Annika at the Colonial: What do you think?

Great Debates
81

Majors get you a 5 years exemption. It’s top 125 on the money list for qualification, top 15 on the Nationwide (this might have been lowered this year) and I think top 35 from Q school. Don’t know about the rest (amatures, etc.). Does anyone remember how Tiger qualified the first time around? I wouldn’t be surprised if he qualified in more than one way.

Spots are so precious, you won’t see them openning up other means except under rare, rare circumstances. Women are free to qualify thru Q school if they want. If there were some move afoot to reserve a few special spots for women, I’d be the first one complaining about that.

82

Do you have any idea how the “expats” qualify?

83

Nobody has a right to an exemption. The slot given to Annika was discretionary. I’m as harmed as the PGA pro who didn’t play well because we both have the same claim to the exemption.

I doubt it, but even if it’s true, so what. Lots of tournaments have side stories. Major chokes, rules disputes, you name it. The players are given a shot at winning the tournament, nothing more nothing less.

Or she could accept an exemption, which is within the rules, then play and see what happens. That’s the perfectly legitimate option you omitted.

You might not like the fact that she hasn’t committed to Q School or the US Open, but she’s playing well within the rules. If she does well and decides to try for the US Open or Q School, would the Colonial still be kangaroo boxing?

I simply don’t see this as an example of some sort of entitlement mentality. She is risking the chance of looking like a complete ass if she chokes. Anybody can have two bad rounds, but if she does it the world is looking and she might well piss of a lot of players in the LPGA.

A woman playing in a PGA tournament in which no rules were broken or even bent is just not a good example of entitlement mentality.

84

I’ve heard that the Annika Sorenstam’s over/under line in Vegas for Thursday and Friday’s play is 153. If the course is a par 70, that’s 13 over par. Can that be a correct line? If so, the odds are that she won’t come anywhere close to making the cut, I would think.

85

John Mace wrote:

When Tiger turned pro in '96, he was given sponsor’s exemptions, on his fifth try, he won the Las Vegas Invitational to secure his tour card.

86

Look, I’m already on record as saying it’s fine for sponsors to give exemptions to anyone they like, and that it doesn’t bother me a whit if Annika Sorenstam plays in a PGA event or two.

That said, Vijay Singh and Nick Price have a point… or, at least, they WOULD have had a point, a few years back. In purely GOLF terms, it makes little sense to let Annika play. In SHOW BIZ terms, however, it makes all the sense in the world. If I were a PGA sponsor, I’d make a major point of getting people into the tournament who’d attract media attention! The name of the game for me would be attracting crowds and TV viewers. And any mid-level tournament that doesn’t have Tiger Woods needs SOME kind of angle to attract those people.

Vijay and Nick MAY just be old-fashioned sexist pigs, but more likely, they’re just old-school golfers who think that the GAME is the most important thing. Well, like it or not, the game is now secondary, just as it now is in MOST sports. Basketball is show biz. Football is show biz. Baseball is show biz. Heck, those sports have been show biz for a long time! And now, in the Tiger era, so is golf.

It’s a fact of life now that Annika Sorenstam is FAR bigger than this tournament. No matter who wins, the winner will be a footnote in Monday’s papers. Annika will be the story, even if she doesn’t make the cut. To serious golfers, the type who think the game is about making shots, that’s outrageous and unfair.

But in 2003, that’s just the way it is.

87

Asrtorian:

You touched it on, but typically the winner in any tournamnent Tiger plays in is a footnote on Monday. Even when he doesn’t win, the headlines always read: Tiger Falls Three Shots Back, or something like that. I guess newspapers figure that’s the only way they can get people to read the article.

As for Vijay and Price, I’ll take them seriouslly when they pull all the sponsors’ logos off their attire. Either one of them makes tons of money just on the golf, but apparently that’s not enough for them. Vijay’s comment about hoping she doesn’t make the cut is utterly poor sportsmanship. What’s he going to do-- heckle her in her backswing? He tried to backpedle by saying he was misquoted, but from I’ve read, he was quoted precisely.

88

Astorian definitely hit the nail on the head.

89

I disagree BF… John Mace and Dangerosa have hit the nail on the head!

How’s THAT for a “me too” post. Or rather, a contrarian “me too” post.

