|
Sports » rec.sport.golf » Annika collapses again
| Annika collapses again [message #1033701] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 23:50 |
|
It's no big deal to be in the final group on Sunday, but you have to
be able to perform under pressure. Annika shot a 74, and blew it.
She should have played amateur events longer, and learned how to win.
A winner has a killer instinct. Annika is satisfied with just a good
effort. Asked about her triple bogey on the par-4 ninth hole today,
she said, "I made seven good shots."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060521. wlpgaa0521/BNStory/Sports/home
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1033731 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 03:02 |
|
"multi" <multi [at] asm.org> wrote in message
news:ojn1721j6vh22ii1ev18ag2b4lqbs76dbi [at] 4ax.com...
> It's no big deal to be in the final group on Sunday, but you have to
> be able to perform under pressure. Annika shot a 74, and blew it.
> She should have played amateur events longer, and learned how to win.
heh heh :-)
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1033812 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 19:47 |
|
"multi" <multi [at] asm.org> wrote in message
news:ojn1721j6vh22ii1ev18ag2b4lqbs76dbi [at] 4ax.com...
> It's no big deal to be in the final group on Sunday, but you have to
> be able to perform under pressure. Annika shot a 74, and blew it.
> She should have played amateur events longer, and learned how to win.
> A winner has a killer instinct. Annika is satisfied with just a good
> effort. Asked about her triple bogey on the par-4 ninth hole today,
> she said, "I made seven good shots."
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060521. wlpgaa0521/BNStory/Sports/home
For those of us that saw the triple on #9, the only way to describe a green
where you hit a 9 iron to the center of it and it rolls back 100 yards is
"tricked up". In fact one of the shots, the announcer said she probably hit
it a little too clean which is why it spun at all, and none of those shots
had the type of spin that was anything near the yo-yo on a string look to
them.
Is Annika having a Sorenstam type year? Clearly not. That being said, what
does it say when during an off year for her, she has more wins than Creamer,
Pressel, Gulbis and Wie combined and has more wins half way through an off
year than Pressel, Gulbis and Wie have in their combined careers, which have
to be well over 100 events.
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1033886 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 01:35 |
|
On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:47:20 -0700, "Steve"
<stevenospamplease [at] comcast.com> wrote:
>That being said, what
>does it say when during an off year for her, she has more wins than Creamer,
>Pressel, Gulbis and Wie combined and has more wins half way through an off
>year than Pressel, Gulbis and Wie have in their combined careers, which have
>to be well over 100 events.
It says that stats can be selectively cited to form spurious
conclusions. If you think it says more than that, I will gladly bet
$1000 against your $10 that Annika does not get more wins this year
than Pressel, Gulbis, and Wie get in their combined careers.
|
|
|
| Potential [message #1033933 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 15:37 |
|
On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:47:20 -0700, "Steve"
<stevenospamplease [at] comcast.com> wrote:
>Is Annika having a Sorenstam type year? Clearly not. That being said, what
>does it say when during an off year for her, she has more wins than Creamer,
>Pressel, Gulbis and Wie combined and has more wins half way through an off
>year than Pressel, Gulbis and Wie have in their combined careers, which have
>to be well over 100 events.
Another player is getting as much hype as anybody without any wins is
Villegas.
But I enjoy watching people with potential. Sometimes I will luck
out and be able to say "I watched Chauncy Billups play highs school
basketball". I really should watch more high school and college golf
- they need the support.
Watching the next generations is fun.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1033978 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 18:09 |
|
"multi" <multi [at] asm.org> wrote in message
news:b5i47252fqj2v4hofaug6o6462srgcvhap [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:47:20 -0700, "Steve"
> <stevenospamplease [at] comcast.com> wrote:
>>That being said, what
>>does it say when during an off year for her, she has more wins than
>>Creamer,
>>Pressel, Gulbis and Wie combined and has more wins half way through an off
>>year than Pressel, Gulbis and Wie have in their combined careers, which
>>have
>>to be well over 100 events.
