Michelle Wie shoots 82 today ...

At least Capriati had something to bounce back to. Granted she actually accomplished more after the meltdown than before, but even if she had come back to the level she was at before - semifinals at majors - Capriati still would have had a solid career.

Could Wie bounce back? For the sake of the game and herself, I hope so.

But comparing Wie to Capriati or Sharapova or Strug or Tiger isn't fair to them. Capriati, Sharapova, Strug and Tiger all accomplished major feats at relatively young ages. Wie has accomplished ... hype. And the ability to pack it in when all is not going well. Not much else.

For every comeback athlete, there's a Ty Tryon or a one-hit wonder. And nothing is leading me to believe Wie has more of the former in her than the latter.

I really, really hope Wie bounces back (and that 12-year-old Alexis Thompson doesn't get burned out or overhyped). She could change the face of golf and women's sports.

But Wie's becoming a lot like Danica. By the time these two finally do something important, there will be less "Congratulations! Way to go!" and more "Bout damn time! What the hell took so long?" I'm afraid.

Hopefully I'll be proved wrong, but at the rate Wie is going, that could be a while.

 

When she pulled out a few weeks ago after blowing up the speculation was that she did it to prevent being limited on how many events she could play (some LPGA rule), does that rule apply to the US Open as well? And I always called the sudden limp pulling an Elway or a Kellen Winslow (elder) from their miraculous playoff game "healing powers" whenever they got a first down or made a good play.

 

I think the key remaining question would remain, what would she be bouncing back to? What has she done?

Seldom has so much been written for so little being accomplished.

 

shottie,

I probably should have worded that better.

Maybe something along the lines of "Can Wie ever get on the track many have come to expect due to the overexcessive hype?"

 

That, I can get on board with.

 

And that's not fair at all.

No athlete is obligated to "live up to expectations caused by overexcessive hype". They are only obligated to give their best effort.

I have a problem with athletes who waste their talent (think Roy Tarpley or Darryl Strawberry or Andre Agassi when he was tanking matches and losing to the likes of Andres Gomez in the French Open final) more than I do athletes who didn't "live up to the hype."

If the hype is overexcessive, the creators of said hype --- hint, hint --- maybe should look in the mirror instead of saying, "Hey, you're not doing what we said you should be doing as fast as we said you should be doing it. What the hell's the matter with you?"

Sure, Danica and Michelle and others like them have not done anything in their sport to "deserve" the riches and sponsor's exemptions and other perks that have been bestowed on them.

But their only fault is accepting those perks . . . which every damn person on this board would have done had they been in the same position.

And even after all that . . . when an IRL race is run or a golf tournament is held, what's the first question on people's minds?

"What did Danica and Michelle do?"

Or is there some other U.S. Women's Open discussion on this board that I missed that actually cares about, you know, who's winning?

 

I agree with what you said about the creators of the hype looking in the mirror.

I found it quite funny that Christine Brennan wrote a column in USA Today a couple of weeks ago lamenting all of the pressure put on Wie. This was the same Christine Brennan who wrote a giddy column a year or two ago, when Wie was contending at one of those men's amateur tournaments that could have gotten her into the Masters, about how great it would be to have her be the first woman to play in the Masters. This was also the same Christine Brennan who called Wie a couple of years ago, "the Next Great Thing in sports. This is a young lady who has her act together the way most 30-year-olds don't. If you were at the drawing board, conjuring the perfect girl for this sport at this time, you would draw Michelle Wie and her parents."

In Brennan's world, apparently, it was OK a year or two ago to want her to be some political symbol and say she's the 'Next Great Thing,' but now everyone's putting too much pressure on her.

 

Monday morning quarterbacking, I believe. Given the right kid, the right parents and the right circumstances, this might have avoided becoming a train wreck.

 

I don't hype Wie. Never written more than one or two sentences about her for my rag.

But I'm with Shottie: Why all the hub-bub about someone who has done relatively nothing notable? Because ESPN and Nike and USA Today (until Brennan did a 180) and the like say we should care?

So it is fair to compare Wie (who has done nothing) to folks who have actually done something in their youths - Sharapova, Tiger, Capriati, Strug - but it's not fair to expect Wie to live up to the hype (even though she's accepted most of the unwritten perks that go with it)?

Sorry, not buying.

One withdraw I can understand. Two is pushing the limit. If it happens again (and it only has happened when she's played badly, she's never withdrawn when she's played well because apparently pain only happens when you suck it up on the course) she should be done for the year.

I can admire someone for playing through the pain. I can't admire her though for packing it in halfway through when the chips are down and not playing through at that point.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. But Brennan still did what Hawkeye said... and he's right

 

And that's where we differ.

I say it's a train derailment, not a train wreck. Derailments are hiccups, such as Agassi plummeting to 144th in the rankings . . . before recommitting himself and becoming one of the sport's great ambassadors.

When I think train wreck, I think Tonya Harding.

 

The only -- only -- reason I might not term this a train wreck is that Wie has never established a high level of performance to meet.