Female golfer, Sorenstam, to play on PGA Tour this weekend - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-15-2003, 02:51 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
make the cut... unlikely... still get a pay check? deffinetly... these journeymen golfers at the bottom of the pack... they really do need the pay checks... it's how they make their living. if tiger skips a tourney here and there, it's really not making a dent in his pocket. if some schmo at the bottom misses a paycheck, it's a big deal for him.
Hey I totally agree with that aspect of it, I was just trying to present a different side to the issue... as a spectator though, you should appreciate Sorenstam's presence more. It could only motivate the competition (like some members who have openly admitted that they don't want to be defeated by a woman), which hopefully would inspire those bottom-feeders to go that extra-mile to qualify. The stupid thing is, if some old veteran who has no right to play on a strong PGA field gets an invite to play in a regular tournament such as this... no one would make a big deal out of it. I'm guessing that those journeymen golfers would be just as peeved to lose a paycheck no matter who's "taking" it from them... but in that instance, they'd probably back off in respect for a well-established male player. My question is, why can't they do this for a well-established female player?

PS- I'm not trying to be an ass, that's just how I type.
__________________

__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-15-2003, 03:04 AM   #17
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 07:46 PM
I agree with Cujo.

I'm a big advocate of co-ed sports and I do think men should be allowed to play in the LPGA if they actually want to. I don't think that should be called sexism.

Whatever sex, whatever tournament--if they qualify, they should play.
__________________

__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 05-15-2003, 03:13 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 08:46 PM
To clear things up, I don't think that there should be one association that is entirely gender inclusive. What I do advocate is that player's (either gender) are afforded the opportunity for advancement if they feel that they are qualified to play in what they think is a higher level field. However, merging the tours would only put more people out of the job, and more paychecks would be lost. There's no one answer solution to this situation... but, for the sake of the future of women's golf, I hope that Sorenstam can compete and make the cut. Otherwise, it could demean the face of women's golf, and be detrimental to any further advancement of the sport.

Is it me or am I just talking in circles?

I think that it was summed up pretty nicely by the speaker from Colorado... ... I fully agree with the following:

Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41
Whatever sex, whatever tournament--if they qualify, they should play.
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-15-2003, 04:08 AM   #19
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wallyworld
Posts: 571
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
make the cut... unlikely... still get a pay check? deffinetly... these journeymen golfers at the bottom of the pack... they really do need the pay checks...
Not that this matters, but unless Im mistaken you need to make the cut to earn anything.

--------

Vijay's comments are steeped in his culture where women aren't supposed to challenge men in any facet of life. If he would be paired with Annika, HE would be the one shooting 80, not her. He probably couldn't handle the situation. Besides, she's a better putter...

In fact, I'd actually be surprised if Annika didn't make the cut. She chose this course because you don't have to hit it far to win. Not that distance is a problem for her anymore. Phil Mickleson predicted last month that she'd finish 20th. (And admitted to hoping he finished 19th or higher )

That all said, I don't think any success on her part at the BNC will mean anything towards comparison between the two tours. Colonial's a good course, but nothing like what the men face at the majors. Courses like Oakmont, Pebble, Augusta, Shinnickock, etc are in a completely different realm.
__________________
Clark W. Griswold, Jr is offline  
Old 05-15-2003, 05:26 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 09:46 PM
Actually I think even if you get last you still get some money.

Quote:
I'm a big advocate of co-ed sports and I do think men should be allowed to play in the LPGA if they actually want to. I don't think that should be called sexism.

Whatever sex, whatever tournament--if they qualify, they should play.
While it is true men and women are created equal, it is also true that men and women are different. Men just have different bodies than females that give them an advantage in sports. And that is why there are male and female sports leagues, because if there was not an exclusive female league than women wouldnt be able to play at all.

You say men should be able to play in women's leagues, well if they did, there would be no more women playing in the league, and that would defeat the purpose of having a women's league. Whether it be the WNBA, LPGA, or female college athletics, the males that are not good enough to make the males teams would still be better than the females and put them out of a job.

So I think that is a little ridiculous.

And you said if they qualify they should be able to play. I think if Annika did qualify not as many guys would have a problem with this, because they would know she is good enough to play and respect that. But she didn't qualify, she got a sponsors exemption, and I think a lot of players are just skeptical that she is not good enough to be there.

