Donny's Furious Again... Wie Gets Exemption to Deere

[Indio]

When was the last time Tiger played the Canadian Open...

Didn't he stop coming the year that they refused his request for a $1 Million appearence Fee?

[Indio]

These fringe tournaments need an edge to get the media coverage. Does Michelle Wie meet that for the Deere? I'm not in the position to say yes or no, but this is post #46 on the subject in here today...

If we are going to give her a free pass, give it to her where all the top PGA players are in the field and let her measure herself against the likes of Tiger, Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Retief etc.... make her play with Tiger on one of the longer and tougher courses with real heavy rough to see how she handles the pressure. I think after a couple of rounds (1 with Tiger and 1 with VJ), she might be happy to go back and prove herself on the LPGA.

[spackler]

Didn't he stop coming the year that they refused his request for a $1 Million appearence Fee?

PGA tournaments are prohibited from paying appearance fees.

[Indio]

PGA tournaments are prohibited from paying appearance fees.

I'm just going by what the media was reporting...... I didn't make it up.

[Shivas Irons]

Not that I've seen. They have to play a minimum of 15 events, or something like that.

Perhaps there was only some discussion of this but it never came to fruition. Seems like it would be a simple solution for these smaller tournaments. Skip a tournament one year and you MUST play in it the next.

[spidey]

make her play with Tiger on one of the longer and tougher courses with real heavy rough to see how she handles the pressure.

....right, and the guy in 175th spot on the money list without full tour privileges and a handful of sponsors exemptions is going to do better?

The purpose for her going out is for her to practice dealing with the pressure. It's something that doesn't exist on the LPGA. Annika folded under the pressure. Wie has not.

[Colby]

Perhaps there was only some discussion of this but it never came to fruition. Seems like it would be a simple solution for these smaller tournaments. Skip a tournament one year and you MUST play in it the next.

The LPGA has a clause similar to that where the players over x years have to play at all of the events.

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/news/14637.html

It is a 15 event minimum for the PGA tour.

[EDSGOLF]

WOW, I feel MW is getting a bad wrap like TW. It's all about money and more press, all I know is that if she makes the cut, I'll be glued to the TV.

[FrankoSport]

Greetings ...

Remember ...

Nothing Runs Like A Wie

[little brit]

Ok. Well I do enjoy watching Michelle play very much with the men. I would watch anyway as I love watching pretty much all of the golf matches, but, I do feel that for the games integrity that everyone should have to qualify, these exemptions for someone who has won nothing could lead to other exemptions for ratings only. How do you determine what is appropriate? Annika playing is entirely appropriate as she has won just about everything in her league out there, but Michelle, no.

On another note I would really enjoy watching a ladies and mens match where the women play from father up tees to balance the distance a bit. Just maybe for one event a year. It would be interesting to see who would win that when distance would be less of a factor. Big money would have to be a factor though for the top guys to agree to play, so not likely.

[jonf]

BS

Riddle me this, Batman....

If the 4 majors paid $100,000 to the winner, and all the other PGA tour events paid what they're paying now, would the best players be showing up to win a major?

Yes.

Do hockey players play those extra two months of the season for the money or the Cup? (I'll answer this one for you...the Cup...there's no money..they're playing for free) Same goes for Basketball and Football.

Majors are not about the money. It's a nice bonus, of course, but the bottom line is the players show up for the pride and prestige of winning such historical tournaments - to win the green jacket, to get their names on trophies next to the Golden Bear and Arnie.

The rest of the season may be about winning money, but those events are about winning respect, and a place in golfing lore.

[jonf]

Also, if it was indeed all about the money for the players, why aren't they playing every week. The top players could finish in the top 5 of most of the tournaments with weak fields, but they don't. Talk to players in the month leading up to the majors and lots of them are taking tournaments off to practise and prepare for the upcoming major. Sure, they're missing 4 potentially large paychecks, but they have more important things to worry about. In 5 years, nobody is going to remember who won the John Deere Classic (unless its Wie ) but in 50 years, they are still going to remember who won the majors, and how they did it

And sure, you can say that the guys on top of the tour have all the money they could want, and don't need to play thos extra tournaments to earn more. Maybe true, but if it truly was all about money, don't you think they'd be out there as much as possible, trying to win as much money as possible?

