Michelle Wie 24/7

[rodney_c]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Michelle shot one decent round at the Sony

False, she shot 68 twice, as well as other under par pga rounds at the Deere.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

and you declared her the Queen of Golf

LIAR.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

and that she'd dominate the LPGA for decades to come,

LIAR.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

win 100 majors,

LIAR.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

be the best ever,

LIAR

Now I remember why I stopped conversing with you previously. You are a compulsive liar, who claims that other people said things they didn't, in the hope that new people to the forum will believe your claims.
mr3856a = compulsive liar.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

She is 23 years old.
Of the vast majority of usga champions and junior level champions, they don't go on to do great things. That's the point, sorry you have difficulty understanding.

Ok, a non-answer, not a surprise...

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

False, she shot 68 twice, as well as other under par pga rounds at the Deere.

Why don't you read my full quote, sparky, before getting in a defensive tizzy. She shot one decent round at the Sony before you declared her the next best thing, she'd win every major dominate the LPGA Tour, contend on the PGA Tour, etc. etc. etc.

And don't even bother denying you declared her the best thing since sliced bread, you don't want to have us all laughing at you, do you?

This is what's funny about you - you get so defensive. It must be tough, the last 2 years of humble pie you've been eating, but at least man up and admit all the nonsense you said about her. Denying it is a joke.

Originally Posted by rodney_c

LIAR

True.

Originally Posted by rodney_c

LIAR

True.

Originally Posted by rodney_c

LIAR

True.

Originally Posted by rodney_c

LIAR

True.

[mr3856a]

September 19th, 2006, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by leaguegolf
However, I do believe that there will come a time when Wie will need the LPGA more than the LPGA will need her.

Originally Posted by Rodney_C
When?

And wouldn't you predict that the lpga will be under such pressure to have her play more that they will be the first to compromise?

September 19th, 2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by troll4poker
Why not just rename the tour to MWPGA? point being, why should any organization change their rules, or by laws to accomodate any one player, whether it be MW or TW or whoever. As has been said, not any one person is bigger than the game, it was here long before them, and will be here long after they are gone from it.

Originally Posted by Rodney_C
The pga is a huge tour and can adopt the stance that you describe.

The lpga tour could do with every boost it can get.

Besides, as leaguegolf said, they have already amended various rules in order to help her, so why wouldn't they change a few more rules?

September 19th, 2006, 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by Rodney_C

I think Michelle would want any rookie year she might have to be a great one, maybe even win, both rookie of the year and player of the year as well.

Let's be blunt about it. If she becomes the best female player, how long would she stick around the lpga tour?
The only way she would stick around the lpga tour in my opinion, is if they gave her freedom to try her other goals.

You were saying, Rodney?

And fortunately for you all the old stuff was taken off the other site, because your predictions of her future greatness are well-known to all of us. This was right around when you started having to back off your earlier predictions; there was another quote in the thread where you said with a little work she could make a Sony cut "with ease".

So before you start calling other people liars, maybe you should look back at what you said. We know what you said, you know what you said. Just because you're eating it now, doesn't mean you can't be big enough to stand up and admit it.

[rodney_c]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Rodney, she's been a professional for THREE WEEKS, how many majors do expect her to win in that time?

Originally Posted by rodney_c

She is 23 years old.
Of the vast majority of usga champions and junior level champions, they don't go on to do great things. That's the point, sorry you have difficulty understanding.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Ok, a non-answer, not a surprise...

To answer your original question, I don't "expect Stacy Lewis to have won any majors. Why would you ask such a question. I have never said she should have won majors. This stuff you come up with is complete

The equivalent of what you do would be Leaguegolf saying to Wazmankq.
"Why do you think Tiger is a useless golfer?

Of course Wazman never said Tiger was a useless golfer, and the comment could only be an attempt to make Wazman look bad.

Luckily in your case, everyone knows that you are so full of , so people take everything you say as more .

The wayy you constantly misquote, and misrepresent people's positions shows you not only have a lack of debating skills, of you have a lack of decency.
You are an complete LIAR.

[rodney_c]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

LIAR

Originally Posted by mr3856a

True.
:

Originally Posted by rodney_c

LIAR

Originally Posted by mr3856a

True.
:

Originally Posted by rodney_c

LIAR

Originally Posted by mr3856a

True.
:

Originally Posted by rodney_c

LIAR

Originally Posted by mr3856a

True.

