Lorena Ochoa wins again, showing why she's better than Michelle Wie
Lorena Ochoa just won the Corona Morelia Championship in Mexico, the first LPGA victory in her home country. Ochoa won with a score of -20, which was five strokes better than runner up finisher Julieta Granada. Paula Creamer finished third.
If you've ever had the chance to watch Lorena play, you will immediately notice what's special about her. The young 24-year-old woman is magical with her putter. She sinks just about everything in sight. Last year, Lorena ranked first in putting, with an amazing 1.75 putts per GIR. This year, she's tied for 6th, with a 1.76 putts per GIR. Oh, by the way, Lorena is first in birdies, first in eagles, and first in greens in regulation.
I can't find any official stats on Michelle Wie. But I have to guess her putting stats are a little bit higher than Lorena's. If magical putting touch is something more innate than learned, Lorena Ochoa may be the heir apparent to Annika Sorenstam.
16 Comments:
Hm, she may be a better player but not a better golfer. Michelle pulls crowds to the golf which is very important. So, both are special to the golf.
- Mike
It is hard to get good stats for Wie. In the 6 stroke play events Wie and Ochoa played together so far this season, Wie came out ahead 4 and Ochoa 2. Wie had a scoring average of 70.35 and Ochoa 70.57.
No doubt, Lorena is playing great! She is a birdie machine and has a great shot at player of the year the way she is playing right now. It was especially nice to see her win in Mexico. That being said, Michelle wasn't in the field this weekend. It seems odd to say someone is better than a player who wasn't even there. Last year, everybody was saying Paula was the next Annika and was better than Wie. Let's wait a few years until Wie is playing a regular schedule before making comparisons.
That's an interesting comparison. It appears your forcing the issue of bringing a Michelle Wie topic on to the board. Not a bad tatic since blogs related to her get the most amount of comments next to the Ryder Cup!
But the point is really moot! Michelle Wie has not proven she's better than anybody! She's had good finishes on the LPGA tour, but no victories, and she's played a very limited schedule...a few good showings do not a career make.
Look at Morgan Pressel. Her amatuer career showed that she would be able to compete on the LPGA tour (2nd in the US Open), but the full-time grind has proven to be an adjustment for her that she wasn't really prepared for. Lately she's been making strong showings, but still, no wins.
We need to be able to evaluate Michelle in the same manner to really be able to compare her to all the other LPGA professionals that actually endure "The Grind." Her talent seems like she will do very well, but until we actually see her play week and and out, and actually win a few tournaments, it's just all speculation.
What has recently captured my interest is the extent to which Tiger has something "special" that cannot be taught. For example, are some people just born to be "clutch" or "natural" putters?
Michelle Wie, so far, has not ever shown herself to be either a clutch putter or a natural with the flat stick.
Lorena Ochoa has. that's why Lorena has won 4 tourneys this year and why she ranks so close to the top in putting statistics.
Interesting debate. I think it comes down to this... if you were a pro golfer and were given the choice to win 1 major every year for the next 20 years but would miss the cut in the other 3 or the other option is to finish 2nd in each major, what would you take?
Would it be a career with 20 major wins and 60 missed cuts or a career with 80 2nd places in majors? Who is the better player? The rankings are going to say the player with 80 2nds is clearly better but I am going to venture to guess that 99% of the players would rather have the 20 majors. Put me down for wanting the 20 majors.
On another note... happy 36th birthday to Annika Sorenstam.
I don't get AndrewsDad's comment. First of all Lorena hasn't won a major, and secondly, I'm sure Michelle hopes to win majors not just get top 5s. The top 5s show her potential, but certainly aren't an end goal.
As far as Michelle's putting, from my obserservation she can put very well when she has been playing regularly. For example, at the US Open she was 3rd in putting stats (I can't find putting per GIR stats). She seems to struggle when she hasn't been competing, for example at the Men's US Open sectional. I think some of it is problems switching from Hawaii to non-Hawaii grass. It seems at least possible that once she starts playing a full schedule her putting will be much improved, but we need to wait to find that out.
