already had a gear at 14 years old that most seasoned LPGA players could never get to?

> I think she had a great swing! A really great swing. A swing for the ages. But IMO there's much more to winning tournament golf than having a great swing. Ask Anne Van Dam! Lots of hindsight obviously but Michelle never had the mentality to win in bunches. Look at teen Lydia, she impressed nobody with her swing, but she was the real deal! She was great at winning. On the other hand, Michelle did not win on the LPGA until 2009. IMO she had a unique set of skills that enabled her to compete in a couple of Sony Opens ably. Let's not forget she also played pretty badly in most of her other forays into men's golf.

>

> Looking now at Michelle's resume, are you still trying to argue that she had insane potential? And if so, what has prevented her from fulfilling it? People are still so impressed with Michelle, but in my opinion she has proven to us what she is. A fair to middling LPGA pro.

 

Lots of theories on what prevented her from fulfilling her potential but she definitely had the potential to dominate the LPGA tour.

 

But she has also proven to us what she is. Lots of theories on that as well.

 

 

[GoGoErky]

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @legitimategolf said:

> > > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > > > @legitimategolf said:

> > > > Michelle had great showings in pro tournaments as a youth, but she was never a big winner. The 2003 Publinks win was her only sniff at a national championship. The high finishes were impressive, but winning is a whole different deal. To me it is obvious now that Michelle never really had the winning potential. She never dominated any level of competition, outside of Hawaii at least. IMO she got famous because her adolescent swing was beautiful and she cut a distinctive figure on the course, and because she got the full backing of Nike and other big monies. They spent a lot to convince people that she was great. And you know what, judging by this thread, it really, really worked. In 50 years people will still be like, "That Michelle Wie, could've been the next Tiger, if not for XYZ..."

> > >

> > > You seriously don't think she had insane potential? You don't think a FOURTEEN year old girl missing the cut by a stroke or two at a PGA tour event showed she already had a gear at 14 years old that most seasoned LPGA players could never get to?

> > I think she had a great swing! A really great swing. A swing for the ages. But IMO there's much more to winning tournament golf than having a great swing. Ask Anne Van Dam! Lots of hindsight obviously but Michelle never had the mentality to win in bunches. Look at teen Lydia, she impressed nobody with her swing, but she was the real deal! She was great at winning. On the other hand, Michelle did not win on the LPGA until 2009. IMO she had a unique set of skills that enabled her to compete in a couple of Sony Opens ably. Let's not forget she also played pretty badly in most of her other forays into men's golf.

> >

> > Looking now at Michelle's resume, are you still trying to argue that she had insane potential? And if so, what has prevented her from fulfilling it? People are still so impressed with Michelle, but in my opinion she has proven to us what she is. A fair to middling LPGA pro.

>

> Lots of theories on what prevented her from fulfilling her potential but she definitely had the potential to dominate the LPGA tour.

>

> But she has also proven to us what she is. Lots of theories on that as well.

>

>

 

I could see if she was a dominant force in amateur events (minus anything in Hawaii) that would lead to having potential to dominate the lpga but she wasn’t the most successful amateur and her parents/management rushing to turn her pro didn’t give her the chance to learn to win at every level and dominate.

 

It was more about the hype and getting the money flowing early

[Shilgy]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @"North Texas" said:

> > > @legitimategolf said:

> > > > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > > > > @legitimategolf said:

> > > > > Michelle had great showings in pro tournaments as a youth, but she was never a big winner. The 2003 Publinks win was her only sniff at a national championship. The high finishes were impressive, but winning is a whole different deal. To me it is obvious now that Michelle never really had the winning potential. She never dominated any level of competition, outside of Hawaii at least. IMO she got famous because her adolescent swing was beautiful and she cut a distinctive figure on the course, and because she got the full backing of Nike and other big monies. They spent a lot to convince people that she was great. And you know what, judging by this thread, it really, really worked. In 50 years people will still be like, "That Michelle Wie, could've been the next Tiger, if not for XYZ..."

> > > >

> > > > You seriously don't think she had insane potential? You don't think a FOURTEEN year old girl missing the cut by a stroke or two at a PGA tour event showed she already had a gear at 14 years old that most seasoned LPGA players could never get to?

> > > I think she had a great swing! A really great swing. A swing for the ages. But IMO there's much more to winning tournament golf than having a great swing. Ask Anne Van Dam! Lots of hindsight obviously but Michelle never had the mentality to win in bunches. Look at teen Lydia, she impressed nobody with her swing, but she was the real deal! She was great at winning. On the other hand, Michelle did not win on the LPGA until 2009. IMO she had a unique set of skills that enabled her to compete in a couple of Sony Opens ably. Let's not forget she also played pretty badly in most of her other forays into men's golf.