Maybe I have been slightly hard on you. At least you admitted 4 times in a row that you are a LIAR.
The fact that you are willing to admit this, shows that you are making some progress.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

To answer your original question, I don't "expect Stacy Lewis to have won any majors. Why would you ask such a question. I have never said she should have won majors. This stuff you come up with is complete

The equivalent of what you do would be Leaguegolf saying to Wazmankq.
"Why do you think Tiger is a useless golfer?

Of course Wazman never said Tiger was a useless golfer, and the comment could only be an attempt to make Wazman look bad.

Luckily in your case, everyone knows that you are so full of , so people take everything you say as more .

The wayy you constantly misquote, and misrepresent people's positions shows you not only have a lack of debating skills, of you have a lack of decency.
You are an complete LIAR.

Ok, now that you're blathering incoherently, let's try this again.

You said she is proof that success at the amateur level is no guarantee of the same at the professional level, and as an example you used her poor final round at the U.S. Open, correct?

Correct.

So, my question in response is, don't you think three weeks of a professional career is a bit short a time period on which to base such a statement?

Blow a few deep breaths into a paper bag to calm the hyperventilating and see if you can't just answer that simple question, Rodney.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

Maybe I have been slightly hard on you. At least you admitted 4 times in a row that you are a LIAR.
The fact that you are willing to admit this, shows that you are making some progress.

Ah, the Kindergarten approach - well done.

[rodney_c]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

You were saying, Rodney?

All of your feeble attempts at quoting from years ago, just prove my point.
The one about her wanting to be rookie and player of the year, was when people were saying she should join the tour at 16, and play a part season while still attending high school. I said that one of the reasons it would be a mistake, was because doing that and missing so many tournament would have given her little chances at getting the Rookie and Player Awards.
Joining as a full-time player would have given her a much better chance. That was a correct statement. If you have the complete ignorance not to understand that, then that is your problem.

You know sometimes it can be interesting and engaging to debate with people on an internet forum. With you, I just feel a great sense of pity, you have absolutely nothing to contribute, so you just resort to lies, time and time again.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

All of your feeble attempts at quoting from years ago, just prove my point.
The one about her wanting to be rookie and player of the year, was when people were saying she should join the tour at 16, and play a part season while still attending high school. I said that one of the reasons it would be a mistake, was because doing that and missing so many tournament would have given her little chances at getting the Rookie and Player Awards.
Joining as a full-time player would have given her a much better chance. That was a correct statement. If you have the complete ignorance not to understand that, then that is your problem.

You know sometimes it can be interesting and engaging to debate with people on an internet forum. With you, I just feel a great sense of pity, you have absolutely nothing to contribute, so you just resort to lies, time and time again.

So quoting you is "lies" now?

If I remember correctly, I predicted she wouldn't be the youngest winner on the LPGA Tour, wouldn't be the youngest major winner on the LPGA Tour, and would never, ever get another sponsor's exemption on the PGA Tour.

Two of three are locked in stone, and the third I'm feeling pretty safe on.

So how did your predictions turn out over the years?

I don't know why I'm bothering to engage in an argument I won a long, loooooooong time ago...

[rodney_c]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Ok, now that you're blathering incoherently, let's try this again.

You could get a degree on blathering incoherently.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

You said she is proof that success at the amateur level is no guarantee of the same at the professional level, and as an example you used her poor final round at the U.S. Open, correct?

Wrong again. I said that it was yet more proof that winning amateur title after amateur title (10 recent wins for Lewis), does not a worldbeater make.
She may well turn into a worldbeater, and become a great lpga player, but she will need to learn this on the lpga tour.

For her, amateur win after amateur win, did not follow through when she was faced with the same situation at the US Women's Open. She may well learn this on the lpga tour and turn into a great player there, but her amateur wins will not do that for her.

In the same way Lorena blazed a trail at lower levels and did not take that onto the lpga tour. She later learned how to do it on the lpga tour, by playing on that tour, and learning to win there.

Sorry that this stuff is way over your head.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Blow a few deep breaths into a paper bag to calm the hyperventilating and see if you can't just answer that simple question, Rodney.

I'm not going to answer your question because it has nothing to do with anything.

