Hope she remembers that the PGA does not allow players to wear shorts. Not sure whether they prohibit skirts! 
She’d be stunning in one of those long 1940s golf skirts. Maybe matched with a white blouse with a Peter Pan collar.
I hope she doesn’t get clothing advice from Jesper!
BTW, I just got my newest issue of GOLF mag, and she’s on the cover-- in slacks. Coincidence? I think not!!
Oh please. If you read my entire post, I think I made a pretty good case for why “segregated” sports along gender lines make good sense.
If her failure deters further gimmicky junk from messing with legitimate sports and gets things back to the business of improving the sports in their separate roles, then all the better.
A few women from the LPGA could maybe make the cut once and awhile at some courses in PGA events, sure. But it’s not feasible to end gender segregation, because the play will never be equal. In the larger sports world, not just golf, Title IX has made funding and facilities and training available to women and they still can’t compete with the men.
Racial segregation of sport occurred because white players didn’t want to share buses with black players, and the fans didn’t want to see them mixing because it was distasteful. But even the racist players would have had to admit that Satchel Paige would have dominated in the Major Leagues, and that Josh Gibson could have led the league in homeruns. The reasons are just different with men/women than with white/black. This isn’t about sexism, it’s about inescapable biological reality.
As I said in my post, women’s sports need to market themselves as different sports and attract their own followings, a strategy which has worked very well for women’s tennis. If a few women float around in the PGA, the LPGA will always be seen as just a junior circuit subordinate to the PGA, whereas they can carve their own niche as long as they keep themselves apart.
Rex:
Of all the major sports out there, golf is probably the only one where some women might, in fact, compete on the level with men.
Annika can hit it as long as some of the really good male players, but she’s not anywhere near as good around the greens. And it is that aspect of the game that men should not have ANY advantage over women. Why should men be better putters or chippers than women?
This may be largely a gimmick right now, but the up and coming women players may truely be able to break into men’s ranks. Strenghth is certainly a element of golf, but look at the wide variety of athletic types (from Fred Funk, to Tiger, to Daly) on the men’s tour. I’ve seen some of the younger female players hit the ball, and they swing like guys!
The LPGA is just like the Nationwide (buy.com, Nike) tour anyway. It IS a junior tour. It doesn’t have much of a following - amoung men or women. The women golfers I know follow the PGA - and they pay some attention to the LPGA. The men golfers follow the PGA and know who Annika and Karrie Webb are.
Women’s sports are often junior league to the same men’s sport. If a woman wants the fame and fortune that comes with being in the top league, she’s going to have to compete with the guys. If she can cut it, what’s the problem?
BTW, I’d argue that women’s tennis succeeds because it is the same game as men’s tennis. Women play women, and men play men. But all the matches are held at the same time in the same place. So if you casually turn on Wimbleton, you have nearly a good a chance of catching women playing as men playing. If you are following the US Open, you are getting exposed to both men and women playing tennis.
Women’s tennis also has, or has had for long stretches of time, the property of being more interesting than men’s tennis. Men’s tennis for awhile devolved into a serve-and-ace competition; women’s tennis has more rallies and tactics employed. So tennis is kind of unusual in that respect.
RexDart, I think you’re confusing two different issues.
Most women can’t compete with men in sports. That’s why there are women’s leagues – they’re basically leagues for women who can’t compete with men. But if there is a women every once in a while who can compete with men, what is the purpose of enforcing the gender separation? The reason for the gender separation – a place for women who can’t compete with men – is absent, so there’s no reason to arbitrarily restrict the woman to women’s competitions.
Whether the LPGA should be marketing things differently is a separate issue. Perhaps they should. But Annika entering the Colonial is not going to bring about the collapse of the LPGA and the LPGA is not putting all their eggs in a “we’re just as good as men” basket. I doubt anybody in the LPGA seriously believes that they could disband and simply enter the PGA tournaments. The LPGA is banking on a little exposure, I’m sure, but they’re not risking the existence of their tour on Annika’s performance.
That and the short skirts!
