Weekly Q and Wie

Just taking a wild stab at what the Sports Illustrated gang might have on the agenda for our weekly round-table.  Shall we give it a go?

1.) Michelle Wie followed up her runner-up finish at the Kraft Nabisco Championship with a come-from-behind victory at the LPGA LOTTE Championship, ending a four-year victory drought. What is different about Wie this year and will she now be a consistent winner on the LPGA Tour?

Joe Passov: This three-quarter punch stuff, even with her driver, doesn't come close to approximating that

Well done, but please lose the Hula.

long, flowing, gorgeous swing she had 10 years ago as a 14-year-old, but it works. Her putting style is as bizarre as I've seen in a good while, but putting is, and always has been, about what succeeds, not what looks good. It’s unbelievable that she's beating Inbee Park, Stacy Lewis and Suzann Pettersen regularly, considering where she was a year ago. She's got more wins ahead. Good for Michelle, good for the LPGA, good for golf.

Jeff Ritter: She's always hit the ball as well anyone on the LPGA. It's all come down to putting. Still not sure I'm buying the goofy, broken robot putting stance, but it worked this week, and it was great to see her land a title. If she keeps putting, she'll continue to win.

Gary Van Sickle: I don't know what's different, other than her results. Consistent is one thing she's never been, but she could be a game-changer for the LPGA if she can keep it up.

Alan Shipnuck: People forget this is Wie's first full year as a touring pro. It's not easy to play the LPGA while getting a Stanford degree. She's more settled now and more independent, having moved to Florida and left her parents behind. Wie has slowly built her confidence up and has a new belief in her short game. So add all that together and this win wasn't a fluke -- it's a new beginning.

My Take: I thought we might see this last year, after she finished up at Stanford.  Once again I wasn't wrong, I was just early.  The unfortunate aspect to the early part of her career is that the carnival sideshow obscured how unbelievably good she was, missing both a playoff for a women's major and a PGA Tour cut by a single shot.  But again, Travelin' Joe seems to be off his meds, as two good weeks does not warrant the adverb "regularly."

2.) After tearing up the Harbour Town front nine with six birdies, Matt Kuchar squandered yet another final-round lead, three-putting No. 17 to open the door for Luke Donald, before holing his bunker shot on the final hole to win the RBC Heritage. Are you impressed that Kuchar is finally atop the leaderboard in 2014 or troubled that he seems to be having so much trouble closing?

RITTER: It's surprising to see Kuchar stumble so frequently on Sundays this season, but he's putting himself in the mix so often, he's bound to grab some wins like he did this week. I'd like to seem him nail down those titles when he has the chance, but as we stand now, he's one of the top 5 U.S. players in the world, squarely on the Ryder Cup team. It's hard to call him a disappointment.

PASSOV: Why don't we cut Mr. Kuchar some slack? Sure, it's been a recurring story that his final-round flubs have been maddeningly repetitive in 2014, but at least he's been in the hunt week after week. That's more than I can say for a bunch of 2013 stalwarts. Consider me impressed.

SHIPNUCK: It's not just Kuchar -- everyone has trouble closing. Bottom line, he got it done and deserves to be celebrated. At least for a week.

VAN SICKLE: I'm impressed that Kooch played so well four straight weeks that he had four chances to win. Was it clutch that he holed a bunker shot to win at the last or was it a fortunate accident, much like Matt Jones' hole-out in Houston? It proves that if you put yourself in position to win often enough, you'll eventually win, even if by accident.

My Take:  I don't see them as mutually exclusive, as that's who Kooch is as a layer.  He's a Top Ten machine, and occasionally staggers across the finish line first.  Kooch might grab himself a major at some point, but would we really be surprised if he hands them up without one?

3.) The word from Notah Begay and Tim Finchem is that Tiger's timetable for return might force him to miss the U.S. Open as well. Golf.com's Josh Sens wrote this week that the golf industry could experience as much as a $15 billion "correction" if Tiger "lingers on the sidelines." What does it mean for golf that so many eggs are in the Tiger basket?

PASSOV: Is this "news" that golf is in trouble if Tiger's not in the picture? Have you checked television ratings for the past 15 years? Hey, golf was still awesome when Norman, Faldo, Seve and Price were going head-to-head in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He is the first player since perhaps Bobby Jones that grabs the attention of casual sports fans and makes them pay attention.

VAN SICKLE: The PGA Tour needs to wean itself from the Tiger factor just as the NBA had to adjust after Michael Jordan. I won't be surprised if Tiger plays no majors this year and doesn't come back until the 2015 season -- nothing good can happen from coming back too soon after back surgery. That said, the $15 billion-dollar figure seems ludicrously high. I'm not buying it.

SHIPNUCK: It's been like this for nearly two decades. Rory, Jordan, Bubba -- all of them can be stars and help move the needle, but there's only one Tiger. When he's done, golf will go back to being a boutique sport, as it's always been.

