11 Year Old Qualifies for Women's Open

[BCowan]

Jeff,

My thoughts exactly.  This gives me a reason to watch the damned thing.  I'm rooting for her to make the cut.

Imagine telling someone who won their qualifier by 7 shots (7 FREAKING SHOTS) she was too young.
It's a tournament, not a tour, or a contract.

It seems to me Michelle Wie has matured into a very nice, personable , well adjusted world class athlete.
just another route to get there, even if she did play in a couple too many men's events.
Beats doing drugs and about a million other bad things she could've been doing.

+1.
Jeff, all they gotta do is get a judge to re-write the definition of ''Open'' and then the Fascists can have it the way they want it. 

[jeffwarne]

It's an OPEN.
that means it's OPEN.
I listened to multiple NONSENSE arguments today on Sirius about why there should be a minimum age for OPENS and other Tour events.
they kept trotting out examples of players who peaked early and burned out.
Are there not plenty of other burnouts in high school who accomplish NOTHING ever in their lives?
I keep hearing she's not mentally ready to deal with all that goes with playing in a US Open.
two months ago they would've been saying she's not physically capable.

Ever occur to any of the pessimists that can't play 18 holes within 10-20 shots of Lucy Li that they may never EVER be at her mental or maturity level either?
Amazing how people know what's best for others-rather than judge, why not step back, watch and admire?

What I see is a bunch of blue coats that can't sell out their top female championship, so they are happy to take money from the people that would otherwise not attend a US Women's Open, but will show up to see Lexi Thompson, or Michelle Wie play as pre or newby teens against the women.

They certainly took advantage of it at Michelle's first US Open here in Portland.

What does that mean?
It's an Open.
as in OPEN-not the people GJ thinks can and should play in an important event.

Are we going to argue that Lexi and Michelle would be better off if we denied their right to play/work? because both are doing rather well right now.
Should I tell my 14 year old son not to caddie because GJ thinks he's not mature enough?

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

My thoughts exactly.  This gives me a reason to watch the damned thing.  I'm rooting for her to make the cut.

Funny Jud,

I never thought of you as the freak show fan type.

You can't watch it for the quality of golf the women are capable of?

You can't watch it for the drama that is a top sporting event?

You have to watch it to see if someone that qualified at 6200 yards can still play at 6700 yards?

I get that it is an Open. However, it is an open for women, not females. You can put up Lexi, and Michelle as examples of people it didn't hurt. But how do you know that? Michelle is competing with the pros at age 13, so logically it seems to the Wies that she can also compete with the men. I think it is easy to argue that the early exposure actually set her career back.

[Ronald Montesano]

From an architectural standpoint, we should applaud the qualification of a pint-sized plugger to the US Open. It means that a golfer who does not overpower an outdated course, but instead maneuvers her golf ball and positions her shots in a proper fashion, is rewarded.

To the costive ones whose penurity disallows the notion that a headline-grabber is a bad thing, remember this: the USGA is not trolling streets, parks, farms, rooftops nor sewers to find underage golfers to exploit, If a young golfer can play her/his way into a championship (ironic! we normally bitch about undeserved invitations; now we are bitching about legitimate qualifiers) awesome. I've never qualified for a NYS am or mid-am. It's one of my goals before I get feeble.

[Pete_Pittock]

It was pointed out elsewhere that Beverly Klass competed in the 1967 US Women's Open at the age of 10. She had turned professional a year earlier, and there were no qualifiction tournaments were held at that time. I did meet Beverely when I was a local caddy at an LPGA event and she was in iour group the first two days. 

[Thomas Dai]

Congratulations to this remarkably young lass (plus her family etc) on a tremendous achievement and every success to her/them for her future in golf if that is the way her life and career will develop in the long-term.

As an aside, I understand that current Men's US Open Champion Justin Rose's parents, when he was a teenager, used to lock his clubs away two days per week so he'd have a life away from golf.

atb

[David_Tepper]

Good column by Doug Ferguson:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/doug-ferguson/li-drive-chip-putt-us-womens-open/

[Ronald Montesano]

No golf course architect would be dismayed by her appearance in our national championship. By winning the drive chip and putt, she has demonstrated that she can ...


wait for it


drive, chip and putt (and can probably hit irons and hybrids, too.)

That would be a complete game and course management.

I like Garland a lot, but the more you write about freak shows, I wonder what is really up in your head.

A young competitor is not a freak show but, as Dough Ferguson pointed out in his column, a true student, an imitator, a learner.

