flashback Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 oh, boo-f*cking-hoo to all the men's rights activists. The LPGA was about opportunity, and it still is. If men want to make a living playing golf, there are 3 tours that I know of that they can play on without suing the LPGA. This Annika Sorenstam thing is about the biggest thing to happen to golf since Tiger Woods turned pro. And instead of taking all of that publicity for their sport and making the most positive impression they could, the golfers on the PGA tours have revealed themselves to be the whining, elitist, spoiled, arrogant b*stards they are. Someone should remind them that they're becoming millionaires based on the popularity of hitting a ball with a crooked stick and then following it. Everytime they open their mouths, they're taking a bite out of their own wallets. Morons. Personally, I think there should only be an LPGA. If any of these guys were actually "athletes" they could make a living playing tennis or baseball. I have no sympathy what-so-ever for the guy who is "working" so hard to make it to the PGA tour, only too see the best female golfer in the world swoop in and take his payday. Oh, you poor fella. All those hours on the driving range and in the gym (activities that the rest of us have to actually PAY for, mind you) you've put in, only you still weren't good enough, and now you're SOL because the sponsors want some extra publicity for their tournament. Somebody call the WAAAAAAmbulance. I was never a golf fan, but this is absolutely disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 I was never a golf fan, but this is absolutely disgusting. That's pretty obvious. Vijay and the other guys whining is exactly that. Im referring to the guy whose 250 on the money list struggling to make 30 grand a year. That's the spot that Annika is taking. The LPGA is about opportunity, so why does Annika (she made over 10 mill last year) feel the need to take money away from a male golfer? And if it''s just to see if she can compete, fine, then the guy suing to play in the LPGA is just trying to make a living. The hypocrisy of arguing it's fine for her but not for him is astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 That's pretty obvious. Vijay and the other guys whining is exactly that. Im referring to the guy whose 250 on the money list struggling to make 30 grand a year. That's the spot that Annika is taking. The LPGA is about opportunity, so why does Annika (she made over 10 mill last year) feel the need to take money away from a male golfer? And if it''s just to see if she can compete, fine, then the guy suing to play in the LPGA is just trying to make a living. The hypocrisy of arguing it's fine for her but not for him is astounding. If any sponsor of an LPGA tour event wants to chase down the guy who's #250 on the money list to come to their tournament and compete, I would not have a problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 yes. She should be allowed to and it should be no big deal. The event as I recalled had criteria to meet. She won the right to qualify based on her competitive ability. The brouhaha seems to be about the fact that she had the audacity to actually apply and agree to play for a tournament that she qualified for. She did not sue her way on. She didn't trade on her celebrity. She was invited on the basis of some athletic accomplishment. The Brown v. Board argument is interesting, but I think it falls flat in this specific case. The idea that you can possess the skills and demonstrate them effectively and then be denied is wrong. The tournament or the PGA needs to revise their rules if they don't want this to happen again. As for male v. female athletics, the real question isn't one of segregation, but what is the purpose of athletics in the college setting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Perhaps Annika is seeking bigger $'s - since she makes about 1/5 of what the men's tour leaders make in any given year - and thats when she leads the LPGA tour. To me, this is a marketing stunt. But this consistent talk about her taking away a spot from so and so, is ridiculous. 3 weeks from now, no one is going to remember who's spot she took. Nor will they care. If I were the men, I would be more worried about this 13 year old Hawaiin girl who's hitting the ball 300yards and shooting in the 60's consistently, from the men's tees. She is going to kill them in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Im referring to the guy whose 250 on the money list struggling to make 30 grand a year. Maybe he should go out and get a real job then. I can't have sympathy for someone who chooses to struggle at a game to make a living. I agree, however, that she should have to qualify. Nothing should be given to her, same as that above mentioned guy in 250th. He's trying to live his dream, and so is she. If she wants to play on the big tour, then she should have to qualify for the big tour. And if she does, then she should be allowed. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 For the record, not one male golfer has been "excluded" from the Colonial based on Ms. Sorenstam's presence. The Colonial, as any other PGA tour event, has a certain number of exemptions available through which they can invite players and/or personalities that they feel will boost interest and viewership, with the clear and unapologetic goal of helping in the pursuit of making money. And let us not criticize them for trying to make money. It's still America last time I checked. As of the latest report I heard, about the middle of last week, the tour had granted the Colonial roughly 18 exemptions for this event, and the Colonial had used less than 10 of them. Inviting Annika Sorenstam has NOT kept any "struggling male pro," be he from the PGA or Nike or YMCA tours, from playing in this event. What has kept them from playing in this event is that their names and/or games have not brought enoughof a spotlight upon them to warrant an invitation in the eyes of the people footing the bill to put this show on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 I weighed in on this when that moron was suing to play in the LPGA. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22067&perpage=15&display=&highlight=golf&pagenumber=1 Here's the gist of my feelings on the subject. Until there is a huge outcry anytime a golfer over 50 plays in the regular tour AND the Seniors tour, those whining about Annaka Sorenwhatever should just shut up already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 She has won 4 majors so lets cut out the dominating nonsense. The fact is that the double standard of women can play with guys but guys should be ashamed for playing with chicks is there and thats the point the guy suing to play in the LPGA was tring to make. Just like when some guys decided to seek enrollment in an all girl state college after the citadel and VMI had to include women just to prove a point of double standards. Its a circus she wont win and its just a mockery and IMO if she really sucks will set back babes sports. For example Serena is the most dominating female tennis star right now but if she had to play the 100th male tennis player she would lose and lose badly. Marion Jones would lose in the 100 meters to nearly every male track star in college The best WNBA player against a NCAA player of similar height? no contest. Heck in the military we have to change standards for women to meet physical readiness requirements that if a man met would mean that he failed and is on his way of being processed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 For example Serena is the most dominating female tennis star right now but if she had to play the 100th male tennis player she would lose and lose badly. The others I for the most part agree with, but this girl hits serves and ground strokes harder than alot of men and probably could beat numerous clay court players on a hard court. In the case of Anika, I'am actually pretty supporting of her decision to play against the men. The only thing she really has to do is prove she can compete and if she accomplishes that then it should be considered a success. I've heard alot of people say that she should have qualified like the men, and shes talking some guy spot.......we'll no sh*t.....if they wanted to stop that they should just get rid of exemptions period. When a player in general has to use an exemption it is utimately keeping another player out, and if its good enough for a man to use, a women should have the same right. Now I don't think it should be common place, but this is really a one time event, if not she needs to get a card. Regardless, I hope she does well.......mainly to show up some of these self centered prick golfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Originally posted by NavyDave She has won 4 majors so lets cut out the dominating nonsense. The fact is that the double standard of women can play with guys but guys should be ashamed for playing with chicks is there and thats the point the guy suing to play in the LPGA was tring to make. Just like when some guys decided to seek enrollment in an all girl state college after the citadel and VMI had to include women just to prove a point of double standards. Its a circus she wont win and its just a mockery and IMO if she really sucks will set back babes sports. For example Serena is the most dominating female tennis star right now but if she had to play the 100th male tennis player she would lose and lose badly. Marion Jones would lose in the 100 meters to nearly every male track star in college The best WNBA player against a NCAA player of similar height? no contest. Heck in the military we have to change standards for women to meet physical readiness requirements that if a man met would mean that he failed and is on his way of being processed out. Forgive my laziness, but what state sponsored all-girl school are you speaking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Men play 3 out of 5 in tennis women two out of three no contest. Vi jay won the golf tourney yesterday collecting a million then withdrawing from the circus. Mary Washington was the first neither guy followed thru however now there are several guys that call themselves transgender(pervs) a woman trapped in a male body that are attending in upstate NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Maybe he should go out and get a real job then. Sure, but she's allowed to do whatever she wants. Forgive my laziness, but what state sponsored all-girl school are you speaking of? Start with every womens college in Virginia. Hollins, Mary Baldwin, Randolph Macon Womens, Southern Seminary,Sweet Briar......... All are state funded to some degree. Vasser gets public money, so does William Smith. Plenty of them out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Thanks - I thought they were all private schools. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 They are "private". They do however receive state funding as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Both Professional Golfers Associations are capitalist enterprises. However long ago it was, somebody thought they could make some money by entertaining people with a tour for female golfers. I've never actually seen an LPGA event on television, but I've heard they exist, and have no reason to doubt it. It was perfectly legal to create an LPGA because it's free friggin' country, and they weren't hurting anybody, at least not enough, apparently, for the legislative or judicial system of this country to step in and stop whoever these people were that wanted a LPGA. If the courts rule that Scott Contak should be allowed to play in the Ladies Professional Golfers Association, more power to him. But I suspect the argument goes something like this. "If people want to see men competing for the 251st best golfer in the world title, they can watch the Nationwide tour. We want to show our audience who the BEST female golfer in the world is. If you take the sex requirement out of our rules, you're depriving us of our right to make a living." And I suspect the LPGA and all of its members right to make a living is going to outwiegh Scott Contak's right to seek a bigger payday on the LPGA than he is currently competing for on whatever tour he's playing on right now. Maybe it isn't fair. But surely there are greater injustices for all of you bitter misogynists to focus your energy on. The public funding for female-only colleges looks promising. :jerkoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 So anyone who believes in equality is a misogynist? That's rich. Do you think Annika should be allowed to play on the PGA tour? If so, why? And how is that any different than a guy wanting to play on the LPGA? I think any man who would want to is a fool, but that doesnt mean he's wrong or a misogynist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 flash....you're wrong......my first instinct was to post a hearty "eat **it & die".....I'm so weary of the "this is trivial and aren't there other windmills to charge" argument.... either there are first principles or there are not....if there are not....then don't expect me to abide by any when it comes to you.... if it's about the competition, then I'm sure Anika and friends can cajole some network into sponsoring a shoot-out of some sort that will rake in plenty of bucks. you want buy-in to a concept then apply it all around......this notion of retributive jutice being pushed has run its course.........if it's fairness, please explain........ one instance is nothing....add them all up and it makes a difference.....a very great difference...... your usage of what you think is a pejorative slam exactly merits the reaction it has produced........:puke: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69 YARDS Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Let her play. If she's somehow good enough to make the cut, (hitting from the same tee boxes) more power to her. As to the one Pappy Plaidpants that may lose a spot because he is a lousy golfer, or had a bad day, too bad! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 and let the lad who had a dream but couldn't quite cut it on the men's tour play in the LPGA....who knows...he could become a star!!! we wouldn't want to deprive him or America of that chance...would we???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Do you think Annika should be allowed to play on the PGA tour? If so, why? Yes. I don't think the PGA tour should exclude Annika or anyone else based on their sex. Originally posted by Kilmer17 And how is that any different than a guy wanting to play on the LPGA? How about because the PGA doesn't have a rule excluding women but the LPGA does have a rule excluding men? The PGA hasn't changed any rules to allow Annika to compete. How about because turning the LPGA into a "minor league" of the PGA would destroy the product, which would cause it to go out of business, which would mean that no golfers, male or female, would get to compete for that prize money? Honestly, Kilmer17, life's a ***** and then you die, ok? I think maybe you need to examine this apparent obsession for equality a little more closely to find out what its really about. Are you also in favor of dividing up all of the property in the world equally among its inhabitants? I'm guessing the answer to that one is "F*CK NO!!!" So why is it so important to erase the divider between mens' and womens' pro golf? You hate it when women, who exclude men from their competition, cross over and compete with the men. Well, OK, when you're King of Everything that won't happen anymore. In the meantime, my advice is to get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theposse Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Do you think Annika should be allowed to play on the PGA tour? If so, why? And how is that any different than a guy wanting to play on the LPGA? The PGA and the LPGA are both organizations like the NBA and NFL that create sporting events to make money. They have rules, and their rules are created to be reasonably fair (so the sport garners some respect) and so that they can make money. In the NBA and NFL, they do things like make the rules favor the offense so the game will be more fun to watch, even if not necessarily fair. In the PGA, most tournaments have a handful of exemptions that they hand out to favorite players, including seniors, or high-profile amateurs, or others like Mark Rypien as someone already mentioned, that are not strictly the highest ranked players who want to play. They do this because it brings more fans and money to the tournaments. Having Sorenstam play is just a more high-profile example of this. But it's part of the PGAs rules which help it make more money, and in the long run, helps the whole PGA tour. I think if anything they should change the rules and allow fewer exemptions, but it's watching Arnie trudge around unhappily on his way to another 83 that's annoying. Giving Sorenstam a chance this week and seeing what happens should be interesting, although I think she faces a daunting task given all the extra attention and pressure on her. As for the LPGA, they have clearly defined themselves as the Ladies PGA, so allowing men in would not make any sense and would not be a money-making proposition. So, the fact is that allowing Sorenstam to play this week helps the PGA tour (and perhaps the LPGA tour too), but allowing a man to play on the LPGA would not help either tour. And enough with the whining already by PGA players and some of you on this board. It's like when you're in kids leagues- a younger person who's really good sometimes plays in an older league to test themselves against tougher competition. That doesn't mean a 14-year old should get to turn around and play in a 10-year old league. If it turns out the 10-year old should actually stick to the 10-year old league, they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theposse Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 and let the lad who had a dream but couldn't quite cut it on the men's tour play in the LPGA....who knows...he could become a star!!! we wouldn't want to deprive him or America of that chance...would we???? Uh- as Om pointed out- there is no such lad who is being held out of a spot by Sorenstam. There are a number of exemptions that aren't being used by the Colonial that could have been. And, if you consider that the Sorenstam issue may have contributed to Singh's pulling out, her playing at the Colonial may have actually let in whatever 5th alternate is allowed to take Singh's place. So Sorenstam may have actually given that young dreamer that one extra shot he needed on the tour this year. But anyway, if it's not an anti-women thing, where were all you guys on this urgent equality issue when the exemptions were just going to the Greg Normans and Jack Nicklauses and Mark Rypiens of the world? Your argument should be against all non-golf-performance based exemptions on tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 How about because the PGA doesn't have a rule excluding women but the LPGA does have a rule excluding men? Then let the PGA make a rule about it, but Im sure hypocrites would still cry about it. I dont really care either way if she plays. It makes no difference in my life. However, I do have issues with those who cry about equal treatment and gender/race/whatever specific entities without applying the same restrictions on those entities that practice the same restriction only in reverse. This is your position here flashback. You expect one entity to bend to the will of inclusiveness while wanting to protect another entity from the same. Would men playing on the LPGA tour ruin the product? ABSOLUTELY. But as you so eloquently put it, "Life's a****" If she wants to play, fine. But let here earn it. Let her qualify. As it is, this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. But I guess it works. I cant wait to watch. I'll be rooting for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty dread Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Sure she should be allowed to play in the PGA, why the hell not, who is she hurting? And no, men shouldn't be allowed to play the LPGA, what would that prove? She probably won't even make the cut anyway, so this will all be a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.