Michelle Wie's Very Awful Terrible Bad Day
At this point, she is the polar opposite of Tiger Woods in terms of living up to the hype. If you think about it, the buzz was very similar for each. Course, Woods has given full bloom to his hellacious talent, and we are watching his career unfold in awe. Wie, on the other hand, was either ridiculously over-hyped, or has failed to breathe life into her alleged talent to a level not seen in sport in awhile.
As for the latest twist and turn yesterday, well, it was bizarre. She played for the first time in forever after taking time off for a mysterious wrist injury. And she played, in the LPGA event, only slightly better than a weekend hacker. I'm being generous with that assessment. She played so badly that a very little known rule came into play, that being the LPGA "Rule of 88". If a non-tour player shoots an 88 in a tournament, they are barred from the tour for the rest of the calendar year. It became important because Wie got to the end of hole 16 only two mere bogeys from getting to that score. What happened next? Eric Adelson at espn.com picks up the narrative:
"Missing the cut became the least of Wie's troubles. The somewhat obscure Rule of 88 states that a nonmember who shoots 88 is forced to withdraw and subsequently banned from LPGA co-sponsored events for the remainder of the calendar season. Wie said later that she never considered the possibility, but soon after her score ballooned to 12-over on the par-72 course, her parents began consulting with each other and William Morris manager Greg Nared, who had a cell phone to his ear. Chris Higgs, the LPGA chief operations officer, soon drove up in a cart and spoke with Nared. Higgs had been talking about the Rule of 88 in the media tent, but he said he came out to Wie's rope line for 'no particular reason.'"
The "particular reason" given by Wie's people and the LPGA for her withdrawing two holes from being barred from the tourney for the rest of the year? Her wrists.
By the way, that wasn't the only time yesterday that her parents were involved in her round. The above linked article makes a good case that Wie should already have been hit with a two stroke penalty earlier in the round after her father was too involved with some advice, a no no in the rulebook.
Ya know, LPGA, you might want to go ahead and hitch your wagon to a different young horse (mare), so to speak. Perhaps Paula Creamer, who appears to be fully capable of realizing her prodigious talent. But the Wie thing? That's so 2004. At some point, she has to decide if she wants to be good, and actually work toward it. Because what's happening now? It defines farce.
The swamp is kicking it around here. Anyone, anywhere, still willing to defend Wie? If so, please share a thought.