And I think they have a good reason to be skeptical. Laurie Davies, one of the best female golfers out there played in an unofficial "Super Tour" event and finished 39 strokes behind a one Vijay Singh. 39 strokes! And recently Annika played with Tiger and John Smoltz, and lost to John Smoltz. And John Smoltz is a baseball player, not a golfer! So I am a bit skeptical as well. But it will be interesting to see how she does.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 02:32 AM   #21
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip


While it is true men and women are created equal, it is also true that men and women are different. Men just have different bodies than females that give them an advantage in sports. And that is why there are male and female sports leagues, because if there was not an exclusive female league than women wouldnt be able to play at all.

You say men should be able to play in women's leagues, well if they did, there would be no more women playing in the league, and that would defeat the purpose of having a women's league. Whether it be the WNBA, LPGA, or female college athletics, the males that are not good enough to make the males teams would still be better than the females and put them out of a job.

So I think that is a little ridiculous.

Oh man...do not get me started on this topic. I did a research paper on it, which I would be happy to send you to save yourself reading here.

I'm not going to scream "Sexist!" or anything, but your response is just so stereotypical. Let's face it--professional sports is the last place where gender matters. Men are still men and "manly" things like speed, strength, etc are still valued and worth anything.

Guys would *love* to believe that there's some magic gene that gives them the ability to play sports, but it's simply not true.
Yes, both sexes are physically stronger in different areas (mostly upper body strength)--but the truth of it is, no one ever talks about the "major biological disadvantages" of smaller and weaker guys who get pummelled playing physical sports. It only comes up when you talk about women vs men.

Many women *could* compete on an equal level with pro male athletes, but will never ever be allowed to. That's all there is to it. "Oh, well they just aren't as good" but since you never allow the sexes to compete for the same spot on a team, society is safe from knowing. Pro sports is not going to risk men "getting beaten by a girl." And it's easy to be the best when you've cut out more than half of the potential competition.
There's no real reason that a woman could not play on a pro team. There are women out there who are just as talented, if not more so, than many men who do make the cut.

In very physical sports like football and hockey, certainly a woman could probably be seriously injured by a hit--but you know, Milan Hejduk is smaller than me and he holds his own just fine.

Pick up Mariah Burton Nelson's "The Stronger Women Get, the More Men Love Football." She goes a little over the top in her rants, but the evidence stacked against arguments like yours is pretty staggering.

Anyway, I'm tired and my argument is going to come out weak. Read the book or my paper.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 02:34 AM   #22
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cujo


I think that it was summed up pretty nicely by the speaker from Colorado... ... I fully agree with the following:

Awww, thanks Cujo.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 07:57 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 09:46 PM
I have to respectfully disagree with you here avsgirl. I'm not sure about this but I don't think there are any rules against women playing and I think if a team thought a woman would really help them they would sign her in a second. There is a ton of pressure on teams to win, managements jobs are on the line, and they would do anything they can to help them win, and that includes signing a woman.

To prove my point I remember years ago the Blues played a team where in an exhibition they had a female goalie who was trying to make the team. She gave up like 6 goals and turned out not good enough to make the team, but they gave her a shot, they werent being sexist.

It's not a perfect analogy but it is kind of like African Americans and baseball back in the day. African Americans were thought of as inferior to whites and not good enough to play with them, kind of like you think women are thought of today, but because a team wanted to win they signed Jackie Robinson and he succeeded. Pretty soon more and more teams were signing African Americans. This just shows that winning is the most important thing, and teams will do whatever they can to win. And I believe if a woman would give a team a better chance to win today, they would be signed.

Do you honestly believe women could play in the NHL, NFL, MLB, or NBA? I'm not being sexist but a woman being tackled by a steroid filled 260 lb linebacker would be killed. Golf is one sport where women could compete with men if they are good enough, and I think that would be interesting and good for the sport. But I just think Annika should qualify for it like everybody else has to. Hey if we want equality then why don't we all do things equally?
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 09:50 AM   #24
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 09:46 PM
ooh look the shark shot 67

The knowledgeable Mr. Griswold summed it up nicely...as he so often does when it comes to golf!

The bullshit about taking someone else's place really is bullshit - I forget who said it but they were right - how many times do we see some decrepit old pro (sorry arnie!) hauled out at a PGA event and battle to shoot somewhere near their age on a resort course where the winning score is -25. If Golf supremos didn't care about neglecting the little guy then why do we have PGA Tour events the weeks Tiger doesn't play?