It's like me asking you "why do you think Morgan is ugly". Just answer the question. Come on, answer it!
What, you don't thing she's ugly???
Hey that doesn't matter. Why do you think Morgan is ugly. Now just answer it. Come on.


I don't know whether to laugh at you or just feel pity.

[Leaguegolf]

Gee boys........seems like old times around here. Let's clean it up, keep the personal comments to yourselves, and talk about Wie. That's what this thread is about.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

Wrong again. I said that it was yet more proof that winning amateur title after amateur title (10 recent wins for Lewis), does not a worldbeater make.

No, you said exactly what I said you did:

Originally Posted by rodney_c

Stacy Lewis is a prolific winner at various levels but it didn't stop her from shooting a high score while leading going into the final round at the US Open.
So I don't think the achiveing on lower levels is particularly important, especially since so many have achieved at those levels and done nothing at higher levels.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by rodney_c

For her, amateur win after amateur win, did not follow through when she was faced with the same situation at the US Women's Open.

Rodney, can I point out for the 17th time THIS WAS HER FIRST PROFESSIONAL START. Of course it didn't translate into a Sunday afternoon romp to the U.S. Open title. Any other observations?

Originally Posted by rodney_c

In the same way Lorena blazed a trail at lower levels and did not take that onto the lpga tour. She later learned how to do it on the lpga tour, by playing on that tour, and learning to win there.

But Rodney, I thought you said there was no such thing as "learning how to win". In fact, you posted a huge diatribe to that effect one time, and don't even bother denying it.

And you still fail to prove in any way that she learned to win on the LPGA irrespective of her success as an amateur, which, of course, you can't.

Originally Posted by rodney_c

I'm not going to answer your question because it has nothing to do with anything.

No, you're not going to answer my question because the answer is both obvious and fatal to your argument. In fact, there are three questions you refuse to answer for that very reason:

1. Don't you think three weeks of a professional career is a bit short a time period on which to base such a statement?

2. Who shot the lowest round on Sunday at the 2007 U.S. Women's Open?

3. How did your predictions for Michelle's greatness turn out?

Originally Posted by rodney_c

It's like me asking you "why do you think Morgan is ugly". Just answer the question. Come on, answer it!

Not whatsoever; that question is not substantive to her performance as a golfer.

I'm asking you simple, straightforward, substantive questions - why won't you answer them?

[rodney_c]

mr,
I'm not a cruel person. I don't enjoy making a fool out of someone, but yet you persist, so it is your own fault, so yet again .....

Originally Posted by mr3856a

No, you're not going to answer my question because the answer is both obvious and fatal to your argument. In fact, there are three questions you refuse to answer for that very reason:

Let's answer your 3 questions.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

1. Don't you think three weeks of a professional career is a bit short a time period on which to base such a statement?

She won her last several titles as an amateur. When she was in exactly the same situation as a pro, she didn't close well. Sorry if that wounds you, but that is just the way it is.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

2. Who shot the lowest round on Sunday at the 2007 U.S. Women's Open?

Se Ri Pak, a 68 if your interested.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

3. How did your predictions for Michelle's greatness turn out?

They haven't turned out any particular way.
Ask again in about 10-20 years, when there is a relevant answer.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

I'm asking you simple, straightforward, substantive questions - why won't you answer them?

Okay, I've answered your 3 questions yet again. I hope you can manage to untwist your knickers somewhat more now.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

She won her last several titles as an amateur. When she was in exactly the same situation as a pro, she didn't close well. Sorry if that wounds you, but that is just the way it is.

That doesn't answer my question (surprise!). To quote you:

I merely said she shot a high score after taking the lead into the final round of the US Women's Open, proving that the wins at amateur golf do not make someone a winner at the top level.

So, for the 18th time:

Don't you think three weeks of a professional career is a bit short a time period on which to base such a statement?

Originally Posted by rodney_c

Se Ri Pak, a 68 if your interested.

Hardy har har. So how about the Kraft Nabisco, which is what we were talking about?

Originally Posted by rodney_c

They haven't turned out any particular way.

Uh, yes they have.

[rodney_c]

mr,
Didn't take you long to come back (as delusional as ever).
Unfortunately, I can't continue this entralling conversation as I have to go meet Morgan Pressel