A few days have passed since Michelle Wie's meltdown in the final round of the U.S. Women's Open. And not surprisingly, quite a few commentators have passed judgment, using Wie's final-round 82 to buttress the argument that Wie would have been better off going the more traditional route of playing only junior and amateur events.
Wie's game is suffering, these critics say, because she never "learned to win" at the junior and amateur level before moving up in class to the pro tours. After Wie's Women's Open collapse, these critics issued a chorus of I-told-you-so's.
I don't know what the best route for Wie was or is, and nobody else does either. But I do know this: using that 82 to make the argument that Wie's development has been stunted by bypassing junior and amateur golf is just plain silly. (Keep reading below the fold) ...
There's a perfect example of the misguided nature of this argument in a column by Bob Harig on espn.com.
Harig states the argument:
"Had Wie been more accustomed to winning, might she have handled the third-round lead better?
"It is a question that has been asked many times as Wie has emerged as such a compelling story.
"Until Sunday, it was too difficult to really know.
"Since Wie shunned junior golf - and a lot of amateur golf - in favor of competing in professional events, many have wondered if she was getting the right kind of experience."
A few paragraphs later, Harig also demonstrates the lack of logic in this argument:
"Many observers, from Tiger Woods to Nancy Lopez, have questioned Wie's approach. Woods dominated at the junior and amateur levels and played only a smattering of PGA Tour events before turning pro. Lopez, the LPGA Hall of Famer, used the example of Paula Creamer, 18, who dominated the American Junior Golf Association, winning more then a dozen titles. Last month, she captured her first LPGA Tour title."
So if Wie had gone the route of Creamer, she might not have melted down as she did at the Open. See the problem? In the final round of the U.S. Women's Open, Paula Creamer melted down too!
If we're attaching great significance to this one score, then we must conclude the Creamer also chose the wrong developmental path. That's silly. Creamer went one way, Wie went another, they are both phenomenal players with tremendous futures who cracked under the pressure the first time they were in contention at a U.S. Open.
The main difference between the two is not that Creamer played junior events while Wie hasn't, it's that Creamer is three years older with a more mature game. Wie's only 15 years old, remember (Even Morgan Pressel is two years older than Wie).
I'm not saying that Wie is better off for having skipped junior golf. I don't know whether she made the right choice there or not. That's the point - nobody does. There's no way for anyone to know if she'd be winning more now had she won a few junior tournaments a couple years ago.
But I really don't see how beating your fellow 13-year-olds by 20 strokes teaches you more about yourself and your game than beating everybody except Annika Sorenstam in an LPGA major at age 15 (as Wie did at the LPGA Championship).
Besides, Wie did win something as a 13-year-old: She beat Virada Nirapathpongporn in the finals of the U.S. Women's Amateur Public Links, an adult USGA championship (Wie's critics seem to forget this very impressive victory).
Harig concludes his column talking about how Wie would be favored at this year's U.S. Women's Amateur:
"There, she is expected to win, a feeling she needs to embrace and conquer more often. And when she does, the Sunday 82s will be rare."
Hey, tell that to Retief Goosen (maybe Goosen didn't play enough junior tournaments!).
So on the question of whether Michelle Wie would have been better served by playing more junior and amateur events and less pro events, or whether the track she is on now is the right one, what does her 82 in the final round of the U.S. Women's Open tell us?
Absolutely nothing.
Wie's game is suffering, these critics say, because she never "learned to win" at the junior and amateur level before moving up in class to the pro tours. After Wie's Women's Open collapse, these critics issued a chorus of I-told-you-so's.
I don't know what the best route for Wie was or is, and nobody else does either. But I do know this: using that 82 to make the argument that Wie's development has been stunted by bypassing junior and amateur golf is just plain silly. (Keep reading below the fold) ...
There's a perfect example of the misguided nature of this argument in a column by Bob Harig on espn.com.
Harig states the argument:
"Had Wie been more accustomed to winning, might she have handled the third-round lead better?
"It is a question that has been asked many times as Wie has emerged as such a compelling story.
"Until Sunday, it was too difficult to really know.
"Since Wie shunned junior golf - and a lot of amateur golf - in favor of competing in professional events, many have wondered if she was getting the right kind of experience."
A few paragraphs later, Harig also demonstrates the lack of logic in this argument:
"Many observers, from Tiger Woods to Nancy Lopez, have questioned Wie's approach. Woods dominated at the junior and amateur levels and played only a smattering of PGA Tour events before turning pro. Lopez, the LPGA Hall of Famer, used the example of Paula Creamer, 18, who dominated the American Junior Golf Association, winning more then a dozen titles. Last month, she captured her first LPGA Tour title."
So if Wie had gone the route of Creamer, she might not have melted down as she did at the Open. See the problem? In the final round of the U.S. Women's Open, Paula Creamer melted down too!
If we're attaching great significance to this one score, then we must conclude the Creamer also chose the wrong developmental path. That's silly. Creamer went one way, Wie went another, they are both phenomenal players with tremendous futures who cracked under the pressure the first time they were in contention at a U.S. Open.
The main difference between the two is not that Creamer played junior events while Wie hasn't, it's that Creamer is three years older with a more mature game. Wie's only 15 years old, remember (Even Morgan Pressel is two years older than Wie).
I'm not saying that Wie is better off for having skipped junior golf. I don't know whether she made the right choice there or not. That's the point - nobody does. There's no way for anyone to know if she'd be winning more now had she won a few junior tournaments a couple years ago.
But I really don't see how beating your fellow 13-year-olds by 20 strokes teaches you more about yourself and your game than beating everybody except Annika Sorenstam in an LPGA major at age 15 (as Wie did at the LPGA Championship).
Besides, Wie did win something as a 13-year-old: She beat Virada Nirapathpongporn in the finals of the U.S. Women's Amateur Public Links, an adult USGA championship (Wie's critics seem to forget this very impressive victory).
Harig concludes his column talking about how Wie would be favored at this year's U.S. Women's Amateur:
"There, she is expected to win, a feeling she needs to embrace and conquer more often. And when she does, the Sunday 82s will be rare."
Hey, tell that to Retief Goosen (maybe Goosen didn't play enough junior tournaments!).
So on the question of whether Michelle Wie would have been better served by playing more junior and amateur events and less pro events, or whether the track she is on now is the right one, what does her 82 in the final round of the U.S. Women's Open tell us?
Absolutely nothing.
Comments