Now, if he doesn't deserve one under those circumstances, why should a 14-year old girl be given one when her accomplishments, for all of her immense potential, really haven't been all that impressive?

Consider that everyone in the world knew that Strange would not contend for the title and it sure looked like Wie could, I think you can make a case for him not getting one.

David Tepper:

I don't have any idea how she could be bad for golf. A question like that is probably best asked of some of the people who've been complaining about some of the things she's done or have been given or presented to her.

Obviously their points are Michelle Wie is playing the same schedules and basically being given some considerations in tournament golf at the very highest levels that one may only expect would be given to only some of the best and most hardened professional tournament players more than twice her age.

We can't forget Michelle is only 14 years old and it'd be virtually impossible for her to turn pro anytime in the next 3-5 years, in my opinion. I very much doubt any professional tour in America would allow Michelle to turn pro before that! Europe may be different that way but there's no reason to get into that since Michelle is American and seems content to stay here and play here.

Obviously, some on here and elsewhere must feel that what's happening to Michelle Wie is some form of child exploitation or something a child of that age should just not do and they may feel that's bad and it's bad that she's doing that, and all that is not a good precedent to set in the game. Perhaps that's true but I think we've all seen enough times now at 14 she's got the game to play on most any level she wants to.

So what are you gonna do? Just watch a 14,15,16 and 17 year old female phenom play the highest levels of tournament golf as a technical amateur I guess!

"The USGA's response should have been "We hold this tounament.  It's open to anybody who can qualify and we invite who we want on top of that."

Shiv:

It just seems like everyone wants to nit-pick everything the USGA does to death--and your rationale is a good example of that to me. It is their tournament and they certainly can invite through their exemption process anyone they want to. If they can and do invite anyone they want to for whatever reason they want why in the world would you hold it against them if they mention what that reason is?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me!

Steve, you wrote, "Upon reading these posts, a interesting thing hit me – the anti-Wie exemption people say that no one should be granted exemptions."

It should be quite obvuious that I am one of those "anti-Wie exemption people." Where did I ever say that NO ONE should be given a special exemption. The fact is that I believe some should be given out. My problem is that the concentration is on "exemption" rather than "special."

In my opinion Michelle Wie has done nothing to deserve a "special exemption" into the U.S. Open... yet.

John Conley, you wrote, "Consider that everyone in the world knew that Strange would not contend for the title and it sure looked like Wie could, I think you can make a case for him not getting one."

First of all... hello!

In that same 2002 Open, Nick Faldo received a "special exemptiom." There was not one person predicting that he would do anything of note, in fact many felt that he wouldn't even make the cut. Let's see, he set the competuitive course record with the low round of the championship on Saturday, and in fact finished high enough that he received the automatic qualifier into the 2003 Open, as well as other majors...

Just because someone isn't expected to compete for the championship doesn't mean that they don't deserve a "special exemption." (IMHO) I truly believed that Curtis Strange deserved one & should have been given one that year.

My point though was that if he didn't deserve one, how can there possibly be any basuis for giving one to a 14-year old wunderkid who has done nothing noteworthy enough to deserve the honor?

In my opinion Michelle Wie has done nothing to deserve a "special exemption" into the U.S. Open... yet.

John Conley, you wrote, "Consider that everyone in the world knew that Strange would not contend for the title and it sure looked like Wie could, I think you can make a case for him not getting one."

First of all... hello!

In that same 2002 Open, Nick Faldo received a "special exemptiom." There was not one person predicting that he would do anything of note, in fact many felt that he wouldn't even make the cut. Let's see, he set the competuitive course record with the low round of the championship on Saturday, and in fact finished high enough that he received the automatic qualifier into the 2003 Open, as well as other majors...

Just because someone isn't expected to compete for the championship doesn't mean that they don't deserve a "special exemption." (IMHO) I truly believed that Curtis Strange deserved one & should have been given one that year.

My point though was that if he didn't deserve one, how can there possibly be any basuis for giving one to a 14-year old wunderkid who has done nothing noteworthy enough to deserve the honor?

Phillip:

Your assertion that she has done "nothing noteworthy" is a stretch.  She won the APL at age 13 and notched a Top 10 in the year's first Major.  That makes this T13 "nothing noteworthy" either.  Top 15 in two Majors on the men's side would probably cause you to take note.  (Mickelson, Els, and Goosen are the only three men to finish that high in this year's Masters and U.S. Open.)

I'm glad you had so much confidence in Curtis Strange.  His mother wouldn't have.  His record in this century on the PGA Tour isn't very good.

2000 Made 7 of 12 cuts, a T15 was his only Top 25.
2001 3 of 11: 69th, T5, and T41.  High finish was Memphis.
2002 2 of 11, both T64s.
2003 Oh for eight.
2004 Oh for two.

It is okay for you to say she didn't deserve an invite.  The USGA disagreed.  However, to imply that Curtis Strange would have been more competitive in 2002 than she was in 2004 requires a huge leap of faith.  Solid play from Strange would have been an aberration.

John:

I realize there's no law in America that'd prevent Wie from turning pro at age 14. That's not really the point though. It seems to me, we, in this country have far fewer very young golfers turning to the pro and tour pro ranks than in Europe and the rest of the world.

Why is that? It's a good question. Part of it may have to do with a culture over here against child exploitation in our sports culture. Look at our college sports structure over here. It's basically institutionalized. It's enormous and pretty well defined---the NCAA. That must be why young golfers come from all over the world to our American college golf teams. And there aren't any professional golfers playing on any of our American college golf teams.

