Anybody want to complain about Michelle Wie?

« **Reply #75 on:** July 07, 2004, 07:55:43 AM »

Tom,

I'm curious about this racist thing you accuse some of us of....besided the obvious fact that Asian women can't drive a lick...don't even the most backward redneck idiot fat white guys love beautiful Asian women...or all beautiful women for that matter. I will take Geisha golf over Gunga golf everyday of the week......racism against women among the ignorant that I know is always based on looks and not race.

« **Reply #76 on:** July 07, 2004, 09:34:57 AM »

JohnV,

Well said. It is an extremely human reaction to not embrace people who will take money from out bank account. Just think about the young gun who they hire in at a greater salary than our own.

Tom Armstrong,

Thanks for using your real name. As a recovering racist I am qualified to opine that your comments are way off base.

JakaB,

Baby, you're the best. BTW, whatever happend to the Fat Dixie Chick? She should not have strapped on Toby Keith, who apparently won the match 7 & 6.

Regards,

Mike

« **Reply #77 on:** July 07, 2004, 09:36:33 AM »

Ironically, John V's explanation of why the LPGA hated Michelle Wie's exemption is EXACTLY the same reason that Vijay Singh [and other, silent PGA Tour pros] hated Annika Sorenstam playing Colonial.

« **Reply #78 on:** July 07, 2004, 10:09:28 AM »

Isn't this what makes America great?

Amatuer vs. pro..
Merit shop vs. union..
working vs. priviledged classes on "neutral" playing grounds..
youth and skill vs. age and treachery..
individual accomplishment vs. potential
pure vs reactive power

« **Reply #79 on:** July 07, 2004, 10:41:17 AM »

Tom Paul:

Isn't that what "special" means? Lying outside the other criteria.

John V.:

Laura Davies said it best about whining rank-and-file in the women's game. The fans only come out to see ten of us anyway, you should be thankful for what you have.

Just wondering... does Danielle I'm-a-got-a-stick-up-my-fanny still think Michelle Wie has a long way to go before she makes a living playing golf.

Last thing for Tom Paul: I would not have been surprised if she had won this year.

« **Reply #80 on:** July 07, 2004, 11:52:54 AM »

So I am a white, aging, backward thinking racist because I don't think Michelle Wie should have been given an exemption?
Interesting deduction some make because of disagreement.
I would just as soon watch Michelle Wie as any player in the world. I hope she becomes the greatest golfer ever, male or female.
Tom Paul, there was never any question over her ability to finish possibly in the top 5. Like your mentor Pat Mucci, I don't think the ends justify the means. But next time some young teen star comes along, the USGA will have to face the music, big criticism if they don't give an exemption. The USGA has decided they will play God in their tournament, a position they will have to defend on future young stars.

« **Reply #81 on:** July 07, 2004, 12:00:39 PM »

Mr Armstrong:

I just can't let your idiocy go without a response. I am consistently amazed that there are people like you that are so guilt ridden by being born white that they have to introduce race into every disagreement that appears. No one who posted prior to you made any hint of Michelle Wie's ethnic background, yet somehow you manage to find a way to label all those with contrary opinions as racist white guys. Now you need to go do some thai chi for peace and harmony promotion to get that guilt assuaged a bit.

I'll chalk up your lunatic rant to some orgasmic bliss that must have carried over after Kerry announced Edwards for veep.

Thank God for the wisdom of JakaB to counterbalance some of the insanity that sometimes appears here.

« **Reply #82 on:** July 07, 2004, 02:20:39 PM »

Wow!

Some amazingly stupid posts - I keep forgetting that this IS the internet.

Wie is a fourteen years-old A-M-A-T-E-U-R being exploited by the USGA for its own economic gain (why else give her the U.S. Open exemption?). That's the point. That's the only point. Great luck to her as a pro...

« **Reply #83 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:06:20 PM »

Quote from: danielfaleman on July 07, 2004, 02:20:39 PM

Wow!

Some amazingly stupid posts - I keep forgetting that this IS the internet.

Wie is a fourteen years-old A-M-A-T-E-U-R being exploited by the USGA for its own economic gain (why else give her the U.S. Open exemption?). That's the point. That's the only point. Great luck to her as a pro...