The PGA Tour remains an irritating bastion of eletism of all kinds but I think that will slowly wear off with time as it has been for the last 30 years or so. I don't believe the golf tours should be co-ed, just as I believe the 100 metres shouldn't be co-ed, heaven forbid a time when enlightenment interferes with commonsense ( )! I'm glad she's playing though, because as a publicity stunt for the LPGA tour it is priceless...particularly when other LPGA pros are shunning the spotlight or the prospect of duelling with Annika. However I am fearful for the tour's prestige if she bombs. I think Tiger made a good point when he said, 'If we really want to know how good she is she should get entries at a few tournaments, there's not really much you can prove by a one-off.' Hopefully that is remembered in the aftermath, wherever she finishes.
__________________
brettig is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 10:24 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 09:46 PM
Actually Griswold wasn't entirely right

Quote:
Besides, she's a better putter...
Well in putting average Annika is ranked 64th on the LPGA with 29.89 putts per round. By far her worst stat.

And Singh is 31'st on the PGA tour with an average of 28.78 putts per round. And the greens are faster and more difficult on the PGA tour.

So these kind of statements lead to less credibility by a Mr. Griswold.

Also

Quote:
If he would be paired with Annika, HE would be the one shooting 80, not her. He probably couldn't handle the situation
Well he did play with one of the best female players in the world in Laurie Davies in a non official PGA event and beat her by 39 strokes. 39 strokes. So I don't think playing against a female really hurts him too much.

But anything can really happen in one tournament, so I do agree that whether she does well or poorly really won't prove much. It would take 4 or 5 tournaments to really see how well she compares to the others.

But like I have said, it will be fun to watch, and I hope she does well, I'm just not expecting it.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 11:21 AM   #26
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 09:46 PM
I think we both know stats don't tell you everything there is to know about a player's skills - just look at where Tiger is in driving distance lately...if not midfield then certainly not number 1. But yeah I'll stand corrected about Sorenstam's short game. Most people who know the PGA tour will tell you Singh is a great ballstriker and a relatively average putter. When he won the Masters it was by hitting lots of greens. In that sense he and Sorenstam are alike, and quite often the great ballstrikers don't look so good in the putting stats because they do hit lots of greens. After all that's why she's playing Colonial - I don't think its called Hogan's Alley because it sets up like Augusta!
__________________
brettig is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 02:01 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
MissVelvetDress_75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized by the orbit of his hips..Also Holding Bono Close as he requested.
Posts: 25,776
Local Time: 09:46 PM
i do not agree with co-ed leagues.
__________________
MissVelvetDress_75 is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 06:16 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
To prove my point I remember years ago the Blues played a team where in an exhibition they had a female goalie who was trying to make the team. She gave up like 6 goals and turned out not good enough to make the team, but they gave her a shot, they werent being sexist.
Well I don't think that's a very fair assessment of the situation. First of all, it was just a publicity stunt by a failing franchise, who really only cared about ticket sales (and not the future of women in professional sports)... and she was only given the opportunity to play part of one game (I believe it was 2 periods), not to mention the fact the team she played for was TAMPA BAY... there was tremendous pressure on her to perform (being unfairly cast as the sole female ambassador), to show that hockey could be an even gender playing field. But how equal is that? Giving her one game to prove her abilities... how many rookie MALES excel in their first game in the National Hockey League?... and how is your first game an indication of success in a career sense? I'm sure there are stats to show that some elite goalies did have a terrific first outing, but it's arbitrary.

For Sorenstam's chance to be fair... she should decline the invitation and qualify for the tournament, and then play a few more events afterward. Like Tiger says, in order for it to be a true test, she has to play multiple matches.
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 11:49 PM   #29
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wallyworld
Posts: 571
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Chizip
Actually Griswold wasn't entirely right



Well in putting average Annika is ranked 64th on the LPGA with 29.89 putts per round. By far her worst stat.

And Singh is 31'st on the PGA tour with an average of 28.78 putts per round. And the greens are faster and more difficult on the PGA tour.



putts per round is meaningless. It's entirely predicated on greens hit in regulation, and how close one hits it to the hole. Ive seen Singh play enough to know how much money his putter has cost him.



Well he did play with one of the best female players in the world in Laurie Davies in a non official PGA event and beat her by 39 strokes. 39 strokes. So I don't think playing against a female really hurts him too much.


Just out of curiosity, were the two PAIRED together, or were they just in the same field? One of the comments coming from the Singh camp was that if they were paired together, he wouldn't play...

also, don't compare Davies with Sorenstam, because the only thing Davies can do is hit it far. If she can't overpower the golf course, she does not win.
__________________
Clark W. Griswold, Jr is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 06:19 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 09:46 PM
Vijay dropped out of the Colonial because he promised his wife if he won the tournament last weekend he wouldn't play in this one.

Kind of a cheap move if you ask me, if you talk the talk you should have to walk the walk
__________________

__________________
Chizip is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com