Annika Sorenstam--You Go Girl! (1 Viewer)

[Micheal]

I'm sure there are many leagues that are men-only -- the PGA just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I'm talking about at the PGA level. There is no "men only" league at the PGA level, so why is there one for women? (I don't really care about the golf club down the road from me)
I understand everything that you've said but it just doesn't seem right that there is a PGA league for "women only" but not for "men only". I guess I'm the only one who thinks that this is a double standard.

 

[Allen_Appel]

I don't think you consider the LPGA to be on the PGA level, so what does it matter that it's for women only? Sure it's a double standard, but the standard is "you male superior athletes aren't allowed to come in and make us look pathetic". How would you actually feel about a man who wanted to participate in the LPGA or WNBA?

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I'm talking about at the PGA level. There is no "men only" league at the PGA level, so why is there one for women?

The PGA Tour could certainly ammend its rules to make it a men-only league. However, I doubt they would do that, since there is no need for such a rule. As I stated above, no woman player can compete consistently enough at that level to earn or retain a tour card. Any such men-only rule would only serve to eliminate great publicity opportunities for the tour, such as the one last weekend at Colonial.

Along those same lines, the PGA could also choose to create a maximum age limit for its tour, arguing that there is already a senior tour for players 50 years or older. Once again, that would only prevent fans at PGA events from seeing Arnold Palmer at Bay Hill or Jack Nicklaus play this weekend in the Memorial.

In both the above cases, no harm is done in allowing seniors or women to play in the occasional PGA event, but fans and the tour are denied special moments if such players were completely banned from PGA events.

However, allowing men to compete on the LPGA Tour would basically eliminate that league as a competitive avenue for women golfers. Even the next level of male golfers below the PGA-level, such as the Nationwide mini-tour, would dominate most LPGA golfers. Many male golfers could use sponsor's exemptions to gain LPGA Tour cards and force women golfers out of the league. In this case, not having a gender requirement would effectively destroy the LPGA Tour.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Turn it around another way:

There are ladies who wanted to play golf competitively, but 99.9% of them simply can't cut it in Q-school, and aren't going to be getting that sponsor's exemption, so getting to play in PGA events was going to be a pipedream for the vast majority of the ladies. What would you, as a group of competitive women do? You start your own league.

This isn't some conspiracy on the parts of one gender over the other in terms of double standards. It's just how things evolved over the years based on the physical requirements of the game.

 

[Micheal]

I don't think you consider the LPGA to be on the PGA level, so what does it matter that it's for women only? Sure it's a double standard, but the standard is "you male superior athletes aren't allowed to come in and make us look pathetic". How would you actually feel about a man who wanted to participate in the LPGA or WNBA?

I consider them to be the same level but I always thought the LPGA was for the best women and that the PGA was for the best men. I didn't realize that an LPGA member could take a shot at the PGA.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I guess I'm the only one who thinks that this is a double standard.

I don’t mean this as a challenge Micheal, but I’m really curious as to why this almost completely theoretical problem is of such concern to you.

As I’m sure you are aware Sorenstam is not even the first to play on the PGA tour. Babe Didrickson played in an event or two back in the 40s (I think) with no particular uproar.

 

[Lew Crippen]

What if there comes a day when a female golfer can beat the men and women? Would she be allowed to dominate both the LPGA and the PGA? Would this be "fair"?

Good question and I think that the answer is yes. This is not too dissimilar to some of the best European golfers playing mostly in Europe and coming over to the States as they choose.

Or for Americans to compete selectively in European events; for example Tiger Woods was not at Colonial because he was playing in a tournament in Germany. Given that the PGA is the best tour in the world and that Tiger dominates the tour, is it fair for him to be able to compete in lesser events?

But again, this is mostly theoretical. This is because a single golfer can only play in so many events. For every event played on one tour, there is an event that person cannot play in on any other tour. And given the prize money disparity, if a female ever really was competitive with the men, which tour to play in would be an easy choice.

 

[Micheal]

This is because a single golfer can only play in so many events. For every event played on one tour, there is an event that person cannot play in on any other tour. And given the prize money disparity, if a female ever really was competitive with the men, which tour to play in would be an easy choice.

This explains a lot. I'm no golf expert so thanks to everyone for their patience.

 

[Denward]

Why is it okay for a league that only allows women but not a league that just allows men? Can someone please answer this question.

The PGA tour came first. The LPGA was created because women can't compete on the PGA so they created a restricted eligibility league so that the other 50% of the population has a chance to play professionally. As long as there are enough sponsors to keep the LPGA (or any sport) going, then it has the "right" to exist. By definition, every eligibility restriction makes the league less elite. That's why fans and sponsors don't pay the same purse sizes to the LPGA or the Senior PGA. The women and the seniors have no desire to try to compete with the best men, and they're willing to accept less prize money in exchange for the chance to win against a restricted field. If you make the PGA "men only", then you would be saying that the PGA is not willing to use skill as the sole criteria for admission. There are lots of local leagues in many sports with particular restrictions or target markets (men only, Asian only, Yuppies only, under 6' tall, etc.) but they all have secondary purposes which are cultural, social, etc. The PGA should be for the highest skilled players period.

This may seem way off topic, but this is the kind of stuff I used to wonder about as a kid. What if someone were born with some unusual physical attribute or superhero powers(e.g. a third arm, two elbows on one arm, invisibility, etc.) and it allowed him/her to dominate a sport. Should that person be allowed to compete?