90

Ya know, Astorian, I could only agree with you if Annika’s participation were ONLY about PR and showbiz. For example, if it were Michael Jordan, then I would completely agree with you.

But it is simply not the case. Annika is a serious golfer. She is the best female player in the world right now. She has proven the ability the make shots. There is every reason to believe that she can compete in this field. Perhaps not win, perhaps not make the cut. About half the men that will compete will not make the cut.

Assume there was no advance press, no cameras or reporters at the tourny. Other than chauvinism, why should she NOT compete in this field, and settle the question? What pure purpose of golf is served by eliminating her participation?

91

Big assumption there, Cowboy. My hunch is, if there was no press and no mass media coverage of this tournament, there’s not a chance in Hell that the Colonial sponsors would have given Annika an exemption.

But if they hadn’t, I could still respect Annika for wanting to play against the best. If she wanted to try out to qualify for the U.S. Open (as even rank amateurs are allowed to), I’d say “Go for it! And if you qualify, more power to you!”

I have enough respect for golf tradition to think Annika should have to earn her way into PGA events. That said, I repeat, I understand why having her in this tournament is appealing, and if I were one of the sponsors, I’d want her in there, too. And I’d tell Vijay, “Look, you may not like the fact that golf is turning into show biz, but I bet you like the bigger purses we can pay out as a result, don’t you? So, shut up and play!”

92

Here’s my .02 cents. I wrote that Astorian’s correct in what the sponsor’s motivation is.

Annika’s motivation is to take her game (she won 13 times last year, she needs a new challenge) and compare it to the men on the same course and see how she measures up. This woman is 110% motivated to bring her absolute best game to this tournament. I hope she plays great, to reiterate from an earlier post, I’d rather watch her on Sunday (since most of the biggies ain’t playing). I think it’s win/win, and if some guy ranked 146th on the money list is whining about not getting an exemption, waaah, play better.

93

Agreed. And I think she has done that. She did it the way many of the men currently on tour have done - by playing exceptional golf, and getting a sponsor’s exemption.

The motivation of the sponsor, at least in this case, is not relevent, considering her ability to compete.

94

It would be interesting to see some stats on how often the guys playing on a sponsor’s expemption do not make the cut. I would suspect it’s pretty high, although I doubt anyone keeps that stat. Usually the guys who have a good chance to play well don’t need the exemption in the first place.

It’s funny that there’s more controversy about Annika than there is about the woman (Whaley?) playing in the Hartford open later this summer. While she did technically qualify to play in the tournament, she did so by playing from the ladies tees. Now, I have to assume that that’s just the rule, but it sure seems like a silly rule. She is going to get TROUNCED.

95

Given that there are ladies’ tees, why isn’t there a co-ed tour with the men and women playing together? The ladies tees should provide the strength handicap, and all else should be equal, right?

Except I’m guessing that it’s not. The difference between men and women in sports is a lot more than just physical strength. I don’t know why that is, but it’s true for sure. Take snooker, for example. There is absolutely NO strength requirement in snooker. Even the break is soft. And there’s a good parallel to the Annika Sorenstam situation in Snooker - Allison Fisher was the best female snooker player, by a long shot. She trounced all the other women. So she decided to play on the men’s tour - and got KILLED. She wasn’t even remotely competitive. So she came to the U.S. and joined the women’s 9-ball tour.

In Straight Pool, which also has no strength requirement, the high run for men is 562 balls, and men routinely run 150 and out to win matches. The high run for a woman is, I believe, 86 balls. A good amateur male can do that. Hell, I’ve almost done it.

I think that explains the Vegas line of 153. They don’t expect her to be very competitive, even discounting the strength issue.

96

I see no reason for the LPGA to exist. Women aren’t as good at golf as men, but I’m not as good as those men either, where’s my People Who Can’t Play Golf PGA? The idea of a championship for the incompetent is laughable. The LPGA is a freak show, a novelty act, a circuc clown act.

Having competitions for the aged is one thing, they have been capable and declined. Competitions for the young players are completely acceptable, these players are still developing. Having competitions for the inadequate is a stupid idea. The LPGA has no validity. If there are any players in the LPGA capable of it they should play in the PGA. The PGA is a competition for the best in the sport, the LPGA isn’t even a competition for rejects, just people with no chance of success given a chance to compete against other inadequates of the same birthgroup.