>
> It says that stats can be selectively cited to form spurious
> conclusions. If you think it says more than that, I will gladly bet
> $1000 against your $10 that Annika does not get more wins this year
> than Pressel, Gulbis, and Wie get in their combined careers.
So let me see.... Annika over her next 10 or so events vs. Pressel, Gulbis
and Wie over probably 700 or more events... that could be close, let me
think about it.
I was reading an article yesterday about how hot a start Ochoa is having and
then it went on to state how dominate she was in college, winning something
like 7 straight college events, setting all kinds of scoring records, etc.
So if you look at the world rankings the top 2 males and the top 2 females
all played college golf for at least 2 years, Arizona, Arizona State and
Stanford, all Pac 10 schools oddly enough, and all had exceptional records.
Seems to be some sort of pattern.
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1033988 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 18:43 |
|
>>That being said, what
>>does it say when during an off year for her, she has more wins than
>>Creamer,
>>Pressel, Gulbis and Wie combined and has more wins half way through an off
>>year than Pressel, Gulbis and Wie have in their combined careers, which
>>have
>>to be well over 100 events.
> It says that stats can be selectively cited to form spurious
> conclusions. If you think it says more than that, I will gladly bet
> $1000 against your $10 that Annika does not get more wins this year
> than Pressel, Gulbis, and Wie get in their combined careers.
> So let me see.... Annika over her next 10 or so events vs. Pressel, Gulbis
> and Wie over probably 700 or more events... that could be close, let me
> think about it.
Right, but Annika in her career could get more than those 4 combined,
and if you take Wie out of the mix, I'd lay 10/1.
Wie has all of the raw talent in the world, and should start winning
consistently in time, but the other 3, who knows? Gulbis is
consistent, but yet to win, and is 24 (?). OK, 24 is still young in
golf years, but it's not like she's 16 with unlimited potential. I
don't see her as anything special unless you're talking about her body.
Creamer had a great rookie year, and being only 19 (?) and having won
a few already will probably have a bunch more wins, but not hall of
fame like numbers, and the book is still out on Pressel. To place 2nd
at the Open is impressive at such a young age, but she hasn't
approached that this year, has she (I don't pay too much attention)?
I can't say Wie will break all of the records yet, but it sure looks
that she could. The only thing that may detract is that the
competition keeps getting better.
Jon
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1033991 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 18:57 |
|
On 23 May 2006 09:43:39 -0700, "Mr 10" <jongreenmr10 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>Wie has all of the raw talent in the world, and should start winning
>consistently in time, but the other 3, who knows? Gulbis is
>consistent, but yet to win, and is 24 (?). OK, 24 is still young in
>golf years, but it's not like she's 16 with unlimited potential. I
>don't see her as anything special unless you're talking about her body.
> Creamer had a great rookie year, and being only 19 (?) and having won
>a few already will probably have a bunch more wins, but not hall of
>fame like numbers, and the book is still out on Pressel. To place 2nd
>at the Open is impressive at such a young age, but she hasn't
>approached that this year, has she (I don't pay too much attention)?
>
>I can't say Wie will break all of the records yet, but it sure looks
>that she could. The only thing that may detract is that the
>competition keeps getting better.
Such guesses always have surprises. Lorena Ochoa's future is much
brighter than it was a year ago. We don't know who will mature.
Even Karrie Webb's future is better than it was a year ago, but a lot
worse than it was when we didn't know whether she or Annika was the
future.
It's all fun to speculate on though.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1034000 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 19:08 |
|
Since Steve didn't take the 100 to 1 for three
winless golfers, can I?
Lots of entertainment for only $10.
Now, we just need somebody trustworthy to hold
our money for the next few years.
Bob
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1034070 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 23:00 |
|
multi wrote:
> It's no big deal to be in the final group on Sunday, but you have to
> be able to perform under pressure. Annika shot a 74, and blew it.