[Jerry Kluger]

Just remember that at AGNC she was competing against girls her own age.

But returning to the architecture issue should the qualifier course be close to as difficult as the championship course?  Have they recently had sectional qualifiers that are par 72 playing 6600 yards for the men?  What would happen if they did and a 12 year old boy who drove the ball 220 yards made it?  How would he handle a course of over 7000 yards playing to a par 70?  The qualifier at Woodmont in Rockville, Maryland used to include both courses and the scoring difference was incredible - there was a 58 on the shorter course. The field is smaller now so they play 36 on the longer, North course. 

Just as an aside - if you were the USGA would you consider the 11 year old in your setup of #2?  I would think not. 

[Philippe Binette]

there was a 16 year old kid at the masters this year driving the ball 250 yards... on a 7400 yards course !!!

i think pinehurst will suit her fine...

she hit it short and probably straight... the ball will roll and she'll play more "bounce in approaches" which was the way the course was supposed to be played...

also, most of her misses will end up on the front edge of the green, which, at Pinehurst, is a lot better than on the sides or the back of the green..

Odds are, she'll break 80 both days... which a lot of tour players won't do...

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

My thoughts exactly.  This gives me a reason to watch the damned thing.  I'm rooting for her to make the cut.

You have to watch it to see if someone that qualified at 6200 yards can still play at 6700 yards?

I get that it is an Open. However, it is an open for women, not females. You can put up Lexi, and Michelle as examples of people it didn't hurt. But how do you know that? Michelle is competing with the pros at age 13, so logically it seems to the Wies that she can also compete with the men. I think it is easy to argue that the early exposure actually set her career back.

She WON her qualifier by 7 shots. 7 shots!
So if the qualifying course had been 500 yards longer, perhaps she would have shot higher-as would everyone else.
It's not like she slipped in with a chip in in a 12 person playoff

I just played in a US Open qualifier with the medalist on a course that was 6600 yards.
Does that make him less worthy, even though he beat 144 other players?
and those of you who think the USGA plays the Women's US Open at their stated yardage (6700 yards at Sebonack) are delusional or not paying attention,and probably believe it when Mike Davis says the greens will be running 15 at a given site.

It is quite easy to argue that Michelle Wie's early exposure set her career back.
It is easy to argue Morgan Pressel's and Lexi Thompson's early exposure set them back.
It is also easy to argue Tiger Woods leaving Stanford early hurt his chances at being an investment banker.
It is also easy to argue that some of the things I did in high school and college may have set me back.
But we'll never know in all cases.
You can trot out Ty Tryon as an example, but people flame out in all walks of life, all the time-doesn't mean early exposure or golf caused it.
It's a tough business and most will fail, even if they follow the exact guidance and timing of all the the well meaning "experts" who feel the need to dictate and appropriate age and education for athletic success.

[Mike Wagner]

Jeff,

My thoughts exactly.  This gives me a reason to watch the damned thing.  I'm rooting for her to make the cut.

Funny Jud,

I never thought of you as the freak show fan type.

You can't watch it for the quality of golf the women are capable of?

You can't watch it for the drama that is a top sporting event?

You have to watch it to see if someone that qualified at 6200 yards can still play at 6700 yards?

I get that it is an Open. However, it is an open for women, not females. You can put up Lexi, and Michelle as examples of people it didn't hurt. But how do you know that? Michelle is competing with the pros at age 13, so logically it seems to the Wies that she can also compete with the men. I think it is easy to argue that the early exposure actually set her career back.

This is the craziest thing I've ever read on this site. 

[Jason Thurman]

It's probably not even the craziest thing Garland will post this week.

Success can be very fleeting, particularly in a field as competitive as golf. It's easy to look at somebody like Michelle Wie and say "Oh she had so much talent. All that early publicity really must have hurt her career. She'd be dominating the LPGA today if she hadn't spent all that time as a teenager playing against men."

But there's another side to that argument, which is that Michelle Wie was a young phenom who turned out to be successful but not dominant. Had she not pursued competitive golf against elite competition so aggressively at a young age, she may very well have grown up into the same player she is today and lost forever her chance to compete at that highest level she experienced for a few years. It's not too late for her to fulfill all that seemingly limitless potential we once saw, but if she doesn't, she at least spent a few fleeting years on a ride that no one else has ever ridden.

There are plenty of tournament golfers on this site who know how fickle this game can be. We've all watched guys like David Duval, Michael Campbell, Ian Baker-Finch, and countless others lose their game, almost overnight. We've also all seen plenty of young phenoms simply get passed by their peers as they grow up. When you get opportunities in life, you have to take them. There's no guarantee that this won't be her only Open, so hats off to her for qualifying and hopefully she enjoys the experience. She's playing with house money, after all.

[Keith Doleshel]

Lucy practices and plays regularly at the club I work at.  She is a very nice, polite, and quiet girl.  The media blitz is what I'm worried about in regards to her playing in the Open.  I think her golf game will be fine.  She hits it solid, is amazing with fairway woods and hybrids, and obviously can chip and putt well as she proved at Augusta in that competition.  Not predicting scores or anything, but think her game hold up.

The media circus might be another animal.  She is shy even with the shop staff at my club who she sees regularly.  Once you ask her questions about her tournaments or golf game she opens up a little, but still is on the quiet side.  I'm sure she had media dealings at Augusta and after her qualifier but nothing like what she'll experience at Pinehurst.

I don't see the harm in having anyone of merit play in a golf tournament.  Like someone said, it's not like she is going on tour. 

[Jud_T]

I'm pretty sure Michelle Wie's accountant is pretty happy she played against the best at 13.  Since I'm not the girl's father, I'm in no position to judge her mental and physical well being or her academic accomplishments or social development and neither is anyone else here as far as I can tell.

[David Bartman]

The qualifying yardages seem way too short, that doesn't make any sense.  My guess is avg LPGA event is somewhere around 6600 yards now.  US Woman's has no 2nd stage? 

I think you you have to understand that there are significant pace of play issues with walking, and putting everything out and 36 holes with a likely chance of needed daylight for a playoff.  That being said, the course is usually shorter and rarely set up anything like a US Open, no rough.

For that matter, the same goes for the men regarding course set up and usually length compared to the tournament proper.

LPGA events are rarely 6600 yards.  They are usually listed somewhere just under 6600 and and usually play much closer to 6400-6500 yards and as short as 6100 yards. 

No second stage because the number of entries don't warrant one. 

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

My thoughts exactly.  This gives me a reason to watch the damned thing.  I'm rooting for her to make the cut.

Funny Jud,

I never thought of you as the freak show fan type.

You can't watch it for the quality of golf the women are capable of?

You can't watch it for the drama that is a top sporting event?

You have to watch it to see if someone that qualified at 6200 yards can still play at 6700 yards?

I get that it is an Open. However, it is an open for women, not females. You can put up Lexi, and Michelle as examples of people it didn't hurt. But how do you know that? Michelle is competing with the pros at age 13, so logically it seems to the Wies that she can also compete with the men. I think it is easy to argue that the early exposure actually set her career back.

This is the craziest thing I've ever read on this site. 

Tisk, Tisk, Tisk. You're such a young'un and newbie. Obviously you haven't seen people get wound up about Marion. 
What's the crazy part? That Jud should watch the Open for the quality golf and it's interaction with Pinehurst #2?
That it's called the Women's Open not the Female Open?
That Michelle's career was set back?

If you live near Seattle and are not playing in KP, then that's the crazy thing.

[Garland Bayley]

...

LPGA events are rarely 6600 yards.  They are usually listed somewhere just under 6600 and and usually play much closer to 6400-6500 yards and as short as 6100 yards. 
...

We're not talking about LPGA events here. Last year at Sebonack, the Open was at 6821 yards.
http://www.usga.org/ChampEventContent.aspx?id=21474853503

[Carl Rogers]

The USGA should be ashamed for allowing a 5th grader to play in the US Open.

Totally agree, I would think there should be a minimum age, say 16.

Child Abuse!!

[George Pazin]

That Michelle's career was set back?

Most of us do think Michelle's career was set back, at least to some undefinable degree.

Where we differ is, who gets to decide? Her parents? You? The USGA? Some random panel of "experts"?

This is a self-correcting problem. The number of children less than 15 who will qualify for future Opens is infinitesimal, as compared to the relevant population at large. Better to let those actually involved in the consequences of the decision make it than those of us who are completely "objective".

[Mike Wagner]

Jeff,

My thoughts exactly.  This gives me a reason to watch the damned thing.  I'm rooting for her to make the cut.

Funny Jud,

I never thought of you as the freak show fan type.

You can't watch it for the quality of golf the women are capable of?

You can't watch it for the drama that is a top sporting event?

You have to watch it to see if someone that qualified at 6200 yards can still play at 6700 yards?