Will someone please explain to me why anyone cares about the LPGA because I just don't get it. Why are we talking about it? I'm willing to listen to any legitimate reason, but to me it's about as compelling as televised poker or darts.
Because they look good, even when all sweaty and tanned.
The point was would you rather have consistently high finishes without a win or would you rather win once in a while but not be as consistent. I used the example of the majors and 2nds and missed cuts as an extreme way to show what most probably already know, winning is what matters and 2nd place is just the first loser. We talk about how many majors someone has as a good thing and the best player never to win a major as a bad thing. In the example I gave, the ranking system is going to reward the person who has the consistent top 5 finishes without a win more than the person who is inconsistent but has the occasional win.
Before they changed the LPGA rankings, which I personally disapproved of, there was the possibility for Wie to take over the top spot from Sorenstam with a very high finish in the British without winning it if Sorenstam had a poor showing. The fact that over the course of the two year ranking period, a person with zero wins could have been ranked above someone with 12 wins, 3 of those majors seemed absurd to me.
I disagreed with the WAY they changed the rankings, not that they changed them. Clearly there was a problem with the rankings but in my opinion, using a number as a divisor is not a fair method from a purely statistical viewpoint. What they should have done in my opinion is given more weight to wins, specifically majors.
regardless of what anyone says...it is only what we remember....we remember winners. michelle wie has won nothing, and drawing a crowd is a start of celebrity, but it wont keep celebrity...it will stay until the next gimmick comes along
Rolex rankings? Wie hasn't won yet? What does any of this have to do with Lorena vs. Wie? Let's bring all of the Wie rants out of the closet. Anyone want to talk about the way she dresses?
I made the comparison between Lorena and Michelle because they are two of the most talented up-and-comers who may dominate the LPGA tour, post-Annika.
The comparison can't be made fully until Michelle becomes an LPGA member. But it's still worth examining right now.
Aloha from Hawaii. Michelle Wie started out as a golf phenom. But through the course of her first year as a pro, she's turned into a marketing phenom. Her Rolex rankings are skewed because she doesn't play throughout the grind of a season. Selective play and sponsor exemptions is a good way to dismiss no real results. Just want to let you folks know that not all of Hawaii is on the MW bandwagon. Btw, she's not Hawaiian. Only people of Hawaiian descent are 'Hawaiian'. The rest of us are Hawaii born or residents.
-Halster
I am glad to see Lorena finally getting noticed! I do think she has great potential but don’t really understand why Wie has become such a marketing phenomenon and other really good golfers such as Lorena are being overlooked. Wie has not proven herself and other than people commenting on her greatness, we’ve seen precious little of it.
The Golfer: The Golfer
I agree Lorena is better than Wie right now. Lorena is better than EVERYBODY right now. She is player of the year in 2006!
But comparing her to Wie is hardly fair, since Ochoa is 24, and Wie is 17. Wie clearly has a lot of great tools, and though she hasn't won a tourney yet, she consistently lands in the top 5, which is freakishly good, especially for 17.
There's no guarantee that Michelle will ever become as good as Lorena is right now, but the comparisons aren't really fair. Congratulations to Lorena on a fantastic tourney and a fantastic year. Mexicans should pe proud!
[i]La Raza![/i] :P
It is absolutely absurd to compare a high school girl to a seasoned pro. Let's put it this way - what was Lorena doing at 16 or 17. How about Annika. Were they playing against seasoned pros of their days? Were they coming fairly close to the top 5 in pro tournaments? Was Tiger? Was anybody?
Do you think a full time pro should beat the hack out of a high school kid? It's not even an argument. I am NOT on anybody's wagon. Maybe that's why I see the whole picture as being absurd and IDIOTIC.
Post a Comment
<< Home