My Take:  Golf never stopped being a niche sport, just certain participants pretended otherwise.  As I discussed on Monday, the Josh Sens piece is just nonsense-on-stilts.  He took the outside estimate of the decline in masters ratings, and hacked the industry revenues by that amount.  It's obvious to anyone capable of fogging a mirror, that the marginal fans drawn to the game by Tiger are going to be the first to go.  But those folks aren't the core of your industry, and the reductions in equipment and other purchase while real, will be nowhere near that magnitude.

4.) Miguel Angel Jimenez followed up his fourth place finish at the Masters with a three-stroke victory in his Champions Tour debut. Given his continued success on the regular Tours, is The Mechanic a potentially dominant senior tour player?

BAMBERGER: He's a potentially dominant regular Tour player.

VAN SICKLE: The Mechanic could have a nice run as a senior, but it won't happen this year. He's trying to make the Ryder Cup team. I don't see him playing a lot in senior events next year in the U.S. either.

PASSOV: Senor Jimenez has long been my favorite player. He'll give me extra reason to tune into Champions Tour telecasts. I don't think he'll dominate. He seems too well-rounded, too distracted by life's pleasantries, to grind to the point where he would dominate.

SHIPNUCK: Not this year. He wants to focus on the Euro Tour in an effort to make one last Ryder Cup team. And I don't think he'll want to spend 25 weeks a year eating at Chili's in the American suburbs. So, bottom line, enjoy these cameos because I think they'll be a rare pleasure.

RITTER: Anyone else think the Champions Tour just got a little more … interesting?

My Take:  Absolutely.  He'll be every bit as dominant as....Jeff Maggert.  As a struggling blogger I love the Most Interesting Man in Golf more than most, but it's more about the cigars and Riojas, isn't it?  Take this for instance:

I'm not a cigar guy, as I was born without that gene.  But is he lighting the new cigar from the stub of its predecessor?  Do people do that?  I mean other people, of course.

5.) Greg Norman and Joe Buck will team up to announce the U.S. Open when Fox Sports takes over the broadcast in 2015. What are your expectations for Norman in the booth and do you think he was the best choice for the job?

BAMBERGER: Norman will be good, but I would have preferred Trevino. About the smartest golf talker you could ever hope to hear.

PASSOV: I think Johnny Miller was the best choice for the job, and I resent the fact that it won't be the refreshingly opinionated Miller on the call.

VAN SICKLE: Since Norman has almost no broadcast experience, it's too early to make a call on him. He is opinionated, but is he willing to tell it like it is and face blowback from players the way Johnny Miller and Brandel Chamblee (the only two regular analysts who let it fly) do? We'll see. If I was in charge at Fox, I would've gone after Chamblee.

SHIPNUCK: He'll be good at times because he had strong opinions, but this is just a lark for Norman. The best announcers prepare obsessively, and I can imagine The Shark rolling into the Open only knowing a few dozen guys in the field.

My Take: This addresses the wrong question, as the underlying issue is why Fox, a network with no golf broadcasting experience and only the most fledgling of cable sports broadcasters.  You star with a series of very curious assumptions, such as that the failure of U.S. Opens to garner the lofty television ratings of the Masters must be the result of unseen deficiencies from the incumbent, and you end up in a cul de sac, though admittedly a lucrative one.  You can't hire Brandel or Frank Nobilo, because they're under contract to the network that's carried the event for last umpteen years and you didn't even see fit to ask if they wanted to match Fox's offer.  Given that they only have the USGA package, one assumes all the experienced talent (announcers, cameramen, gaffers, key grips and comely unpaid interns) is not available.  

6.) Who is your golf broadcast dream team?

VAN SICKLE: Peter Alliss is a timeless treasure, but for spot-on analysis, I'd want some combination of Johnny Miller, Brandel Chamblee, Paul Azinger and a color man who lets them talk instead of thinking he's the expert, like at least two incredibly annoying current hosts do.

PASSOV: I can't get too snarky here, as I'm fond of many broadcasters right now. I'll go with Jim Nantz and Dan Hicks (tie) on play-by-play, Johnny Miller as analyst, Roger Maltbie, David Feherty and Peter Kostis as foot soldiers, Brandel Chamblee in the studio, Jimmy Roberts doing interviews. The always-underrated Judy Rankin would make my team somewhere.

RITTER: The late Pat Summerall and John Madden, just to relive some great childhood Sundays.

SHIPNUCK: I'd like to see Azinger and Faldo get the band back together. Nasty Nick was way better when sparring with Zinger.

BAMBERGER: Peter Alliss with Curtis Strange or any other intense American. Renton Laidlaw flying solo. But on my wish list, I would like to hear Tracy Morgan do some golf. He'd kill at a U.S. Open. Fox has likely already figured this out.

My Take:  I spoke way too soon, as the whole gang seems off their meds.  A mention of Tracy Morgan makes John Madden seem a sober, well-considered answer.  I agree that Faldo was better with Zinger keeping him in line, but that's setting the bar way too low for my taste.  The British voices do seem ideally suited for the pace and nuances of our game (Peter Alliss, Henry Longhurst), but as I've noted before the guy who deserves a chance is Monty.  Strange, I know.