> > >

> > > Looking now at Michelle's resume, are you still trying to argue that she had insane potential? And if so, what has prevented her from fulfilling it? People are still so impressed with Michelle, but in my opinion she has proven to us what she is. A fair to middling LPGA pro.

> >

> > Lots of theories on what prevented her from fulfilling her potential but she definitely had the potential to dominate the LPGA tour.

> >

> > But she has also proven to us what she is. Lots of theories on that as well.

> >

> >

>

> I could see if she was a dominant force in amateur events (minus anything in Hawaii) that would lead to having potential to dominate the lpga but she wasn’t the most successful amateur and her parents/management rushing to turn her pro didn’t give her the chance to learn to win at every level and dominate.

>

> It was more about the hype and getting the money flowing early

 

Hype had nothing to do with top 5 finishes in professional majors at the age of 14. Had nothing to do with a Nike hype machine at all. She earned every single accolade she received.

Who knows what caused the -relative- lack of success in amateur and pro success? Some of the amateur lack of wins I would chalk up to location. Living in Hawaii it is a long, and very expensive, proposition to play in amateyr events on the mainland. Perhaps if she lived in the heartland she would not have played in men's pro events-the Sony in particular- if other "big" amateur events were more available to her. She won the Hawaii amatuer ladies as a what? 13 year old? Where else was she to play events that would challenge her without breaking the bank? She has had a decent career. It just fell short of what many expected.

The parent issue is more of a culture thing in my understanding. Other women on the LPGA have suffered the same more or less. As I recall it was Na Young Choi that told the parents to stay home? But if you go to an LPGA event you will see many other parents hovering about. Right or wrong...and by now with Wie it is wrong to me but who am I to judge someone else's beliefs on family...it is the path they chose.

At the end of the day I feel for her. Her life has been scrutinized since the age of 12 or so. And had to put up with the slings and arrows from strangers that know nothing of her life, just what they have read. My wife and I mention that quite often as regards athletes and other celebrities. No amount of money would make me want their life with the constant barrage of paparazzi and online scrutiny.

[Titleist_PT23]

> @Shilgy said:

> The parent issue is more of a culture thing in my understanding. Other women on the LPGA have suffered the same more or less. As I recall it was Na Young Choi that told the parents to stay home? But if you go to an LPGA event you will see many other parents hovering about. Right or wrong...and by now with Wie it is wrong to me but who am I to judge someone else's beliefs on family...it is the path they chose.

I tend to agree with this part.

 

> @Shilgy said:

> At the end of the day I feel for her. Her life has been scrutinized since the age of 12 or so. And had to put up with the slings and arrows from strangers that know nothing of her life, just what they have read. My wife and I mention that quite often as regards athletes and other celebrities. No amount of money would make me want their life with the constant barrage of paparazzi and online scrutiny.

I'm not sure on this one. Send me a few hundred million, let me test it out, and I'll get back to you.

 

[18majors]

@agolf1

 

Michelle's peak earnings were probably no more than $10-15 million per, and no more than 3-4 years.

She'd be lucky to have $20-30 million in networth.

Hundred of millions are for stars who make at least $50-60 millions per over a 10-20 years period.

[legitimategolf]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @"North Texas" said:

> > > > @legitimategolf said:

> > > > > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > > > > > @legitimategolf said:

> > > > > > Michelle had great showings in pro tournaments as a youth, but she was never a big winner. The 2003 Publinks win was her only sniff at a national championship. The high finishes were impressive, but winning is a whole different deal. To me it is obvious now that Michelle never really had the winning potential. She never dominated any level of competition, outside of Hawaii at least. IMO she got famous because her adolescent swing was beautiful and she cut a distinctive figure on the course, and because she got the full backing of Nike and other big monies. They spent a lot to convince people that she was great. And you know what, judging by this thread, it really, really worked. In 50 years people will still be like, "That Michelle Wie, could've been the next Tiger, if not for XYZ..."

> > > > >

> > > > > You seriously don't think she had insane potential? You don't think a FOURTEEN year old girl missing the cut by a stroke or two at a PGA tour event showed she already had a gear at 14 years old that most seasoned LPGA players could never get to?