> She should have played amateur events longer, and learned how to win.
> A winner has a killer instinct. Annika is satisfied with just a good
> effort. Asked about her triple bogey on the par-4 ninth hole today,
> she said, "I made seven good shots."
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060521. wlpgaa0521/BNStory/Sports/home
I don't think her shots on number 9 were all that good. She hates
anything negative. I could have made that shot...-). Others in her
group made that shot. What got me was she kept doing it. She should
have just gave it a little more oomph. She did to finally make it up
the hill. Anyway, she would have been in the hunt if she wouldn't have
'collapsed' so bad.
CJ
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1034079 ] |
Mi, 24 Mai 2006 00:32 |
|
> I don't think her shots on number 9 were all that good. She hates
> anything negative. I could have made that shot...-). Others in her
> group made that shot. What got me was she kept doing it. She should
> have just gave it a little more oomph. She did to finally make it up
> the hill. Anyway, she would have been in the hunt if she wouldn't have
> 'collapsed' so bad.
>
OK... maybe its just me but if I hit a shot from 120 yards out and it lands
in the center of the green, I would not expect my next shot to be from 100+
yards.
As far as she kept doing it... at the time she hit her first approach, she
was 1 shot back of the lead. After the first one she is now looking at
taking a bogey to go two down with 9 holes to play. She needed to get it
close with a chance to save par and while the 2nd shot landed about the same
place, it came in lower and you would have expected it to not check up like
it did. I dont think playing it safe was the proper shot if she is looking
to win. Maybe if she is looking for a top 3 then yes, but A.S. only cares
about wins. As it turned out, even if she would have made par on that hole,
and the rest of the holes played out the same, she would have lost by 2.
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1034082 ] |
Mi, 24 Mai 2006 00:55 |
|
On 23 May 2006 10:08:57 -0700, bluepost22 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>Since Steve didn't take the 100 to 1 for three
>winless golfers, can I?
Sure. I'll take the bet from the first 50 people who ask.
>
>Lots of entertainment for only $10.
>
>Now, we just need somebody trustworthy to hold
>our money for the next few years.
How about Tom DeLay?
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1034086 ] |
Mi, 24 Mai 2006 01:12 |
|
On Tue, 23 May 2006 09:09:17 -0700, "Steve"
<stevenospamplease [at] comcast.com> wrote:
>> It says that stats can be selectively cited to form spurious
>> conclusions. If you think it says more than that, I will gladly bet
>> $1000 against your $10 that Annika does not get more wins this year
>> than Pressel, Gulbis, and Wie get in their combined careers.
>
>So let me see.... Annika over her next 10 or so events vs. Pressel, Gulbis
>and Wie over probably 700 or more events... that could be close, let me
>think about it.
Take your time; it's a standing offer :-).
>I was reading an article yesterday about how hot a start Ochoa is having and
>then it went on to state how dominate she was in college, winning something
>like 7 straight college events, setting all kinds of scoring records, etc.
>So if you look at the world rankings the top 2 males and the top 2 females
>all played college golf for at least 2 years, Arizona, Arizona State and
>Stanford, all Pac 10 schools oddly enough, and all had exceptional records.
>Seems to be some sort of pattern.
Not too hard to understand. Great talent can be refined, but it's
largely innate, so the best in the world are usually exceptional even
as teenagers. The Pac-10 part is a coincidence, except that most
golfers like climates where they can play year-round.
Speaking of college talent, they replayed the 1996 US Amateur on TGC a
couple of days ago. 19-year old Steve Scott faced Tiger in the
36-hole final, and was five up after 18, and IIRC three up with four
to play. (He actually could have won on 16, if he had just gotten
distracted for a second. I think that's so interesting that I'll post
it in a separate thread.) He ended up losing in a playoff, but it
seemed that he was at least as good as Tiger, by himself and his
girlfriend/caddy against Tiger's brain trust of Butch Harmon,
trainers, and mental coaches.