I have nothing against women playing in PGA competitions, if they go through the proper procedures as men would do, but I do object to clique-ish leagues of women who, like many men, would like to compete professionally but just aren’t good enough and do so anyway because of their sex. If the LPGA was on the same level as the PGA, I wouldn’t have a problem, but people being paid just for their sex to perform their Keystone Kops routine gets on my nerves.

Why should men be better at snooker and archery? Stronger, faster, better hand eye co-ordination and spacial acuity, better fine motor control.

You also say: “they swing like guys!”. I know next to nothing about golf, how else would they swing?

The purses are different at Wimbledon, with men making more. Rightfully so, too, as men play more sets per match at a higher level of quality.

97

Florida (warm places generally, but especially here) thing: there are mini tours anyone can play on. There are female mini tours also.

The problem is, level playing field wise, even a superior female golfer has trouble competing with the top men men.

Where Beagle claims to have specialized knowledge:

In part I base this on having played HS golf with a former LPGA member and having played a lot of golf with the longest hitter on the LPGA Tour in the early 1980s. I also, for comparison, played with a PGA tour member (the brother of the LPGA Tour member) on the same HS golf team.* I played against several PGA tour members (even a couple major winners) when I was a whippersnapper. Oh, not to mention having watched golf both on TV and in person my entire life.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell. The woman loses a little (or a whole lot of) distance off the tee. She hits her other clubs one to two clubs shorter also (with some exceptions: Davies, Wie). For whatever reasons, not clear to me, women don’t have the ridiculous short games that the male pros have. Good, but not ridiculous.

OTOH, having watched Sorenstam when she’s hot, her iron play can be very precise. Women generally hit those fairway woods with great precision. She is no exception. She hits it far enough, but more importantly can place it with her driver. Her short game is pretty good, albeit unused to a certain extent. IMO, she’s capable of shooting under par in a men’s tournament. She could make the cut.

But, she will be facing major championship type pressure. “It’s for women everywhere, Annika.” “No pressure.” Whoever she plays with will be somewhat unfamiliar. Really, everything will be unfamiliar. Those things are not conducive to playing well. Moreover, the hype and hysteria–dependent upon world events–will be unbelievable. Which is why it’s one hell of an idea, IMO.

OTOH, she might be one of the toughest players in golf between the ears.

*Someone will figure this out.

98

Kuehne?

Not sure if the dates work out, but that’s all I can think of. IIRC, they are Candadian, though, so not sure how that figures into Florida.

99

re: Sam’s point about snooker.

Makes you wonder if, in competitions such as pool, riflery, curling, darts, and golf (at least the short game) if:

  1. It’s just a matter of statitstics. More boys play sports serioiusly than girls for a longer period, so it’s more likely that the natural athletes are found.

or

  1. Men simply are, on average, better at whatever it takes to play the sports that aren’t dependent on strength, too.

#1 has got to fade over time, and you’d think that by now SOME woman would emerge who was as good or better than the guys. Of course, even if #2 is true, #1 still probably has some effect, so it’s not necessarily a strict either/or situation.

100

A LOT of women play pool. The top women pros have played all their lives (Loree Jon Jones’ father built a raised track around their pool table at home so she could play when she was five).

In our local region, there are tons and tons of female players. There are all-female tournaments, the bars have mixed doubles tournaments all the time, and a half-dozen women in the area have won national titles.

I’ve played against all of the top women, and they were about as good as I am. When playing for money, I’d play them straight-up, with no handicap.

I have a male friend who is a great 9-ball player. He’d spot me five games in a race to 9, and give me the break in every game, and he’d STILL beat me probably 80% of the time. I’d run a rack, miss on the second ball of the second rack, and he’d run four straight. I’d run a few balls and miss, and he’d run another three racks. etc.

Watch women’s professional 9-ball sometime. A break and run-out is not a typical result, and often the play switches sides four or five times in a game. That’s almost unheard of in men’s 9-ball, unless there is a safety duel going on. Last year, Earl Strickland ran 11 racks without missing to win a match without the other player leaving his seat. No woman has ever come close to that feat.

Again, I don’t know why this is. Intensity of focus? Better fine motor control? Aggressiveness? Better strategic thinking? I really don’t have an answer. But clearly, strength isn’t the only issue.