Well the thing is, Venus or Serena could play in a men’s tournament and on clay (no serve-n-volley play like Wimbledon) they might beat a couple people with a good draw. But the thing is, women’s tennis is interesting on it’s own, and if I hadn’t lucked out and picked Agassi as my favorite player back in '89 when he was a nobody I’d have gotten bored with the men’s game by now and might actually be more interested in the women. I used a two-handed backhand stroke, so do they, so it’s more like the game I know anyways. Point being, nobody would care if Serena or Venus could compete in the men’s tourneys because they have no reason to do so.
The LPGA is in the midst of building their image, their chairwoman has been on the sportstalk shows talking about the process. They need to develop themselves as their own sport. If the best of the women go and play with the men, then that basically leaves the rest of the women in the dust, with a sport that everyone would consider just “minor league”. Nobody thinks of women’s tennis that way, the LPGA needs a chance to set it’s future course as a “different” sport rather than a junior league. And publicity stunts like Anna’s just give more women golfers the wrong idea. They should be promoting their own league, not treating the men’s league like it’s a step-up.
Assume a young male golfer who is decent, but not among the PGA elite. Should he be allowed to give it a shot on the LPGA? Or the senior tour? Why or why not?
Bwuh-hahahahaha… good one, Dinsdale. The wife’s nickname for Lefty is “manboobies”, as in how’s manboobies doing today?
Oh, that Wie kid could be the next woman’s Tiger. She was bombing her drives 30-40 yards past her older playing partners in the last tournament she played in. (She’s 13, and like 5’11")
No, a young male golfer who is decent, but not among the PGA elite has the Nationwide tour. Women have no other place to go. For that matter, old male golfers shouldn’t have the choice of the Seniors tour or the LPGA (can you just picture Hale Irwin on the LPGA?)
Now, I’m not sure that the Nationwide tour should admit women…
Rex, I don’t get the seperate but equal thing you’ve got going here. Women’s golf isn’t equal. The competition isn’t equal, the courses aren’t equal, the media coverage isn’t equal and the purses are not equal. Women’s golf will remain women’s golf even if the eventual woman plays on the PGA tour - with the miniscule following its always had. Yes, I suppose they could try to “grow” their own sport - they’ve been trying that since Nancy Lopez first drove a green. Besides Annika is playing in ONE tournament - lets not jump the gun and assume she is going to turn PGA tour pro and be followed quickly by Si Ri Pak and Karrie Webb, leaving us poor women to have to watch either PGA golf or Pat Hurst. Besides, we all watch PGA golf anyway. Will be nice to watch it and be able to check out what Annika is wearing. (Tiger always dresses nice, but it just isn’t the same, and Jesper… really needs a style consultant).
(Do you guys know me well enough to be able to tell when my tongue is planted in my cheek?)
If women are going to compete on equal footing with men, they need to do it on the PGA tour.
Correction, Dangerosa, the woman have a minor league, it’s called the Future’s Tour. It functions similar to the Nationwide Tour for the PGA. And the woman do play 54 hole tournaments. I’d guess it’s about 50-50 54 to 72 hole tourneys.
They are developing themselves as their own sport. And I don’t see any danger in a bunch of women deserting the LPGA for the PGA for the simple reason that very few women can compete in the PGA. You’re assuming that Annika’s entry is the beginning of a big movement, but I don’t see any evidence of that. The fact is, the LPGA is set up because most women can’t compete on the PGA. Call that “minor league” if you like, but everybody knows the LPGA provides a lower level of competition than the PGA. It’s not like Annika is shining a light on a previously unknown fact.
You can’t really compare the two sports. The reason many people say women’s tennis is better is because (a) women have less powerful shots so there are longer rallies which are more exciting, and (b) they’ve cultivated interesting personalities. the LPGA can try to emulate (b), but golf is not a head-to-head ballgame where less power means more excitement.
I disagree. I haven’t seen any women golfers saying they’ll bag the LPGA now that Annika’s playing the Colonial. Do you have any examples of women golfers getting the wrong idea because of Annika in the Colonial?
Even if a woman actually qualified to play on the PGA, she’d likely be giving up money. It’d be a phenomenal woman golfer who could make more on the PGA tour than on the LPGA.
Rex: You make some good points, but are you implying that Annika owes it to her gender to stick to the LPGA? She said that she was doing it for herself, not to advnace some women’s cause, and I believe her. Spoken like a true guy!
FYI, check out the Money Leaders of the various tours here. The money leader on the Nationwide is at .162M, compared to .563 on the LPGA, $.462M on the Champions (Seniors) and $3.789M on the PGA.
What if there is a guy on the Nationwide Tour, or the Senior Tour who wants to see how they stack up against other golfers. Why should they not be given exemptions for LPGA events?