From there, they took different paths. Tiger dropped out of college
and turned pro a couple months later; Scott stayed in school and
graduated before turning pro. Tiger's now worth half a billion or
so; Scott has career earnings of $18K the last time I looked.
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1034096 ] |
Mi, 24 Mai 2006 01:57 |
|
"multi" <multi [at] asm.org> wrote in message
news:dn477254gaf69gv8fko09kkjk5ra44pqj9 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 09:09:17 -0700, "Steve"
> <stevenospamplease [at] comcast.com> wrote:
>>> It says that stats can be selectively cited to form spurious
>>> conclusions. If you think it says more than that, I will gladly bet
>>> $1000 against your $10 that Annika does not get more wins this year
>>> than Pressel, Gulbis, and Wie get in their combined careers.
>>
>>So let me see.... Annika over her next 10 or so events vs. Pressel, Gulbis
>>and Wie over probably 700 or more events... that could be close, let me
>>think about it.
>
> Take your time; it's a standing offer :-).
>
>>I was reading an article yesterday about how hot a start Ochoa is having
>>and
>>then it went on to state how dominate she was in college, winning
>>something
>>like 7 straight college events, setting all kinds of scoring records, etc.
>>So if you look at the world rankings the top 2 males and the top 2 females
>>all played college golf for at least 2 years, Arizona, Arizona State and
>>Stanford, all Pac 10 schools oddly enough, and all had exceptional
>>records.
>>Seems to be some sort of pattern.
>
> Not too hard to understand. Great talent can be refined, but it's
> largely innate, so the best in the world are usually exceptional even
> as teenagers. The Pac-10 part is a coincidence, except that most
> golfers like climates where they can play year-round.
>
> Speaking of college talent, they replayed the 1996 US Amateur on TGC a
> couple of days ago. 19-year old Steve Scott faced Tiger in the
> 36-hole final, and was five up after 18, and IIRC three up with four
> to play. (He actually could have won on 16, if he had just gotten
> distracted for a second. I think that's so interesting that I'll post
> it in a separate thread.) He ended up losing in a playoff, but it
> seemed that he was at least as good as Tiger, by himself and his
> girlfriend/caddy against Tiger's brain trust of Butch Harmon,
> trainers, and mental coaches.
You are not claiming that Steve Scott was as good a player in 1996 as Tiger
are you? Cause if you are, that is an absurd statement.
http://gatorzone.com/golf/men/bios.php?year=1996&bio=sco tt.html
Tiger was the defending NCAA champ, Steve Scott was 2nd team SEC. Tiger was
winning his 3rd straight US Am, 6th straight when you add in the Junior AMs.
Steve Scott was the 3rd best player on his college team. Now on that one
day, Steve Scott was almost as good as Tiger but week in and week out, Tiger
was clearly superior.
>
> From there, they took different paths. Tiger dropped out of college
> and turned pro a couple months later; Scott stayed in school and
> graduated before turning pro. Tiger's now worth half a billion or
> so; Scott has career earnings of $18K the last time I looked.
Because Steve Scott was a solid college player who had a really good week
during the 1996 US Am. He also had a really good looking girlfriend who I
think he married, good for him.
|
|
|
| Re: Annika collapses again [message #1034104 ] |
Mi, 24 Mai 2006 02:28 |
|
On Tue, 23 May 2006 16:57:10 -0700, "Steve"
<stevenospamplease [at] comcast.com> wrote:
>You are not claiming that Steve Scott was as good a player in 1996 as Tiger
>are you?
Considering that Tiger won two PGA events that year, no. I meant he
was at least as good as Tiger that week. He had Tiger five down after
18; Tiger didn't lead in their 36-hole final until the 38th hole.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Jul 31 02:38:50 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03324 Sekunden |