[jonf]

....right, and the guy in 175th spot on the money list without full tour privileges and a handful of sponsors exemptions is going to do better?

The purpose for her going out is for her to practice dealing with the pressure. It's something that doesn't exist on the LPGA. Annika folded under the pressure. Wie has not.

Shaun Micheel did better.

As for pressure, Wie can't even deal with the pressure on the LPGA tour enough to win a tournament.

[Andru]

I agree, but then what is the acceptable level of sensationalism? Would you watch if the Hooters girls played topless? I would, but it's probably not the best thing for the tour in the long run.
Maybe the answer IS the Michelle Wie's of the world and celebrity pro-ams. On the other hand I think there will always be a churn of these smaller tournaments and when one dies new ones will spring up in their place when it's economically viable.
Maybe a PGA event every week is just too much.

That's not a legitimate argument. Michelle isn't some T & A for the cameras. She's a 16 year old who creates ball speed like a man and CAN play. She's a legitimate golfer who attracts attention it's win win for everyone involved. Inlcuding those ungrateful tour players who are more than happy to collect the prize monday on Sunday but complain when the meal ticket is invited to play.

[spidey]

jonf decides to say...Yes.

Do hockey players play those extra two months of the season for the money or the Cup?

Nice try, but this argument doesn't hold with golf. There's no championship in golf. In fact, the "Tour Championship" has to invite players and pay them tons and they still have no-shows.

The reason that the majors are majors is not because of the prestige of the trophy, it's because of the prestige of the field. If you don't attract the field, you'll never get a major out of it. The Masters was not invented as a major. It earned that status over 30 years of attracting the best field.

The British Open and the US Open are majors. Why not the Canadian Open...? It's a national open too?... it's not because of the trophy. The Canadian Open is older. It's because of the money and the field.

[Shivas Irons]

That's not a legitimate argument. .

Well, it's not an argument at all, but if it was, it would be legitimate.

Michelle isn't some T & A for the cameras. .

Of course she's not - she's 16 man!

AGAIN - the REAL issue is what should the tour allow the sponser's to do in the name creating excitement for the tournament. Having a 16 year old girl who can hit the ball over 300 yds creates excitement for sure. But as I said already, so would having the Hooters girls play topless. Doesn't mean it should happen though. So really, whether someone thinks she deserves to be there or not is moot.

[fundonny]

I'd rather see them invite a dude who can drive it 450 and see how he does, if anything.

[Shivas Irons]

I'd rather see them invite a dude who can drive it 450 and see how he does, if anything.

Actually I would too.
However, the sponser's seem to think Michelle Wie generates more interest than Jason Zuback, so she gets the exemption.

[fundonny]

True, don't know why they think that though. I think, I may be wrong, but I think Zuback would have the better chance to make the cut and be a draw on the weekend.

[sensfan63]

Zuback is a very marginal player. He doesn't have close to the overall game to compete on any professional tour.

While I get very annoyed at the gifts that Michelle Wie constantly receives from PGA Tour sponsors, I readily concede that she has a MUCH better chance to make the cut compared to Jason Zuback...and would be a WAY bigger draw on the weekend.

But a lot of players have a "chance" to make the cut...I just can't stand golf tournaments turning into sideshows.

[jonf]

Nice try, but this argument doesn't hold with golf. There's no championship in golf. In fact, the "Tour Championship" has to invite players and pay them tons and they still have no-shows.

The reason that the majors are majors is not because of the prestige of the trophy, it's because of the prestige of the field. If you don't attract the field, you'll never get a major out of it. The Masters was not invented as a major. It earned that status over 30 years of attracting the best field.

The British Open and the US Open are majors. Why not the Canadian Open...? It's a national open too?... it's not because of the trophy. The Canadian Open is older. It's because of the money and the field.