> > > > I think she had a great swing! A really great swing. A swing for the ages. But IMO there's much more to winning tournament golf than having a great swing. Ask Anne Van Dam! Lots of hindsight obviously but Michelle never had the mentality to win in bunches. Look at teen Lydia, she impressed nobody with her swing, but she was the real deal! She was great at winning. On the other hand, Michelle did not win on the LPGA until 2009. IMO she had a unique set of skills that enabled her to compete in a couple of Sony Opens ably. Let's not forget she also played pretty badly in most of her other forays into men's golf.

> > > >

> > > > Looking now at Michelle's resume, are you still trying to argue that she had insane potential? And if so, what has prevented her from fulfilling it? People are still so impressed with Michelle, but in my opinion she has proven to us what she is. A fair to middling LPGA pro.

> > >

> > > Lots of theories on what prevented her from fulfilling her potential but she definitely had the potential to dominate the LPGA tour.

> > >

> > > But she has also proven to us what she is. Lots of theories on that as well.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I could see if she was a dominant force in amateur events (minus anything in Hawaii) that would lead to having potential to dominate the lpga but she wasn’t the most successful amateur and her parents/management rushing to turn her pro didn’t give her the chance to learn to win at every level and dominate.

> >

> > It was more about the hype and getting the money flowing early

>

> Hype had nothing to do with top 5 finishes in professional majors at the age of 14. Had nothing to do with a Nike hype machine at all. She earned every single accolade she received.

> Who knows what caused the -relative- lack of success in amateur and pro success? Some of the amateur lack of wins I would chalk up to location. Living in Hawaii it is a long, and very expensive, proposition to play in amateyr events on the mainland. Perhaps if she lived in the heartland she would not have played in men's pro events-the Sony in particular- if other "big" amateur events were more available to her. She won the Hawaii amatuer ladies as a what? 13 year old? Where else was she to play events that would challenge her without breaking the bank? She has had a decent career. It just fell short of what many expected.

> The parent issue is more of a culture thing in my understanding. Other women on the LPGA have suffered the same more or less. As I recall it was Na Young Choi that told the parents to stay home? But if you go to an LPGA event you will see many other parents hovering about. Right or wrong...and by now with Wie it is wrong to me but who am I to judge someone else's beliefs on family...it is the path they chose.

> At the end of the day I feel for her. Her life has been scrutinized since the age of 12 or so. And had to put up with the slings and arrows from strangers that know nothing of her life, just what they have read. My wife and I mention that quite often as regards athletes and other celebrities. No amount of money would make me want their life with the constant barrage of paparazzi and online scrutiny.

 

Not that impressed with the top 5 finishes in majors, I will be honest. Lexi won an actual LPGA event at age 16. Lydia won a pro tournament at 14, as did Brooke. Lydia won on the LPGA at age 15! Wins are lot more impressive than top 5s IMHO.

[Chief Illiniwek]

Everyone is making good points and it just depends what angle you look at it.

 

I honestly think 50-75% of LPGA players would not do well at all if they gave a PGA Tour event a try. And Wie did it as a 14 year old girl. If that requires a very particular skill set, I would say that skill set was length and accuracy! And I don't think enough credit is given to her injuries. Especially her wrist injuries. They totally changed how she played. Maybe part of that is mismanagement in trying to return too early.

 

And yes I do think she wasn't developed properly. There seems to be something to learning to win at all levels, and Wie's handlers ignored that.

 

All that said, I'll still never be in the camp that she was mostly "hype" or wasn't absolutely loaded with talent. If you're a women's golf coach and you're picking a 14 year old protege, you'd be crazy to not pick a 14 year old Wie over any other LPGA player of all time. Maybe rewriting the story from the early 2000's on with a focus on winning at each level could've fulfilled the potential that was clearly there.

[legitimategolf]

> @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> Everyone is making good points and it just depends what angle you look at it.

 

Best just to look at the hard numbers IMO. Every single player out there is fighting hard, has obstacles to overcome. Poor, disabled, hobbled, embattled, underprivileged Michelle wasn't the only one. It's difficult for everyone. You can make excuses for each and every participant, try to parse out the "real" rankings of who's better than who, or you can just look at the results. Ultimately professional sports people are measured by results. I know Michelle's resume arguably deserves many asterisks, but this is not really the context to say could've-should've-would've IMO. She's had a long full career IMO, 260+ starts on the LPGA, plenty of opportunity to prove her greatness. You talk as if she's somehow been denied the opportunity.

[Argonne69]

On the parenting angle, there are plenty of parents out there on tour. Lexi's father is there regularly, as is Brooke's. Jaye Marie's father is out there. In a few tournaments I've bumped into So Yeon's, Lydia's, Minjee's, Jenny Shin's, and Danielle's moms. Chella's dad still caddies for her.

 

[Shilgy]

> @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> Everyone is making good points and it just depends what angle you look at it.

>

> I honestly think 50-75% of LPGA players would not do well at all if they gave a PGA Tour event a try. And Wie did it as a 14 year old girl. If that requires a very particular skill set, I would say that skill set was length and accuracy! And I don't think enough credit is given to her injuries. Especially her wrist injuries. They totally changed how she played. Maybe part of that is mismanagement in trying to return too early.

>

> And yes I do think she wasn't developed properly. There seems to be something to learning to win at all levels, and Wie's handlers ignored that.

>

> All that said, I'll still never be in the camp that she was mostly "hype" or wasn't absolutely loaded with talent. If you're a women's golf coach and you're picking a 14 year old protege, you'd be crazy to not pick a 14 year old Wie over any other LPGA player of all time. Maybe rewriting the story from the early 2000's on with a focus on winning at each level could've fulfilled the potential that was clearly there.

 

I am agreeing with you.

 

Not every phenom becomes a generational superstar. Does that mean the hype at the beginning was misplaced? Maybe but not necessarily. Some do not continue to up their game to the talent at the next level. Some have injuries. Some life just gets in the way(thinking of Josh Hamilton as I type that one). Some have solid careers but not at the level that many expected.

Wie has not had a bad career. She just did not reach the heights expected by many. Look at her 5 wins with a major.....5 Solheim Cup teams(yes, one of the picks may have been generous).... look at her money rank finishes 14-9-18-64-41-4-49-105-19-39.... Those are not superstar numbers of course but which of you would not love to have a daughter reach those achievements? Or would you trash her for doing the same?

[GoGoErky]

> @Argonne69 said:

> On the parenting angle, there are plenty of parents out there on tour. Lexi's father is there regularly, as is Brooke's. Jaye Marie's father is out there. In a few tournaments I've bumped into So Yeon's, Lydia's, Minjee's, Jenny Shin's, and Danielle's moms. Chella's dad still caddies for her.

>

 

Big difference from being out there supporting compared to making decisions about career, coach, swing, etc. when lydia’s parents started pushing for her to flatten out her swing and were at her lessons with leadbetter telling her to do something different then it becomes a problem

 

[new2g0lf]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > Everyone is making good points and it just depends what angle you look at it.

> >

> > I honestly think 50-75% of LPGA players would not do well at all if they gave a PGA Tour event a try. And Wie did it as a 14 year old girl. If that requires a very particular skill set, I would say that skill set was length and accuracy! And I don't think enough credit is given to her injuries. Especially her wrist injuries. They totally changed how she played. Maybe part of that is mismanagement in trying to return too early.

> >

> > And yes I do think she wasn't developed properly. There seems to be something to learning to win at all levels, and Wie's handlers ignored that.

> >

> > All that said, I'll still never be in the camp that she was mostly "hype" or wasn't absolutely loaded with talent. If you're a women's golf coach and you're picking a 14 year old protege, you'd be crazy to not pick a 14 year old Wie over any other LPGA player of all time. Maybe rewriting the story from the early 2000's on with a focus on winning at each level could've fulfilled the potential that was clearly there.

>

> I am agreeing with you.

>

> Not every phenom becomes a generational superstar. Does that mean the hype at the beginning was misplaced? Maybe but not necessarily. Some do not continue to up their game to the talent at the next level. Some have injuries. Some life just gets in the way(thinking of Josh Hamilton as I type that one). Some have solid careers but not at the level that many expected.

> Wie has not had a bad career. She just did not reach the heights expected by many. Look at her 5 wins with a major.....5 Solheim Cup teams(yes, one of the picks may have been generous).... look at her money rank finishes 14-9-18-64-41-4-49-105-19-39.... Those are not superstar numbers of course but which of you would not love to have a daughter reach those achievements? Or would you trash her for doing the same?

 

The bar was set very high for her and she didn't reach it. Overall a respectable career but I think most had higher expectations of her. In the end she did what she wanted, went to college, lived life of a near typical college student and made enough money that she should be set for life.

[buckeyefl]

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @legitimategolf said:

> > > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > > > @legitimategolf said:

> > > > Michelle had great showings in pro tournaments as a youth, but she was never a big winner. The 2003 Publinks win was her only sniff at a national championship. The high finishes were impressive, but winning is a whole different deal. To me it is obvious now that Michelle never really had the winning potential. She never dominated any level of competition, outside of Hawaii at least. IMO she got famous because her adolescent swing was beautiful and she cut a distinctive figure on the course, and because she got the full backing of Nike and other big monies. They spent a lot to convince people that she was great. And you know what, judging by this thread, it really, really worked. In 50 years people will still be like, "That Michelle Wie, could've been the next Tiger, if not for XYZ..."

> > >

> > > You seriously don't think she had insane potential? You don't think a FOURTEEN year old girl missing the cut by a stroke or two at a PGA tour event showed she already had a gear at 14 years old that most seasoned LPGA players could never get to?

> > I think she had a great swing! A really great swing. A swing for the ages. But IMO there's much more to winning tournament golf than having a great swing. Ask Anne Van Dam! Lots of hindsight obviously but Michelle never had the mentality to win in bunches. Look at teen Lydia, she impressed nobody with her swing, but she was the real deal! She was great at winning. On the other hand, Michelle did not win on the LPGA until 2009. IMO she had a unique set of skills that enabled her to compete in a couple of Sony Opens ably. Let's not forget she also played pretty badly in most of her other forays into men's golf.

> >

> > Looking now at Michelle's resume, are you still trying to argue that she had insane potential? And if so, what has prevented her from fulfilling it? People are still so impressed with Michelle, but in my opinion she has proven to us what she is. A fair to middling LPGA pro.

>

> Lots of theories on what prevented her from fulfilling her potential but she definitely had the potential to dominate the LPGA tour.

>

> But she has also proven to us what she is. Lots of theories on that as well.

>

>

 

Potential? I'm on the fence on that one depending on how you look at it. She had a pretty swing and at 6 ft tall she hit it a long way for a woman but she was never a great putterbforva tour player. Even at a young age which is unusual. Add to that immaturity, her parents and bad decisions and I think she's right about where she should be. Her biggest hurdle was at home.

[Ignatius Reilly]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > Everyone is making good points and it just depends what angle you look at it.

> >

> > I honestly think 50-75% of LPGA players would not do well at all if they gave a PGA Tour event a try. And Wie did it as a 14 year old girl. If that requires a very particular skill set, I would say that skill set was length and accuracy! And I don't think enough credit is given to her injuries. Especially her wrist injuries. They totally changed how she played. Maybe part of that is mismanagement in trying to return too early.

> >

> > And yes I do think she wasn't developed properly. There seems to be something to learning to win at all levels, and Wie's handlers ignored that.

> >

> > All that said, I'll still never be in the camp that she was mostly "hype" or wasn't absolutely loaded with talent. If you're a women's golf coach and you're picking a 14 year old protege, you'd be crazy to not pick a 14 year old Wie over any other LPGA player of all time. Maybe rewriting the story from the early 2000's on with a focus on winning at each level could've fulfilled the potential that was clearly there.

>

> I am agreeing with you.

>

> Not every phenom becomes a generational superstar. Does that mean the hype at the beginning was misplaced? Maybe but not necessarily. Some do not continue to up their game to the talent at the next level. Some have injuries. Some life just gets in the way(thinking of Josh Hamilton as I type that one). Some have solid careers but not at the level that many expected.

> Wie has not had a bad career. She just did not reach the heights expected by many. Look at her 5 wins with a major.....5 Solheim Cup teams(yes, one of the picks may have been generous).... look at her money rank finishes 14-9-18-64-41-4-49-105-19-39.... Those are not superstar numbers of course but which of you would not love to have a daughter reach those achievements? Or would you trash her for doing the same?

 

I think that's a very good summary.

 

She had really great potential at a young age. She achieved quite a lot, but less than expected. She plateaued a little sooner and lower than expected.

 

It happens. Take a look at some of the annual draft summaries for pro sports and you see some first round picks, even the very occasional number 1 overall who never made it to play in the big leagues. Did they have bad parents, or did they just hit a wall at a very awkward and public time?

 

Was she as good as Lexi, Lydia, Brooke? Pretty much "yes" at age 14, not so much after that. Those girls are good. Kinda like Tiger's better than Ty or CHIII or anyone else with potential when very young. Doesn't mean they or their team messed up their careers, just means they were very very good at a young age, but didn't keep improving - they'd already hit their peaks.

[MountainGoat]

Announced today that she's taking the rest of the year off.

[tbowles411]

> @MountainGoat said:

> Announced today that she's taking the rest of the year off.

How can she not? She's in no condition to play. I hope this isn't it though. All that potential was smacked around by expectations.