But none of them from you? Where was the exploitation? She was a very willing participant. It is not evident to me where she was harmed by playing the Orchards.

Why else give her the exemption? To ensure the strongest field possible, perhaps. Would her being a professional have changed anything? I don't see why giving her a pass as a 14-year-old professional would be any different than giving her a pass as a 14-year-old amateur. Please tell me how they are different to you. D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T.

« **Reply #84 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:17:42 PM »

"She was a very willing participant."

You, sir, lack a moral understanding of "exploitation."

"I don't see why giving her a pass as a 14-year-old professional would be any different than giving her a pass as a 14-year-old amateur.'"

You're right, you don't see.

Enough.

« **Reply #85 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:22:39 PM »

I lack an understanding of the "moral" meaning of a word? That's a new one.

And yes, I still don't see why it is relevant whether or not the 14-year-old in question is categorized as a professional or amateur. And you've done nothing to clear it up.

I can see someone having a problem with her being 14, but I sure can't see why her status in the eyes of the USGA matters. She is a future professional, which isn't a lifetime amateur.

You make no sense and your inability to defend indefensible comments isn't making your argument any more convincing.

« **Reply #86 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:33:47 PM »

And you, sir, have misapplied the word "exploitation."

It doesn't apply here -- any more than it would apply to a Disney movie in which a child actor is cast in a leading role because Disney thinks a lot of kids and their parents would want to see it.

That's not exploitation, that's commerce -- and it would be extremely disengenous for you to counter by saying the USGA didn't pay Wie for playing; each appearance in a high-profile tournament multiplies her earning potential whenever she decides to turn pro, and she and her family fully understand that. Everyone's eyes are wide open.

But perhaps what you're really advocating is a stiffening of the child labor laws so that a 14-year-old would be prevented from doing anything from which someone else might earn a profit. Or is it just golf that should observe this hands-off policy?

« **Reply #87 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:35:12 PM »

ex·ploi·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ksploi-tshn)
n.
1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
3. An advertising or a publicity program.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--

exploitation

\Ex`ploi*ta"tion\, n. [F.] The act of exploiting or utilizing. --J. D. Whitney.

[Try Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

--

exploitation

n 1: the act of making some area of land or water more profitable or productive or useful: "the development of Alaskan resources"; "the exploitation of copper deposits" [syn: development] 2: an act that exploits or victimizes someone [syn: victimization, victimisation, using]
--
Michelle Wie has not been victimized. She also benefitted from the Special Exemption. On that mark, I don't think this was purely "selfish" by the USGA. It was mutually beneficial. Did her presence in the Open raise its profile? Absolutely. It then follows that a strict interpretation of the first definition means she was exploited. The normal connotation implies that someone is harmed, evidenced by the final definition where "victimization" is used as a synonym.[/b]

« **Reply #88 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:36:20 PM »

"exploit".

http://www.m-w.com

Main Entry: 2ex·ploit
Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-"
Function: transitive verb
1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>
- ex·ploit·able /-'sploi-t&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·ploit·er noun

(By the way, that is the reason that a head of lettuce doesn't cost you $8 each at the grocery store.)

« **Reply #89 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:40:16 PM »

Main Entry: 2ex·ploit
Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-"
Function: transitive verb
1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>
- ex·ploit·able /-'sploi-t&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·ploit·er noun
--
Daniel:

"Meanly" or "unjustly" don't apply. Like I said in an earlier post, if you only adhere to the strict application of #1, this is a productive use. Doing so would ignore the definition in #2. The word clearly carries a connotation with it that someone is being harmed. Wie has not been harmed in any way.[/b]

« **Reply #90 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:46:29 PM »

"Wie has not been harmed in any way."

The fact that you even consider the possibility...

She's an amateur. She's a child. The USGA used her to garner interest and ratings to their economic advantage AS IF she were a professional. I consider that unethical.

« **Reply #91 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:00:09 PM »

If I come to you, hungry and homeless and ask for a job which you give me and then pick lettuce for $6.00 an hour, would that be considered exploitation? To me it would be somewhat unpalatable, but at least I would eat.

Was it Marx or Engle that opined that all work was exploitation, unless of course it was on a collective?

Wie's exemption, although misguided, was of benefit to both parties.