I don’t understand your point about “not having anywhere else to go.” What right or interest provides that a pro athelete should be given numerous options? Why need she go anywhere? She has a tour where she can compete and make a good living.
(Thank heavens legalities aren’t involved - she isn’t suing to be allowed to compete!)
You could look at other sports. What if a young male b-ball player couldn’t make it in the NBA, but wanted to give the WNBA a shot?
I see this as nothing other than a curiosity. Whether or not Annika is motivated by a desire for competition or publicity (though I will be surprised if she will complain when it ups her endorsements), I guarantee the pro tours, equipment manufacturers, and sponsors are definitely counting on the economic benefits resulting from the publicity this stunt gains.
Women are physically weaker than men, but many still have the talent to play at a pretty high level. Because of the differences, women’s leagues are set up to provide an opportunity for women to compete. Allowing men to compete in women’s leagues would destroy the purpose of the women’s leagues. If a private organization wishes to restrict competition to women, there is nothing wrong with that.
I don’t think men should have the right to enter a women’s tournament any more than a heavyweight should have the “right” to enter a bantamweight tournament. The physical differences simply can’t be ignored. I don’t see a moral dimension implicated by acknowledging physical differences.
If a manwants to play on the PGA but can’t qualify he should practice more. He should not be able to play on the LPGA any more than he should be able play in a Juniors tournament. A woman has NO advantage over a man on the PGA tour, so if she can play, go for it. The reverse is not true.
Well, Zoff. As I said, we aren’t talking aout legal “rights.”
Annika certainly does not have any enforceable right to play in a PGA event.
If I understand you correctly, you say (most) men are stronger than (most) women, so you imply that the unusual woman who has superb talent should be allowed to play on the PGA.
I’m really not trying to be difficult here, but I still don’t understand. You suggest (at least) 2 relevant factors are strength and talent. So what if I am a relatively talentless guy? Why should I not be able to parlay my strength to be competitive on the women’s tour?
Why is Annika’s interest in playing on the men’s tour more important than whatever interest I may have in playing with the women?
In short - Annika playing on the men’s tour is the modern equivalent of a boxing kangaroo.
I think that the highest level of competition shouldn’t be restricted. If there is a sport where women dominate and men play at a lower level, I don’t think the better league should be restricted to women, either.
Because nobody’s guaranteed a right to parlay anything into anything.
Men and women are different, so the women set up leagues. There’s nothing wrong with that. Women want to be able to play pro sports and make some money. There’s nothing wrong with that either. A private organization has taken into account the physical differences between men and women and said that men can’t play in their league. Allowing men would destroy the league itself. Those who are just below PGA-level would go to the women’s tour and there would not be spots for women. There’s nothing wrong with the women’s leagues making rules to maintain their existence.
You said that this isn’t an issue of rights, but your argument is couched in rights-based language. The big difference is that the PGA does not restrict entry to men, while the LPGA restricts entry to women. The LPGA has taken steps to ensure its survival. One of the steps is to not allow a physically dominant gender to enter their tournies.
Even assuming it is, so what? It’s not even mutually exclusive from her wanting to honestly test herself. The fact that some might see it as a curiosity doesn’t mean she’s not doing it for the reasons she states.
If I wanted to consider someone an injured party, it would be the guy who was not given the sponsor’s exemption.
Maybe he’s a PGA pro who hadn’t played well enough to get an automatic exemption, and he didn’t play well enough early in the week to qualify. His only chance to play would be to get a sponsor’s exemption.
Or maybe he’s an amateur. Either a local celebrity, or a college player.
These are the guys who are being “disadvantaged” by awarding Annika an exemption.
The other “harm” I see is for the guy who eventually wins this tourney. His success will be overshadowed by this sideshow.
Annika CAN’T qualify because she isn’t (AFAIK) a PGA pro. (Disclaimer: I don’t know all the distinctions between PGA teaching and touring pros.)
But she COULD try to qualify for the US Open.
Or (I think) she COULD join the PGA and try to get into the PGA championship.
Or, she COULD go to Q school.
But NO. Consistent with today’s attitude of entitlement at no personal risk, she wants the best of both worlds. A chance to grab a brass ring, without giving up anything in return.
Moreover, why are we talking only about male pros playing on the LPGA. What if Michael Jordan would accept a sponsor’s exemption? Why not?
I apologize for appearing to make a big deal out of this. I really don’t care. Annika is an awesome golfer - clearly among the best women golfers. But whatever she does on this particular week, week in and week out, she is nowhere near as good as a whole slough of male golfers.
I think it is kinda unfortunate that so many people care so much. This is packaged entertainment, not athletic competition.
Michael Jordon would likely slow the pace of play too much to be considered a potential sponsor’s exemption. That’s why they have a pro-AM with lots of tournaments, and why they have the AT&T Pebble Beach pro-am every year. If the sponsor’s nominated someone who couldn’t hang, the players in that person’s group would be penalized. Annika will have no poblem “hanging”.