 

[4rheel]

She needs to go see the guys at Fujikura and switch to graphite in her irons;P

[Chief Illiniwek]

I'm going to strongly disagree, and actually probably with even some of my own statements. Yes Wie had potential to be the best ever, but it was MORE than just potential. At 14, she already HAD more raw talent and skill than most of the LPGA. She didn't look like maybe she'd develop into a big time golf talent. She already WAS! She was playing PGA tour events and holding her own! Does that register with you guys?!? A 14 year old girl barely missing the cut?!? This isn't prime Annika giving it a try. This isn't Lincicome with her length playing what was not much more than a web.com event at the Barbasol. This is a 14 year old girl hanging with the big boys at a decent PGA tour event. That's not potential which is a word tossed at Wie. She was there already. It just didn't last, or I truly think we'd be talking about one of the best ever, whether she'd learned to win at every level or not. Do any of you think prime Lydia or prime Inbee could've showed up at the Sony Open and beaten nearly half the field?

[buckeyefl]

> @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> I'm going to strongly disagree, and actually probably with even some of my own statements. Yes Wie had potential to be the best ever, but it was MORE than just potential. At 14, she already HAD more raw talent and skill than most of the LPGA. She didn't look like maybe she'd develop into a big time golf talent. She already WAS! She was playing PGA tour events and holding her own! Does that register with you guys?!? A 14 year old girl barely missing the cut?!? This isn't prime Annika giving it a try. This isn't Lincicome with her length playing what was not much more than a web.com event at the Barbasol. This is a 14 year old girl hanging with the big boys at a decent PGA tour event. That's not potential which is a word tossed at Wie. She was there already. It just didn't last, or I truly think we'd be talking about one of the best ever, whether she'd learned to win at every level or not. Do any of you think prime Lydia or prime Inbee could've showed up at the Sony Open and beaten nearly half the field?

 

Ty Tryon

[buckeyefl]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > I'm going to strongly disagree, and actually probably with even some of my own statements. Yes Wie had potential to be the best ever, but it was MORE than just potential. At 14, she already HAD more raw talent and skill than most of the LPGA. She didn't look like maybe she'd develop into a big time golf talent. She already WAS! She was playing PGA tour events and holding her own! Does that register with you guys?!? A 14 year old girl barely missing the cut?!? This isn't prime Annika giving it a try. This isn't Lincicome with her length playing what was not much more than a web.com event at the Barbasol. This is a 14 year old girl hanging with the big boys at a decent PGA tour event. That's not potential which is a word tossed at Wie. She was there already. It just didn't last, or I truly think we'd be talking about one of the best ever, whether she'd learned to win at every level or not. Do any of you think prime Lydia or prime Inbee could've showed up at the Sony Open and beaten nearly half the field?

>

> Ty Tryon

 

Also if she was "there already" she would have had quite a bit of experience at winning, which she didn't. She had potential and a growing spurt advantage along with a too tier coach to guide her along. She had a head start and with the help of her parents it was squandered. Not for an instant were people in the know thinking "best ever" at that unproven age. Lots of potential though and that's how the story will finish.

 

Now Lydia is a different story and most certainly could have and may still be in contention for best ever but she needs to avoid the pitfalls she keeps leaping into. She was/ is a winner at a young age and knows how to get it done. Imagine be if she had MW length when they were the same age. It would have been tiger-like.

[buckeyefl]

> @tbowles411 said:

> > @MountainGoat said:

> > Announced today that she's taking the rest of the year off.

> How can she not? She's in no condition to play. I hope this isn't it though. All that potential was smacked around by expectations.

>

 

She gave an interview before her last tournament and said she had talked to the tour about taking the rest of the year off. At the point but the writing was on the wall for what was going to happen that week.

[GoGoErky]

> @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> I'm going to strongly disagree, and actually probably with even some of my own statements. Yes Wie had potential to be the best ever, but it was MORE than just potential. At 14, she already HAD more raw talent and skill than most of the LPGA. She didn't look like maybe she'd develop into a big time golf talent. She already WAS! She was playing PGA tour events and holding her own! Does that register with you guys?!? A 14 year old girl barely missing the cut?!? This isn't prime Annika giving it a try. This isn't Lincicome with her length playing what was not much more than a web.com event at the Barbasol. This is a 14 year old girl hanging with the big boys at a decent PGA tour event. That's not potential which is a word tossed at Wie. She was there already. It just didn't last, or I truly think we'd be talking about one of the best ever, whether she'd learned to win at every level or not. Do any of you think prime Lydia or prime Inbee could've showed up at the Sony Open and beaten nearly half the field?