Ask the players to tell you what the championships are in golf...they will name the majors. I know hockey is not exactly analagous to golf, but the principle is the same - players will play for virtually nothing in order to have the prestige of being the best in the game. (I think few would argue that the Tour Championship is a more prestigious tournament than the majors)

I can agree with you that the reason they are majors is because they have attracted the best fields in the past. But, do you not think, that having attracted those best fields for so long, they will continue to do so? And either way, the basic point that the players are there for the prestige (whether for the trophy or the field), rather than for the money remains true. Players continue to come because they want to beat the best, and the majors are the place to do it. Cut the prize money in half, and the field will be just as good at every major. I think most players would play for nothing just to have the chance to win at Augusta. (This may just be one of those irreconcilable points that there's absolutely no point in arguing any further)

[Indio]

On another note I would really enjoy watching a ladies and mens match where the women play from father up tees to balance the distance a bit. Just maybe for one event a year. It would be interesting to see who would win that when distance would be less of a factor. Big money would have to be a factor though for the top guys to agree to play, so not likely.

Brit, there is a 'made for TV' tournament called the Wendy's Three Tour Challenge. Essentially it is LPGA/PGA/Champion's tour and they play from their own Tees. If I am not mistaken, the LPGA won last years event, the Champions tour were second and the PGA was 3rd.

[Golfpeasant]

Clearly there are enough PRO-WIE comments here to prove why its a good idea to invite Wie to your tournament. Seeing as money/promotions does drive these things, I think its fair to say they know what they're doing.

[spidey]

I can agree with you that the reason they are majors is because they have attracted the best fields in the past.

But, do you not think, that having attracted those best fields for so long, they will continue to do so?

I think most players would play for nothing just to have the chance to win at Augusta. (This may just be one of those irreconcilable points that there's absolutely no point in arguing any further)

An interesting progression. For the record, I don't say that the current majors aren't important, nor that the players don't want to win them. What I thought we were discussing is whether or not they would still be majors if they stopped paying the biggest purses.

It's odd that you agree that the majors got that way by offering the biggest money, thereby attracting the toughest field, but then you don't agree it could happen again. What happened to the Canadian Open (LPGA) when they lost their $ backing? Bingo, no more major.

Do I think they will continue to do so? Absolutely, they will never stop paying the money. Why? Because they want to retain "Major" status. Make sense?

I think pro golfers play for money. Amateurs pay to play Augusta. Pros do not. They play for money. There is only going to be one winner at Augusta this year. The rest are playing for money. How many have a realistic chance of winning? Probably no more than 10, maybe less.

The point in an argument is not to get either side to capitulate, because that will never happen when opinions are debated. The point is merely to state your opinion, and hopefully some kind of evidence, either factual or anecdotal, which will support your contention or refute the contrary view. I don't expect everybody to adopt my perspective, even if I think it has merit.

[jonf]

An interesting progression. For the record, I don't say that the current majors aren't important, nor that the players don't want to win them. What I thought we were discussing is whether or not they would still be majors if they stopped paying the biggest purses.

It's odd that you agree that the majors got that way by offering the biggest money, thereby attracting the toughest field, but then you don't agree it could happen again. What happened to the Canadian Open (LPGA) when they lost their $ backing? Bingo, no more major.

Do I think they will continue to do so? Absolutely, they will never stop paying the money. Why? Because they want to retain "Major" status. Make sense?

I think pro golfers play for money. Amateurs pay to play Augusta. Pros do not. They play for money. There is only going to be one winner at Augusta this year. The rest are playing for money. How many have a realistic chance of winning? Probably no more than 10, maybe less.

The point in an argument is not to get either side to capitulate, because that will never happen when opinions are debated. The point is merely to state your opinion, and hopefully some kind of evidence, either factual or anecdotal, which will support your contention or refute the contrary view. I don't expect everybody to adopt my perspective, even if I think it has merit.

Apparently by agreeing that the majors have the best fields I also magically agreed that they attracted those fields because of the money. Your previous post did not say that the majors attracted the best fields because they offered the most money. Perhaps that was implied, but I did not pick up on that implication - nor do I know whether it is in fact true.