 

[Allen_Appel]

Is it because they were worried that she might make the cut?

With the exception of sports talk radio, I don't think anyone in the media was "worried" she might make the cut. But the first woman in fifty-odd years to play in a men's league is unarguably news. I don't really follow golf, but isn't there a woman who *has* qualified for a PGA event coming up later this summer?

 

[Nathan_F]

Yes, Suzy Whalen for the Greater Hartford Open. But during her qualifying tournament she hit from the women's tees while the men in the tournament hit from the back tees. Not exactly the same...

 

[Micheal]

I don't really follow golf, but isn't there a woman who *has* qualified for a PGA event coming up later this summer?

Is this true?

 

[Micheal]

Yes, Suzy Whalen for the Greater Hartford Open. But during her qualifying tournament she hit from the women's tees while the men in the tournament hit from the back tees. Not exactly the same...

Thanks.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Yes, Suzy Whalen for the Greater Hartford Open. But during her qualifying tournament she hit from the women's tees while the men in the tournament hit from the back tees. Not exactly the same...

And after Ms. Whalen "qualified" for the GHO playing from a different set of tees, the PGA corrected this loophole that no one had ever noticed. So while she will be allowed to play this year, if she (or any other person, regardless of age or gender) wants to playing in a qualifying event, that person will have to play from the same tees.

 

[Hunter P]

good debate guys. this is an entertaining read.

 

[Allen_Appel]

Actually, I listen to "The Team" in Ottawa and not one of them thought that she would make the cut. It was the amount of press that this whole thing received that was shocking.

I was commenting on the term "worried". Why should that prospect worry anyone? Like I said, I think only sports radio jocks and their audience were fretting over her participation. And why do you think the coverage was shocking? The first woman in 50+ years to participate against men is a major occurence, no?

 

[Lew Crippen]

With the exception of sports talk radio, I don't think anyone in the media was "worried" she might make the cut. But the first woman in fifty-odd years to play in a men's league is unarguably news. I don't really follow golf, but isn't there a woman who *has* qualified for a PGA event coming up later this summer?

No doubt this is why she received a sponsor’s exemption (and had her choice of several). The Colonial is not really one of the premier events on the tour and would never have received this much publicity without Sorenstam’s presence. And it brought a focus on woman’s golf at a time when nothing of importance was happening.

The kinds of discussion we hare having here are happening all over. I expect that we will see more of this in the future.

 

[Brian Perry]

The women and the seniors have no desire to try to compete with the best men, and they're willing to accept less prize money in exchange for the chance to win against a restricted field. If you make the PGA "men only", then you would be saying that the PGA is not willing to use skill as the sole criteria for admission.

This is an interesting point.

For a long time, we've heard complaints at tournaments such as Wimbledon that women's prize money is "unfairly" less than the men's. In fact, I think Wimbledon may have caved and made it equal (though I could be wrong). The two arguments in favor of paying the men more was 1) the women only play best-of-three (vs. the men's best-of-five), and 2) fans were more interested in the men, and therefore the revenue generated should go more to the men.

You could certainly argue that point 2 has switched to the women's side, that the storylines and players on the women's side are more compelling and interesting than the men. However, this thread brings up an angle I hadn't considered: that the women's purse should be lower because they are playing in a restricted competition tournament. If Serena wants to try for the men's top prize money, she could theoretically enter the men's (i.e., "no restriction") bracket. But Andre Agassi is obviously forbidden from entering the restricted bracket.

 

[Micheal]

I did hear something about that on the radio. So why was Annika playing in the PGA such a big deal in the press now? Is it because they were worried that she might make the cut?

Allen,
The above is my entire quote. Maybe the term "worried" was wrong but my point is this. If she was just some average female golfer we wouldn't have heard much about it. I think that the reason it got so much coverage was because she is the best that the LPGA has to offer and the press had a field day with that. Even though all the sports analyst's that I listened to would have bet the farm on the fact that she wouldn't even make the cut, the press still played it as Annika vs Goliath. (Guess what, the guys on the radio were right! I'm not really sure what you have against them or their listeners?)

I have nothing against Annika for trying, I just don't see why it got so much hype. Does everyone here think that a woman who finished in the bottom of the field really deserved "Tiger-like" media coverage? I'm sorry but I don't. Label me how you please.
For what it's worth, I loved it when Rheaume(sp?) got a chance to show her stuff in goal during an NHL exhibition game for Florida. She got a lot of media coverage as well but I really don't think anyone was sure how she was going to perform. (Still, she didn't get as much media coverage on TV as Annika)

 

[Nathan_F]

While most of the sports radio and TV guys I observed weren't "worried" that Annika would make the cut, they were also saying she would shoot 75/76 each day. Considering she missed some easy putts on day one and still came in only a couple of shots away from the cut is pretty impressive. I know it's easy to say "if only things had gone different, she would have made the cut" (a la "if only I could fly, I could..."). However, I believe she showed everyone that she does have the potential to compete with the men.

I for one would love to see her take another shot at it. With some more work on putting and general aggressiveness on the greens, she could make more cuts than she misses (albeit the courses would have to still be "hand-picked"). Could she compete on a week-in, week-out basis with the guys? I don't think so, but then again she doesn't want to. Will there be a female try to go through Q-school soon? You betcha...