« **Reply #92 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:06:59 PM »

Daniel:

It is presumptuous on your part to assume that all children are harmed. Seles, Capriati, Lebron, Gretzky, Nuxhall, and Pele apparently weren't harmed by early success. That straight-haired Adam Rich kid from Eight is Enough and the 10-year-old who played LPGA events didn't do so well as adults, but blaming their troubles solely on "too much too soon" could easily be off base. There are others my age who didn't star on TV shows that had the same problems.

Please oh please tell me what being an amateur has to do with this.

Christian Hosoi and Tony Hawk were peers in their teens. One is now an ex-junkie convict and the other a multimillionairre. Try telling Hawk that his high profile at a young age was detrimental. While Hosoi may say the endorsement monies were "exploitative", Hawk can point to the opportunities they afforded. (A recent SI story on Hosoi didn't mention any resentment on his part. Hawk's discipline is no doubt a reflection of strong parenting. Which path is Wie most likely to follow? She sure seems more Hawk than Hosoi. Your argument could be twisted a bit to say her own parents are the ones exploiting her for their own gain. There might be more fuel to flame that.)

She could just as easily have been a 14-year-old professional and the only difference I could see is that she'd have cashed a USGA check and all players that finished behind her would have earned a sliver less.

« **Reply #93 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:22:11 PM »

Again.

We're talking about the acts of the USGA.

Why did they give an exemption to a child, an amateur golfer, to the U.S. Open? Why did THEY, the U-S-G-A, do that?

Thank GOD you guys know a lot about golf course architecture.

« **Reply #94 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:28:54 PM »

Anyone see what the TV ratings were for the Women's US Open?

I wonder if they got the increase in viewers that they might have hoped for, of course, for the good of the game !

« **Reply #95 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:42:17 PM »

I don't get it -- why are some of us opposed to the USGA increasing their ratings for the Women's Open? Isn't that growing the game? Isn't that what the USGA is supposed to do?

If they did it in some underhanded, despicable way, I might be able to understand the outrage. Instead, they made everybody happy except for a couple of marginal LPGA pros and a couple of cranky GCA posters.

Well done, USGA!

« **Reply #96 on:** July 07, 2004, 06:41:10 PM »

Rich Shefchik;

Right you are in post #101. Criticizing the USGA has become so frequent on here some probably aren't really thinking about what they're criticzing the association for!! It just seems sometimes whatever they do some are just going to automatically bash them for it. I'm not that clear why but the USGA seems to have become the organization that some just love to hate!

« **Reply #97 on:** July 07, 2004, 06:45:01 PM »

Tom
I would suggest it is because the hierarchy of the USGA are perceived to project themselves as a bunch of elitist snobs.

« **Reply #98 on:** July 07, 2004, 08:32:07 PM »

"Tom
I would suggest it is because the hierarchy of the USGA are perceived to project themselves as a bunch of elitist snobs."

John:

I think your probably exactly right. The board of the USGA has frankly had that reputation for many decades and it seems to be continuing. It's too bad more people don't know some of those individuals--it probably wouldn't abolish the reputation altogether but I think it would certainly alleviate it an awful lot.

« **Reply #99 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:12:34 AM »

And Daniel Faleman continues to ignore the question. Why is it relevant that Michelle Wie is an amateur? She could be a 14-year-old professional and I wouldn't see any difference. Her credentials - to me - would be no different.

One possible loophole in the Fay explanation... if Wie were pro and accepting checks, would she even show on the Money List? I wouldn't think so. She'd still be a non-member unless Votaw waived the age clause like he did for Aree.

Does anyone else see her amateur status as making this different than talking about a 14-year-old professional with the same credentials? I assumed much of the hubbub was because of her age. Now he keeps pointing out that she's an amateur and that's relevant. In fact, he's doing it so forcefully that I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

Daniel, you say it is obvious. Not to me. Please explain.

News:

JakaB

Mike Hendren

Tom_Doak

Steve Lang

John_Conley

Lynn_Shackelford

John_Cullum

danielfaleman

John_Conley

danielfaleman

John_Conley

Rick Shefchik

John_Conley

danielfaleman

John_Conley

danielfaleman

Bob_Huntley

John_Conley

danielfaleman

Mike Benham

Rick Shefchik

TEPaul

John_Cullum

TEPaul

John_Conley