As for the LPGA major - it got cancelled because it lost its sponsor. It does take money to run a tournament, obviously - but there are more expenses that go into it than simply the prize money.

There is only going to be one winner...the rest are playing for money? Well, no, the rest are playing to try to WIN. You don't go into a tournament saying "I'm going to try to make the most money possible, because x has already locked up the title" You go in saying "I'm going to give it everything I've got to win this tournament." If you don't, you shouldn't be playing sports. The beautiful thing about sports is that, even though only 10 are expected to contend, anybody can win. Shaun Micheel is a prime example. Did you have him picked in your top 10 to win the tournament? No. Did that matter? No. I guarantee you on that last day he was NOT thinking about how much money he could make - he was thinking about winning the biggest tournament of his life - his moment of glory.

Mickelson has been playing well for years, making a tonne of money. Yet, he is now playing the best golf of his career, having won a major, and finally tasted true success - to be on top of his sport. That feeling must be greater than any that money will give you - to know that, for at least a moment, you are the best at what you do. It is the desire to feel that again that motivates a player to improve - not simply the dollar signs on the cheque. There may be players out there simply playing for money - they will never have anything close to the career that someone playing for the game will have.

Money is obviously a part of sports - its a part of everything. But when it comes down to it, the athletes who truly excel are those who would give everything they had, whether they got paid 5 bucks, or 5 million.

[little brit]

Brit, there is a 'made for TV' tournament called the Wendy's Three Tour Challenge. Essentially it is LPGA/PGA/Champion's tour and they play from their own Tees. If I am not mistaken, the LPGA won last years event, the Champions tour were second and the PGA was 3rd.

Cool, Indio How did I miss it? I am never off the golf channels, (except when my family bitterly complains)

[Indio]

Cool, Indio How did I miss it? I am never off the golf channels, (except when my family bitterly complains)

There must have been a clip about Camihullio Vijesus or what ever ya call him on another channel :-P

[spidey]

quoth jonf

But when it comes down to it, the athletes who truly excel are those who would give everything they had, whether they got paid 5 bucks, or 5 million.

...and his name was Bobby Jones.

Honestly, if Tiger Woods wanted to play as an amateur, while he wouldn't be rolling in millions, he'd still live a cushier life than we do. And he'd get a lot more critical acclaim by beating all these pros as an amateur. Imagine his acclaim if he won 4 Masters as an amateur.

[Andru]

Well, it's not an argument at all, but if it was, it would be legitimate.



Of course she's not - she's 16 man!

AGAIN - the REAL issue is what should the tour allow the sponser's to do in the name creating excitement for the tournament. Having a 16 year old girl who can hit the ball over 300 yds creates excitement for sure. But as I said already, so would having the Hooters girls play topless. Doesn't mean it should happen though. So really, whether someone thinks she deserves to be there or not is moot.

If you really believe inviting Michelle Wie to an event for attention is like inviting the hooters girls to play topless you've simplified this to the point of silliness. There IS a difference for your benefit I'll explain. The purpose of a professional golf tournamant from a spectators point of view is to watch great golfers play golf. MW is a great golfer. The topless hooters girls are there with the sole purpose of attracting attention based ONLY on their appearance. So NO it is not the same.

If you see it as the same then maybe you need to go out and watch a pga tour event live. You may develop some appreciation for the level of play it takes to be even close to the cut in one of these events.

[Shivas Irons]

If you really believe inviting Michelle Wie to an event for attention is like inviting the hooters girls to play topless you've simplified this to the point of silliness. There IS a difference for your benefit I'll explain. The purpose of a professional golf tournamant from a spectators point of view is to watch great golfers play golf. MW is a great golfer. The topless hooters girls are there with the sole purpose of attracting attention based ONLY on their appearance. So NO it is not the same.

Andru, not only is your post condescending, but you have missed my point completely so I'm not going to bother debating this with you.

If you see it as the same then maybe you need to go out and watch a pga tour event live. You may develop some appreciation for the level of play it takes to be even close to the cut in one of these events.

Thanks for the tip but, been there done that. Your aren't the only one on this forum who goes to PGA events.