I get that it is an Open. However, it is an open for women, not females. You can put up Lexi, and Michelle as examples of people it didn't hurt. But how do you know that? Michelle is competing with the pros at age 13, so logically it seems to the Wies that she can also compete with the men. I think it is easy to argue that the early exposure actually set her career back.

This is the craziest thing I've ever read on this site. 

Tisk, Tisk, Tisk. You're such a young'un and newbie. Obviously you haven't seen people get wound up about Marion. 
What's the crazy part? That Jud should watch the Open for the quality golf and it's interaction with Pinehurst #2?
That it's called the Women's Open not the Female Open?
That Michelle's career was set back?

If you live near Seattle and are not playing in KP, then that's the crazy thing.

Ok, lots of that made me actually laugh.  No, not a young'un or a newbie.  I just deleted everything I wrote...it just isn't worth the time, so here's the general beef:

What's crazy is you want to legislate yet another thing.  Why?  She earned a spot...and it's an OPEN!!  It's no big secret that your thoughts are very liberal in nature, and that's why I deleted what I originally wrote - there's really no arguing with a liberal on these kinds of topics - they generally know what's best for everyone  This is America...so what are we teaching our kids if we pass yet another moronic rule to limit someone from competing - it's just golf for god's sake?  Maybe, just maybe, that's the wrong message about what it means to EARN AN OPPORTUNITY.  Nah, the younger generation just wants it handed out these days...ugh.  What is it exactly you want to protect her (or Michelle Wie, or Lexi Thompson) from?  Life?  It's ups and downs?  Who in their right mind would want to take away this type of decision from HER AND HER PARENTS?  

Oh, and I don't give rip about the reasons anyone wants to watch or not watch.  Women's golf is generally very boring.  Why would you feel it necessary to ask anyone (and judge them) for their reasoning?  

I was born and raised in Seattle - but I don't live there any more.  I would go insane if I had to hear all the liberal drivel that goes on there every day

So nothing personal, I just happen to disagree fundamentally with you on just about everything.

[Garland Bayley]

Wow Michael,

You have a weird definition of liberal. I thought I was being conservative. As in conserve these precious flowers and let them reach full bloom before we start hacking away at them. I have to note the conservative father that followed on after my post with not thinking letting his 12 year old daughters play in such an event was the best idea in the world.

Little did I know that open these children up to all the worldly warts in the world was the conservative ideology. Guess I'll have to go to cram school on ideology.
 

[Mike Wagner]

Wow Michael,

You have a weird definition of liberal. I thought I was being conservative. As in conserve these precious flowers and let them reach full bloom before we start hacking away at them. I have to note the conservative father that followed on after my post with not thinking letting his 12 year old daughters play in such an event was the best idea in the world.

Little did I know that open these children up to all the worldly warts in the world was the conservative ideology. Guess I'll have to go to cram school on ideology.
 

No I don't have a weird definition.  You essentially making the choice for her by legislating it.  I suggested her and her family make the choice as she earned the right to play.  Nothing weird there, just a liberal interpreting it to fit the occasion

...and by the way, the post by the father you mention:  he writes of the thought process in making a decision...not having a decision already made for him.

[Garland Bayley]

Well shoot Michael, they already legislated men out of it by making it the Women's Open, all I'm saying is let's keep the children out of it too.
They legislate women out of the US Junior. They legislate high handicappers out of all their championships. I think you are just using "legislating" as a weak argument for your position, not as indicative of a liberal or conservative view.
Now you get the  emoticon.


 

[Mike Wagner]

Well shoot Michael, they already legislated men out of it by making it the Women's Open, all I'm saying is let's keep the children out of it too.
They legislate women out of the US Junior. They legislate high handicappers out of all their championships. I think you are just using "legislating" as a weak argument for your position, not as indicative of a liberal or conservative view.
Now you get the  emoticon.


 

Good stuff, Garland, but you miss the mark again.  I'm not sure why I picked this thread to focus on ideology, there are thousands to choose from...but I did.

Your point of legislating high handicappers out of the tournament is as liberal as it gets   Not everyone is entitled to play, there are certain rules...and if you clearly not good enough, you're not good enough.  Ok, ok, I understand...I'm for less rules.  Yes indeed.  However, we do need some basic parameters (kind of like a Constitution). 

Ever heard of playing "up" and not "down."  Kind of makes sense, doesn't it?  In general, younger kids are not as good as adults (or even older kids).  That's why each has their own tournament.  It happens at the junior level as well - 10 year old don't generally compete very well against 15 year olds.  Occasionally, you encounter an extreme talent that can compete "up."  The lib response to this is "well, why not down then."  Yikes