The level of women’s play has bumped up quite a lot lately. I think it makes sense to mix it up from time to time to see how well the women can do. As I said earlier, I think golf is one of a very few number of sports where some women might be able to compete at the level of men.
Farnkly, if I were on tour I’d love to have her play. She’s working her fanny off to be prepared for this. It wasn’t her idea (she was invited after a reporter posed the question to her if she would play in a men’s tour). I’d say she earned it as much as any guy who could get in under a sponsor’s expemption.
The one caution is that if she really bombs out, it could cheapen women’s golf. If she ends up in the bottom 10% before the cut, then it’ll be pretty bad. But hey, if you never risk anything, you seldom gain anything either.
Women’s tennis is also doing better ratings-wise now for a few other reasons: the best four players are American, which helps stateside, and the champions are interesting and personable. Lleyton Hewitt is a jerk and just generally not fun, so are some of the other up-and-comers. Meanwhile, the Williams sisters are dominating the sport - and interestingly, at this point, few people bring up their race now.
Agassi has personality and always has, he’s been my favorite player since I got into tennis. Remarkable that he’s still competing for #1 in the world at 33. I think he’s among the most amazing stories ever in sports.
[quote]
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).
It’s the same at two of the four Grand Slams. The US and Australian Open, I think. Wimbledon and the French Open haven’t come up to speed yet. It’s a little hard to fix the Saturday/Sunday thing, though I sort of wish they would - women’s matches are shorter and thus the tournaments just go faster.
By the way, I didn’t mean that Vijay Singh was seriously worried about losing to Sorenstam - I don’t think she’ll win, though I would enjoy it that much more if she came in ahead of him. But I think he sounds petty and silly.
Dins, I’m with Zoff…the highest level of play shouldn’t be restricted. Lower levels of play may be restricted. Women shouldn’t play on the Nationwide (and now that I know there is a step down LPGA league, I’ll say that with confidence). But the best woman in the world should be able to play with the men - everyone should be able to prove themselves against the best in the world - particularly in a game like golf, where there doesn’t seem to be any GOOD reason not to let her play - except guys don’t get to play on the women’s tour.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Wei is not the next Ladies Tiger - she is just plain out the next Tiger. She could be the best golfer in the world, but she’d never know - nor would anyone else. She’d always be told she is playing with inferior competition on inferior courses, with inferior course yardage, easier greens and shorter rough. Somehow, that isn’t fair.
Now take the guy who doesn’t quite make the PGA cut (or did, but seldom finishes in the money), but who could take on the LPGA. He knows he isn’t the best golfer in the world. He isn’t looking for a higher level of competition - he’s looking to be the big fish in a little pond. Somehow, that isn’t fair.
I can see the argument that she should have to do it the way everyone else does - qualify for an Open or hustle through Q school (although I don’t remember everyone hustling through Q school - I don’t think most European golfers do, did Tiger or did he qualify through his amateur titles?) But sponsors have exemptions. She got one - actually, she was offered several, and chose a tournament she felt she would do well in - perhaps cherrypicking - perhaps being a smart competitor (Notice Tiger doesn’t play every weekend - he chooses tournaments based on the benefit to him). In this I’m kind of like I am with the guys with the Green Jackets - its their party - they can invite who they want. And as to the sponsor who gave her the exemption - seems like a smart move on their part - they’ll get lots of people watching their TV commercials.
"I don’t remember everyone hustling through Q school - I don’t think most European golfers do, did Tiger "
Dang:
FYI, there are many ways to qualify for the PGA besides going thr Q school. But to play regularly, you MUST qualify. Either by being at the top of the Nationwide or otherwise. And you have to requalify every year by some means (some tournament wins, like a major, give you more than one year’s exemption).
Yeah, I remember. (Have you read John Feinstein’s “A Good Walk Spoiled” that’s where I’m pulling stuff from. But its been a long time and its in a box in the basement so I’m doing this from my somewhat faulty memory). You can qualify by winning a tournament (that gets you in next year), a major gets you in for five or ten? Top X money winners, top of the Nationwide, top amateur, and I’m assuming that their is some qualification scheme for International golfers.
I was thinking that there would be other ways to solve the problem of the “best” league being “open” to men only. Have a couple of co-ed tournaments a year. Have the top three LPGA players qualify for the US Open. Let the top LPGA player qualify for the tour (similar to the Nationwide qualification, or winning the US Amateur). BTW, I’m not saying any of these are GOOD ideas, just possible ways to recognize that the PGA is the top of the heap, and the LPGA is… well… not. And Annika (and some of the other top women golfers, I noticed that Si Ri Pak is at the top of the money list) has got to be finding that frustrating.