“So if you casually turn on Wimbleton, you have nearly a good a chance of catching women playing as men playing.”
And a slight chance of catching Anna Kournikova.
Danger: Good points, even if it’s always the guys who play on Sunday. IIRC, the women’s purses are the same as men’s (no pun intended).
I read just the other day about a Canadian woman playing ice hockey in a men’s team in Finland.
Ila Boarders pitched in the Northern League. Saw her pitch a couple times. The Northern League saw worse pitchers. She wasn’t making it to the Majors though. But I make a bad baseball scout. Kevin Millar was also a Northern League player (maybe even played for the Saints at the same time as Boarders), and I saw him make three errors in a single inning (and well that was extraordinarily bad performance for him, he was pretty error prone - and wasn’t the best hitter - but he was one of the youngest players). Never expected him to be playing for Boston.
I think its realistic to believe that with the increase of women playing sports, there will be more statistical outliers amongst women athletes capable of competing with men. They may (read: probablity approaching nil) never dominate the male league (i.e. I don’t expect the next Michael Jordon in the NBA to be a woman), but there have been plenty of male athletes who have been marginal on a professional level (anybody want Luis Rivas?)
Danger:
And golf is many different games played by different people. Mickelson’s game is very different from Funk’s game. It’s this that makes it ammenable to women competing at the men’s level. Not many women, not even most women, but some of them.
I have no problem with Annika playing in the Colonial. Sure, it is alot about promotion - but there is nothing wrong with that. I wouldn’t call it a PR stunt, I think she will be able to compete there, and should be allowed to try.
I think her chances of making the cut are alot better than other posters in this thread. Sure, her driving distance is well below average for PGA players, but guess what, this course isn’t made for long hitters. If you look at the stats, not surprisingly, the driving accuracy list is pretty much a reverse sort of the driving distance statistics. Annika’s driving accuracy is very good. Statistically, she matches up quite well with last year’s Colonial winner - Nick Price.
While the Colonial is quite long for LPGA standards, it is riddled with doglegs, preventing the long hitters from having their usual advantage. I wouldn’t expect her to be more than one club back from most of the PGA competitors. If she can makes some puts, you never know…
If she misses the cut, I think it will be due to putting. I’m not so sure her short game is a major issue, as she is exceptionally accurate with her irons.
If she can overcome the pressure, I would expect her to be within 2 or 3 shots of the cut, either way. I’d give her about a 50%/50% chance at being on the low side of it. And I wish her luck.
I think those opposed to the war would better serve their purpose by arguing the issues surrounding the war. Fighting about whether the Jessica Lynch (aka Lange) rescue or Bush’s carrier landing had elements of propoganda is so petty as to be nonsensical. So what if the resuce was staged? Would anyone on either side of the war issue change what they thought about the war?
War? I didn’t think golfers were so violent that they would start wars?
And the second I had typed that I suddenly remembered daddy Shrub’s conflict with Saddam. :smack:
Hey - bringing up Mickelson - does Annika’s participation mean Phil may no longer have the biggest boobs on tour?
Tho hers are undoubtedly perkier.
No, Phil’s are still standouts. You’d think his wife at least would tell him to do something about that…
BTW, the colonial is relatively short at 7,080 yds, but it’s also a Par 70. And someone also mentioned the doglegs. At any rate, you have to look at more than just the length.
Oh, yeah, my post on the war was supposed to be on another thread. In fact, one reason I wanted to open this thread was to have something other than the war to debate.
Look out Nationwide Tour!
Tim Herron is at least a C Cup. But he might be getting a little extra cleavage from a Wonderbra. I think he might take the wet t-shirt contest - should men be able compete in wet t-shirt contests? I mean, if they have the desire and the -um- talent?
(BTW, I was going to make both the short skirt reference and and Anna K reference talking about tennis. Nice to see you guys back me up like that - it would have looked snarky coming from me.)
Did anyone see Tiger’s comments this morning? He has a good point - one tournament isn’t going to prove anything - good players have bad tournaments, and bad players have good tournaments. She really should play a couple tour events and see how she does.
John, thanks for the link.