Brittany Lincicome

Positivly 7th Street · 08-02-2006, 09:10 PM

Wow, talk about nitpicking. Learning how to win is a process, and in golf, the more situations you experience, the better you become. And getting better is part of that winning process, which would inevitably lead someone of Michelle's skill level to a victory in the future. Happy?!?!

There was another thread about this in the forum. Every point was argued, debated and repeated ad nausium. The points were well made as to why 'learning how to win" were relevent, important, or whatever spin you want to put on it. Rather then me debate what I meant, why don't you re-read that thread (I'm sure you've read it) to better understand where I'm coming from.

If you are arguing that the "learning to win" thing isn't BS then you must by extension have a higher expectation of a win from someone who has "learned to win".

With this level of talent on the lpga, YES. I would generally favor someone with "winning experience" then someone without, particularily in a major championship like this week. Is this opinion out of the norm? Of course anything CAN happen and has in the past, but this is getting off my point.

Now if you wanted to nitpick more, you could throw in someone like Birdie Kim, who has won, to try and undermine my arguments, but I talking about players who not only have the winning experienceS, but the combination of talent to compete consistently.

MarinePaul · 08-02-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by blondog

5) Again Marine, I'll bring it up here again about the need to win. Over a career of, say 20 years, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO NEVER WIN--BUT COME IN 2ND IN EVERY EVENT. In that case I would have about a record of about 500 2nd places and 0 wins which would garner me about every accolade and money title every year. To hell with winning! AgainI'll take Natalie Gulbis RIGHT NOW over Hillary Lunke or Birdie Kim or even bRITTANY lINCICOME.

If you're happy with second place, then you truly are a loser. People seldom remember who finished second, third, or whatever. If winning weren't important, they wouldn't bother keeping score.

MarinePaul · 08-02-2006, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by blondog

Forgot a couple of things:

1) Britts imporvement LATELY seems to be a result of her hitting straight drives in or near the fairways. This has been written about and Britt mentioned this in interviews.

WieFan also alluded to (in the past) Britt's constant strongly drawing the ball off the tee which was a problem in that she had about half a fairway to hit and the tee shots would be coming from right-to-left when they first hit the fairway (it was a small problem hitting long shots to greens too.} She had to hit it over trees, if they were there on the right, in order to land in the fairway.

If Britt has truly straightened out her tee shots, then she should be a world-class player because she has enough of the rest of her game to suffice.

You were one of the people who jumped all over Virginian for saying that accuracy was more important than distance. Which is it? Didn't you say that you'd rather hit an 8- iron from the rough than a 6- iron from the fairway? Now you say that she can become a world class player if she's straightened out her tee shots. Interesting how you go with whichever theory happens to fit the argument you're trying to make at any given time.

bwlee · 08-03-2006, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Positivly 7th Street

Wow, talk about nitpicking. Learning how to win is a process, and in golf, the more situations you experience, the better you become. And getting better is part of that winning process, which would inevitably lead someone of Michelle's skill level to a victory in the future. Happy?!?!

There was another thread about this in the forum. Every point was argued, debated and repeated ad nausium. The points were well made as to why 'learning how to win" were relevent, important, or whatever spin you want to put on it. Rather then me debate what I meant, why don't you re-read that thread (I'm sure you've read it) to better understand where I'm coming from.

If you are arguing that the "learning to win" thing isn't BS then you must by extension have a higher expectation of a win from someone who has "learned to win".

With this level of talent on the lpga, YES. I would generally favor someone with "winning experience" then someone without, particularily in a major championship like this week. Is this opinion out of the norm? Of course anything CAN happen and has in the past, but this is getting off my point.

Now if you wanted to nitpick more, you could throw in someone like Birdie Kim, who has won, to try and undermine my arguments, but I talking about players who not only have the winning experienceS, but the combination of talent to compete consistently.

I don't think I was nitpicking at all. I asked you a serious question. You agree with me in this post that you would think that a person who has learned to win and has talent would win before someone who hasn't learned to win. I wasn't trying to be hostile to you at all, although it seems maybe you took it that way. I don't even know if you've ever gotten on Michelle's case about not learning to win or not. I just wanted your opinion on when we as fans should get on a player's case about not winning and whether you think we should get on Morgan's case before we criticize Wie since Morgan has already learned how to win and Wie has not.

bwlee · 08-03-2006, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by MarinePaul

If you're happy with second place, then you truly are a loser. People seldom remember who finished second, third, or whatever. If winning weren't important, they wouldn't bother keeping score.

So would you rather be Michelle Wie or Birdie Kim?

MarinePaul · 08-03-2006, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by bwlee

So would you rather be Michelle Wie or Birdie Kim?

Would you rather be Annika, with all of her titles, or Michelle, with none?

bwlee · 08-03-2006, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by MarinePaul

Would you rather be Annika, with all of her titles, or Michelle, with none?

Strictly looking at golfing, I would much rather be Annika. Obviously winning a large percentage of the time is better than consistent high finishes without wins. The argument that some people make and it seemed to me that you made is that any win is better than consistent high finishes so I don't know why you don't unequivocally say you would rather be Birdie Kim than Michelle.

Also, Annika, like Michelle, have consistent high finishes as well.