 

Instead of playing some pga events and barely missing the cut she could have been playing amateur tournaments, going to college and learning the game and potentially dominating then go pro and be a force on lpga...or skip the amateur events and college and instead of playing pga events go right to the lpga and left that talent and skill win on lpga like Lydia was doing

[Shilgy]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > I'm going to strongly disagree, and actually probably with even some of my own statements. Yes Wie had potential to be the best ever, but it was MORE than just potential. At 14, she already HAD more raw talent and skill than most of the LPGA. She didn't look like maybe she'd develop into a big time golf talent. She already WAS! She was playing PGA tour events and holding her own! Does that register with you guys?!? A 14 year old girl barely missing the cut?!? This isn't prime Annika giving it a try. This isn't Lincicome with her length playing what was not much more than a web.com event at the Barbasol. This is a 14 year old girl hanging with the big boys at a decent PGA tour event. That's not potential which is a word tossed at Wie. She was there already. It just didn't last, or I truly think we'd be talking about one of the best ever, whether she'd learned to win at every level or not. Do any of you think prime Lydia or prime Inbee could've showed up at the Sony Open and beaten nearly half the field?

>

> Instead of playing some pga events and barely missing the cut she could have been playing amateur tournaments, going to college and learning the game and potentially dominating then go pro and be a force on lpga...or skip the amateur events and college and instead of playing pga events go right to the lpga and left that talent and skill win on lpga like Lydia was doing

The LPGA has an age restriction on membership. It's not like she played a ton of pro events. And living in Hawaii did not help with travel costs. The family did what they thought best at the time. Did it really work out? Probably not.

 

It's funny, in hindsight we look back and think she should have "learned how to win". But where? In Hawaii where she win the adult ladies amateur at she 13? She also win the USGA Publinks-another adult event at she 13. If she would have kept playing those events, and winning, posts would be saying she was learning nothing and proving nothing beating up on lesser players.

 

As another post mentioned sometimes it just doesn't work out. Life and injuries can get in the way. Right now she's like Bryce Harper. He was on the cover of SI at 16 as the future of baseball. And he's been good, like Wie, but not special. The NBA draft is littered with #1 picks that didn't reach the heights expected. Most times it is just the simple fact that some players peak earlier than others. So what appears to be high potential is actually there players peak.

 

Lastly the Nike contract. Professional athletes get paid endorsement money based on eyeballs, not wins. Even today if you go to an lpga event that Wie is playing in she will have the biggest gallery. And in her early days it was Tiger-esque the size of her galleries compared to other players. Call it unfair if you want but some players have "it" and others that may be better players don't.

[GoGoErky]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > > I'm going to strongly disagree, and actually probably with even some of my own statements. Yes Wie had potential to be the best ever, but it was MORE than just potential. At 14, she already HAD more raw talent and skill than most of the LPGA. She didn't look like maybe she'd develop into a big time golf talent. She already WAS! She was playing PGA tour events and holding her own! Does that register with you guys?!? A 14 year old girl barely missing the cut?!? This isn't prime Annika giving it a try. This isn't Lincicome with her length playing what was not much more than a web.com event at the Barbasol. This is a 14 year old girl hanging with the big boys at a decent PGA tour event. That's not potential which is a word tossed at Wie. She was there already. It just didn't last, or I truly think we'd be talking about one of the best ever, whether she'd learned to win at every level or not. Do any of you think prime Lydia or prime Inbee could've showed up at the Sony Open and beaten nearly half the field?

> >

> > Instead of playing some pga events and barely missing the cut she could have been playing amateur tournaments, going to college and learning the game and potentially dominating then go pro and be a force on lpga...or skip the amateur events and college and instead of playing pga events go right to the lpga and left that talent and skill win on lpga like Lydia was doing

> The LPGA has an age restriction on membership. It's not like she played a ton of pro events. And living in Hawaii did not help with travel costs. The family did what they thought best at the time. Did it really work out? Probably not.

>

> It's funny, in hindsight we look back and think she should have "learned how to win". But where? In Hawaii where she win the adult ladies amateur at she 13? She also win the USGA Publinks-another adult event at she 13. If she would have kept playing those events, and winning, posts would be saying she was learning nothing and proving nothing beating up on lesser players.

>

> As another post mentioned sometimes it just doesn't work out. Life and injuries can get in the way. Right now she's like Bryce Harper. He was on the cover of SI at 16 as the future of baseball. And he's been good, like Wie, but not special. The NBA draft is littered with #1 picks that didn't reach the heights expected. Most times it is just the simple fact that some players peak earlier than others. So what appears to be high potential is actually there players peak.

>

> Lastly the Nike contract. Professional athletes get paid endorsement money based on eyeballs, not wins. Even today if you go to an lpga event that Wie is playing in she will have the biggest gallery. And in her early days it was Tiger-esque the size of her galleries compared to other players. Call it unfair if you want but some players have "it" and others that may be better players don't.

 

Like Lydia as an amateur she could have played lpga events as an amateur. It’s great that she got to play pga events and try to showcase her talent but I don’t think that helped her in any way. Her parents mismanaged her career. It wasn’t until about 4 years after she turned pro that she made her lpga debut.

[North Texas]

Just to set the record straight on Michelle Wie winning as an amateur. In 2001 she won both the Hawaii State Women's Stroke Championship and the Jennie K. Wilson Women's Invitational which is the oldest and most prestigious women's amateur tournament in Hawaii. By the way, she was only 11 years old when she won those tournaments! She then won the Hawaii State Women's Stroke Championship again the next year at age 12. By a mere 13 shots!

 

Now for a quick look at how she fared playing in LPGA major championships from age 13 to age 16, 2003-2006, as an amateur. In the 12 major tournaments she played in during that period, she made every cut and finished inside the Top 10 seven times with six of those being in the Top 5! Are you kidding me! And in her very first LPGA major, the 2003 Kraft Nabisco, she shoots a 66 in the 3rd round and plays in the final group on the final day. As a 13 year old! And her worst finishes in those 12 majors were T23, T26, and T39.

 

I will just say it. No amateur, male or female, can approach what Michelle Wie accomplished playing in major championships at that age. She had "IT" and she had it in spades.

 

Edit: Lydia Ko's amateur record in majors is pretty damn impressive.

 

[Shilgy]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > @"Chief Illiniwek" said:

> > > > I'm going to strongly disagree, and actually probably with even some of my own statements. Yes Wie had potential to be the best ever, but it was MORE than just potential. At 14, she already HAD more raw talent and skill than most of the LPGA. She didn't look like maybe she'd develop into a big time golf talent. She already WAS! She was playing PGA tour events and holding her own! Does that register with you guys?!? A 14 year old girl barely missing the cut?!? This isn't prime Annika giving it a try. This isn't Lincicome with her length playing what was not much more than a web.com event at the Barbasol. This is a 14 year old girl hanging with the big boys at a decent PGA tour event. That's not potential which is a word tossed at Wie. She was there already. It just didn't last, or I truly think we'd be talking about one of the best ever, whether she'd learned to win at every level or not. Do any of you think prime Lydia or prime Inbee could've showed up at the Sony Open and beaten nearly half the field?

> > >

> > > Instead of playing some pga events and barely missing the cut she could have been playing amateur tournaments, going to college and learning the game and potentially dominating then go pro and be a force on lpga...or skip the amateur events and college and instead of playing pga events go right to the lpga and left that talent and skill win on lpga like Lydia was doing

> > The LPGA has an age restriction on membership. It's not like she played a ton of pro events. And living in Hawaii did not help with travel costs. The family did what they thought best at the time. Did it really work out? Probably not.

> >

> > It's funny, in hindsight we look back and think she should have "learned how to win". But where? In Hawaii where she win the adult ladies amateur at she 13? She also win the USGA Publinks-another adult event at she 13. If she would have kept playing those events, and winning, posts would be saying she was learning nothing and proving nothing beating up on lesser players.

> >

> > As another post mentioned sometimes it just doesn't work out. Life and injuries can get in the way. Right now she's like Bryce Harper. He was on the cover of SI at 16 as the future of baseball. And he's been good, like Wie, but not special. The NBA draft is littered with #1 picks that didn't reach the heights expected. Most times it is just the simple fact that some players peak earlier than others. So what appears to be high potential is actually there players peak.

> >

> > Lastly the Nike contract. Professional athletes get paid endorsement money based on eyeballs, not wins. Even today if you go to an lpga event that Wie is playing in she will have the biggest gallery. And in her early days it was Tiger-esque the size of her galleries compared to other players. Call it unfair if you want but some players have "it" and others that may be better players don't.

>

> Like Lydia as an amateur she could have played lpga events as an amateur. It’s great that she got to play pga events and try to showcase her talent but I don’t think that helped her in any way. Her parents mismanaged her career. It wasn’t until about 4 years after she turned pro that she made her lpga debut.

 

She did play some pro events, including majors, and did well. She is also getting slammed for playing said pro events and not beating up on amateurs and "learning how to win".

I do not know the different financial status of the two families. Did Ko have assistance from the New Zealand golf association? I don't believe Wie did. It's certainly not cheap to travel to these events with no payoff.

[JaNelson38]

Wouldn't shock me if Michelle Wie never plays another professional round of golf again.