Athletes, prodigy golfers, in the rest of the world seem to have turned profession so much younger than over here if they didn't go to one of our golf colleges. But that never really seems to happen to young American golf prodigies such as Wie.

You're right that she couldn't join any of our professional tours over here until she's probably at least 18. Why that is sort of makes these points of mine, in my opinion.

Michelle Wie is certainly not restricted under any US or State law I'm aware of from giving up her amateur status thereby declaring herself technically a professional golfer but if she did that at 14 or before she was at least 17 or 18 I think we'd see a firestorm of controversy over it from plenty other than on Golfclubatlas that would be amazing to see.

I dont know who her truant officer in California is but he might have something to say about that too!  

John,

As far as Curtis Strange and my belief that he deserved an exemption in 2002, you wrote, "It is okay for you to say she didn't deserve an invite.  The USGA disagreed.  However, to imply that Curtis Strange would have been more competitive in 2002 than she was in 2004 requires a huge leap of faith.  Solid play from Strange would have been an aberration."

I neither stated nor implied that Curtis Strange would have been more competitive in 2002 than she was in 2004. I stated that I felt that he deserved a special exemption based on his hiostory in the game, the U.S. Open & his captaincy of the Ryder Cup team.

You quoted his statistics from play from 2000 onward. I believe that validates my iother statement that typically those who Captain the Ryder Cup team, especially since the late 80s, have seen their games suffer due to the demands placed upon them. I believe this is reason enough  when combined with his past record to have given him an exemption.

I maintain that winning an Amateur Public Links (regardless of the age, that should have NO bearing) & a top 10 finish in the yaer's first major, laudable as it is, does not rise to being in the noteworthy status that would provide reason for giving a special exemption. That is why I use the case of Curtis Strange. If a past two-time winner of the Open, and back-to-back at that, and current Captain of the Ryder Cup team, does NOT deserve a special exemption, how can Michelle Wie?

I don't see it... and you're right, the USGA did disagree with me.

I've just read these three pages,, and many points raised are just plain wierd.

A Championship such as the US Open determines in advance how to exempt players in the field, and then allows others to qualify. It is to be assumed, that the exemptions are in place to try and ensure that automatically worthy players are already guaranteed a place, so that the USGA has a Championship of merit. Afterall, they would want (in an extreme example) to ensure that the top 5 players in the world are all present.

Michelle Wie is not just a young prodigy, she has achieved many great leaps many years too early for what most people thought possible. She has not the opportunity to exempt herself through the same means as many other competitors, through age restrictions and opportunities to play events that can assist in exempting her.

So why would a top player (and all her performances on the LPGA Tour this year show that she is among the best) be excluded? NOT because she has failed to meet exemption criteria, but because most exemption criteria were not available to her, principally because she's not supposed to be able to be anywhere near this good for another few years!

The womens' game has just one event on the planet that has finally reached the $3m prize money mark. There are LPGA Tour events worth under $1m, and outside of the LPGA Tour, no other tour can average more than $300-400,000 per event. Womens' golf needs promotion, needs stars, and desperately needs development. Funny, that's a key role in the US for the USGA. They've probably achieved their charter in this manner in a much better and swifter manner than using your funds to bolster every state junior program in the nation.

The downside: Wie's exemption probably robbed us all of the chance of seeing the last Wie-less US Womens Open until I reach retirement age in a few decades time.

Dip the USGA in bronze, and cheer the fat lady singing.

Tony Titheridge
You are right, the USGA has a system in place to attempt to attract and exempt the best players in the world.  Since Wie is a 14 year old amateur, she could have qualified for the Open (like she did last year) by playing in the qualifying events.  Wouldn't that have been the best for all concerned.  As for the USGA's responsibility to attract fans and help "grow the game" then exemptions for Nicole Kidman and Gabriela Reece would have been appropriate as well.
I think this comes down to two positions, do you feel the US Open is an opportunity to provide entertainment through a competitive event, or do you feel there should be a responsibility to keep the competition as pure as can be.
A Michelle Wie, coming through the qualifying process would show others, that in this event, anyone can make it through hard work and talent.  This too would grow the game.

I spent a day with Michelle and her family in Atlantic City for the Shop Rite Classic in 2003. The family was gracious and Michelle was just like any ?normal? teenager. And she played a wonderful round of golf with the old gals. Jealousy did rear its old ugly head from the lowest talent on the tour.  

This year at age 14 she is clearly one of the top 25 lady golfers in the world. She deserved the exemption she received as she is the most exciting golf story since the Tiger Woods.

Pros should not monopolizes all the avenues to get in an ?Open? with money as the only criteria. I watched the highlights not to see Ames win the Erection Western but to see how Wie did.

The USGA used Wie to their economic advantage - there is no other way to see it.

There are dozens of ways to see it.

The women of the LPGA run a very tight shop.  They don't want any new blood that might take their money away.  For example, many of them do not like the connection with the Futures Tour that allowed a limited number of tour cards and slots in the finals of Q-School.  When that was granted they had to eliminate the "and ties" portion of Q-School from getting their cards (it was something like "top 20 and ties" and went to "top 20" meaning it required a playoff for the ties).  Also they don't have open Monday qualifying, it is only open to conditionally exempt players and LPGA teaching pros.

They do all they can to stop new blood from coming on tour which is why they whine when the USGA gives out one spot (that probably would have been earned by her anyway), thereby taking it away from Ms 95-on-the-money-list and preventing her from missing the cut.