08-02-2006, 09:10 PM	#21
Positivly 7th Street Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 19	Wow, talk about nitpicking. Learning how to win is a process, and in golf, the more situations you experience, the better you become. And getting better is part of that winning process, which would inevitably lead someone of Michelle's skill level to a victory in the future. Happy?!?! There was another thread about this in the forum. Every point was argued, debated and repeated ad nausium. The points were well made as to why 'learning how to win" were relevent, important, or whatever spin you want to put on it. Rather then me debate what I meant, why don't you re-read that thread (I'm sure you've read it) to better understand where I'm coming from. If you are arguing that the "learning to win" thing isn't BS then you must by extension have a higher expectation of a win from someone who has "learned to win". With this level of talent on the lpga, YES. I would generally favor someone with "winning experience" then someone without, particularily in a major championship like this week. Is this opinion out of the norm? Of course anything CAN happen and has in the past, but this is getting off my point. Now if you wanted to nitpick more, you could throw in someone like Birdie Kim, who has won, to try and undermine my arguments, but I talking about players who not only have the winning experienceS, but the combination of talent to compete consistently. Last edited by Positivly 7th Street; 08-02-2006 at 10:05 PM.

08-02-2006, 09:55 PM	#22
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,002	Originally Posted by blondog 5) Again Marine, I'll bring it up here again about the need to win. Over a career of, say 20 years, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO NEVER WIN--BUT COME IN 2ND IN EVERY EVENT. In that case I would have about a record of about 500 2nd places and 0 wins which would garner me about every accolade and money title every year. To hell with winning! AgainI'll take Natalie Gulbis RIGHT NOW over Hillary Lunke or Birdie Kim or even bRITTANY lINCICOME. If you're happy with second place, then you truly are a loser. People seldom remember who finished second, third, or whatever. If winning weren't important, they wouldn't bother keeping score. __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

08-02-2006, 10:03 PM	#23
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,002	Originally Posted by blondog Forgot a couple of things: 1) Britts imporvement LATELY seems to be a result of her hitting straight drives in or near the fairways. This has been written about and Britt mentioned this in interviews. WieFan also alluded to (in the past) Britt's constant strongly drawing the ball off the tee which was a problem in that she had about half a fairway to hit and the tee shots would be coming from right-to-left when they first hit the fairway (it was a small problem hitting long shots to greens too.} She had to hit it over trees, if they were there on the right, in order to land in the fairway. If Britt has truly straightened out her tee shots, then she should be a world-class player because she has enough of the rest of her game to suffice. You were one of the people who jumped all over Virginian for saying that accuracy was more important than distance. Which is it? Didn't you say that you'd rather hit an 8- iron from the rough than a 6- iron from the fairway? Now you say that she can become a world class player if she's straightened out her tee shots. Interesting how you go with whichever theory happens to fit the argument you're trying to make at any given time. __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

08-03-2006, 02:48 AM	#24
bwlee Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 105	Originally Posted by Positivly 7th Street Wow, talk about nitpicking. Learning how to win is a process, and in golf, the more situations you experience, the better you become. And getting better is part of that winning process, which would inevitably lead someone of Michelle's skill level to a victory in the future. Happy?!?! There was another thread about this in the forum. Every point was argued, debated and repeated ad nausium. The points were well made as to why 'learning how to win" were relevent, important, or whatever spin you want to put on it. Rather then me debate what I meant, why don't you re-read that thread (I'm sure you've read it) to better understand where I'm coming from. If you are arguing that the "learning to win" thing isn't BS then you must by extension have a higher expectation of a win from someone who has "learned to win". With this level of talent on the lpga, YES. I would generally favor someone with "winning experience" then someone without, particularily in a major championship like this week. Is this opinion out of the norm? Of course anything CAN happen and has in the past, but this is getting off my point. Now if you wanted to nitpick more, you could throw in someone like Birdie Kim, who has won, to try and undermine my arguments, but I talking about players who not only have the winning experienceS, but the combination of talent to compete consistently. I don't think I was nitpicking at all. I asked you a serious question. You agree with me in this post that you would think that a person who has learned to win and has talent would win before someone who hasn't learned to win. I wasn't trying to be hostile to you at all, although it seems maybe you took it that way. I don't even know if you've ever gotten on Michelle's case about not learning to win or not. I just wanted your opinion on when we as fans should get on a player's case about not winning and whether you think we should get on Morgan's case before we criticize Wie since Morgan has already learned how to win and Wie has not.

08-03-2006, 02:49 AM	#25
bwlee Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 105	Originally Posted by MarinePaul If you're happy with second place, then you truly are a loser. People seldom remember who finished second, third, or whatever. If winning weren't important, they wouldn't bother keeping score. So would you rather be Michelle Wie or Birdie Kim?

08-03-2006, 08:08 AM	#26
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,002	Originally Posted by bwlee So would you rather be Michelle Wie or Birdie Kim? Would you rather be Annika, with all of her titles, or Michelle, with none? __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

08-03-2006, 05:06 PM	#27
bwlee Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 105	Originally Posted by MarinePaul Would you rather be Annika, with all of her titles, or Michelle, with none? Strictly looking at golfing, I would much rather be Annika. Obviously winning a large percentage of the time is better than consistent high finishes without wins. The argument that some people make and it seemed to me that you made is that any win is better than consistent high finishes so I don't know why you don't unequivocally say you would rather be Birdie Kim than Michelle. Also, Annika, like Michelle, have consistent high finishes as well.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode