[Steve Pozaric]

Here is my take:

Upon reading these posts, a interesting thing hit me – the anti-Wie exemption people say that no one should be granted exemptions.  Is not every LPGA player who gets in based on money list criteria effectively granted an exemption?  If exemptions are bad, make EVERYONE qualify the same way - no exemptions for money lists, past champions, etc.  Otherwise, I see no harm in granting an exemption to Wie based on her hypothetical money list place pre Open.

[John_Conley]

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.

[John_Conley]

Steve Poz:

Bingo.  I've said all along that an argument that nobody should receive an invitation to the Open makes sense.  However, to single out Wie when Ray Floyd and Aaron Baddeley are just two examples of people that received the same pass seems to be unfair.

[TEPaul]

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!

[A_Clay_Man]

Shiv- You're gonna bash the entire organization because of a flaw in their media relations, or PR?

People make msitakes and often say stupid shit. Control the PR and give one corporate image. Sounds false, to me

What if Wie never becomes a pro? But still becomes the best golfer? A modern Day Bobby Jones, for women, if you will?

Would this be good for golf?

I'm not saying this happened, I'm saying, what if.
 David Fay, (Or some marketing guru) orchestrated such a scenario, by assuring the Wie families financial security in perpetuity, through some third party intervention. And in hindsight it worked! The game flourished, in a similar way it did when Jones slowly, but surely, altered the image of the Professional golfer. Ironic he wasn't a pro.

Would that be protecting the game? Road to hell and all.

[TEPaul]

"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!

[John_Conley]

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.

Tom:

You surely know that Michelle Wie could turn pro today.  She could play in any events that would have her, and I believe that to be quite a few.  She may not be able to be a member of the LPGA Tour, but that has nothing to do with playing in a few of their events or being considered a professional.

Turning professional would allow her to collect all endorsement monies available to her.

Ty Tryon similarly turned pro before he was old enough to be a member of the PGA Tour.  He then qualified via its Q-School and "sat out" the requisite number of events until he turned 18.

I believe there is a limit to the number of Sponsor's Exemptions a lady can receive from the LPGA's tournaments, so it isn't possible for her to play every event.  This number may or may not be the same for members and non-members.

She could have cashed a check in the U.S. Open if she wanted, provided she turn pro before its start.

[Phil_the_Author]

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?

[George Pazin]

Look, I'm not bashing the USGA.  This is a minor quibble with the way they handled it.

This is similar to my own feelings on the subject, except that I don't think they should have given Michelle the special exemption. But it's not a big deal to me and I remain one of her biggest fans.

I think it's healthy to have disagreement.

I also think there is no hypocrisy in believing that limited special exemptions for ceremonial purposes are okay, but special exemptions for anticipated contenders are wrong, in spite of JC's and Steve Pozaric's well reasoned condemnation of the belief. Apples to oranges in my book, and I happen to like the fact that golf retains a connection to past champions - it's unique in sports, and I like it.

[John_Conley]

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_Conley]

Phillip:

By comparison, Faldo had made 11 of 15 cuts in 2000 (with a high of 7th in the U.S. Open).  2001 saw him make 10 of 13.  In 2002 he was 5 of 5 with a T14 in the Masters.  It wasn't like his good finish in the 2002 U.S. Open came out of nowhere.

(Those are PGA Tour results.  I didn't mine for his overseas stuff.  I find it unlikely that Strange had any success away from the U.S.)

[TEPaul]

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!  

[TEPaul]

John:

I'm also not saying that in recent years the amateur college golf structure and even the junior golf structure that has grown up and become a virtual adolescent "farm team" structure under the professional ranks is not truly something to see. Organizations such as the AJGA is really something. Some of these little kids that are really good and potential have lives that is something to see. They have to continue in school obviously but the rest of the time they're virtually "on tour". And they're plenty of them on these "tours", including the whole NCAA structure, that again has players from all over the world.

But they're all still amateurs and nary a one of them has or has been allowed for some reason to turn professional earlier than about 18. Ty Tryon was notable not so much for his execellence in golf (like Wie) but because he basically short-cut the "system" ("culture") to some extent. Tryon's parents are pretty well heeled and the young man was a product of one of these "golf academies" which sort of doubles as an actual school, probably so the truant officer isn't after you---a concept that is pretty scary in itself!

How old was Garcia when he turned pro? How old was Faldo, or Els or some of the other now well known non-American tour golfers? I bet many of them were younger than we think and also younger than an American golfer could reasonably be!

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

[John_Conley]

Phillip:

Under the criteria - although this is imagined or assumed by you - "lifetime gifts to the game", Wie falls way short of Floyd or Strange.  There are no defined criteria for a Special Exemption, therefore we can only go by precedent.  Aaron Baddeley and Juli Inkster were invited at some point because of their expected ability to compete.  

It is perhaps telling that the USGA has indicated that the USAPL winner will, in the future, receive an invite to the Open.  (I think I read this.)  That will make every APL winner after Wie the same entrant without qualifying.  

While not a moot point, I do fully expect my prediction that she never need another Special during her competitive years to come to pass.  She will be exempt from qualifying for the rest of her career.

[tonyt]

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.

[TEPaul]

"There are no defined criteria for a Special Exemption, therefore we can only go by precedent."

You should all probably understand something about the "special exemption" category of the USGA for their Open. The "special exemption" category means exactly what it say--eg "special". For that reason there is not, has not been, nor can there really be any defined "criteria". The regular exemptions all have very defined criteria. "Special" exemptions are used, as they've always been, for sometimes unusual situations. Wie appears to have been one of them. The fact that she's so young may have been outside the norm in the past but certainly no real anomalie within the history of the USGA's "special exemption" category!

[Lynn_Shackelford]

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.

[TEPaul]

Lynn:

That all makes sense going into the US Open. But the Open is over now and Wie's play proved the USGA "special exemption" to her this year worthy. Wie played her way to an exemption into the Open next year and there isn't much better proof of the valid use of a "special" qualifying exemption than that!

I swear to God, if that kid stays an amateur for the next 3-4 years as she'll probably have to do for a variety of reasons, and she learns to putt more effectively I wouldn't be at all surprised to see her win the US Open before she turns 18 and a professional golfer!

[Michael Plunkett]

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.

[danielfaleman]

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

[Carlyle Rood]

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

There are dozens of ways to see it.

[Tom_Armstrong]

Looks like some scratch players don't like the fact a young lady can beat them. Sorry, boys, it's the truth.

Just a question, I don't mean to offend, if she was white would you trumpet her achievements? Would you villify her for being succesful?

Me? I'm a white man living a comfortable life.

See, I have friends that aren't comfortable or white and they have to work harder to be a success.

If she was 6'2" and white, hitting it 300 yds would there be a problem.

If she had one arm could the shit talkers on this board beat her?

It's doubtful.

Tom

[JohnV]

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.

[Tom_Armstrong]

Ahhh, I'm sorry.

Maybe you are just a bunch of crochety old men and race doesn't enter into it.

Michelle Wie is world class, you can accept it or hold tight to your dreams of barefoot and pregnant women doing your bidding. Times change, you get with them or get left behind.

I have $$$$$$$$$ that says my best girl beats your best man.

Takers?

Tom

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()