OT- Should Annika Sorenstam be allowed to play on the PGA tour?

[jbooma]

Let her play, she isn't taking anyone's spot so who cares. I don't know why there is so much attention to this. Suzy Waley is playing on a pga tour even in a couple of months but no one is crying about that. I am wondering if Annika is doing this to deflect the attention to Waley so she would have a better chance of playing well.

You think this debate is bad, wait till the summer of next year when the star from the UCONN women's team goes pro. A lot of current NBA players suggest she should go to the NBA because she is that good. The NBA is similar to the PGA where it doesn't mention gender, it only mention's the Best Basketball players. Imagine if she decided to go to the NBA and not the WNBA, now that would be interesting, not this.

[fansince62]

as for the NBA....refer to ART on that one...he had a very interesting post over a year ago......not in this lifetime......

the issue isn't women playing on the PGA tour.....the issue is the grounds for it...if it is a matter of fairness; if it is a matter of competition; if it is a matter of equality of opportunity....then turn-around is fair play.......

you cannot adduce one reason that supports this while excluding men from the same opportunity on the women's tour....it is twisting logic beyond recognition to argue otherwise. why are some upset? because we see the assine applications of "gender equality" in many aspects of life and don't view this - as some would have - as just a silly insignificant excursion into fantasy. you can't pick and chose when fairness or equality apply. either they do across the board or don't even bother complaining the next time something rubs your personal sensibilities the wrong direction.

post script: kilmer comes closest to nailing this one on the head....

[The Evil Genius]

fansince,

I guess I am on the other side of the fence on this one. I do think "equality" can be placed on a case by case basis when it comes to sports.

Here is an, admittedly, extreme example - recently there was a marathon women's runner who finished, I believe, in the top 10 of the women's part of the Boston Marathon.

She was legally blind.

Now, are we saying that since she was legally blind - and since there are specific races for the "disabled" - she shouldn't have been allowed to race against non-blind people? Nope, we aren't saying that. Why was she allowed to run in that marathon? Because someone thought she was good enough to compete with people who can see.

Perhaps this isn't the best example - some other good ones have been taken (7th and 8th graders playing in high school level sports comes to mind).

Personally though, I just have a really hard time getting angry over this - either way.

Should be interesting to see how she does this weekend. If she makes the cut - thats as good as a win (for her) - IMHO.

[flashback]

Originally posted by fansince62

the issue isn't women playing on the PGA tour.....the issue is the grounds for it...if it is a matter of fairness; if it is a matter of competition; if it is a matter of equality of opportunity....then turn-around is fair play.......

<snip>

It isn't a matter of fairness, competition, or equality of opportunity. It is a matter of the PGA and the LPGA's right to make money. It may not be fair, but it is legal, and it is what this country we're all so proud of was founded upon. If Scott Contak is so dead set on competing with the women on the LPGA tour, he has every right to set up his own golfers association, pursue sponsors and funding and set up the membership rules in any legal fashion he sees fit. If you'd like to argue that the LPGA's membership requirement is illegal, you'll have to prove that people don't have the right to watch women play golf, and that women don't have the right to play golf to entertain those people.

I'd also like to point out that this is not a Socratic dialogue, where we attempt to determine how imaginary people would behave in a perfectly free society. In this country everyone's rights have to be considered and weighed against one another. In this case, the LPGA's right to exist outweighs Scott Contak's right to compete with it's members. I'm saying it is fair because Scott has plenty of opportunities outside of the LPGA to earn a living playing golf. Can you say the same thing about the women on the tour?

[Larry Brown #43]

I think Ana Kournikova should be allowed to do whatever she wants to do...oh wait, Annika Sorenstam? Nevermind...I just lost my interest in this thread.

[fansince62]

I'd also like to point out that this is not a Socratic dialogue, where we attempt to determine how imaginary people would behave in a perfectly free society. In this country everyone's rights have to be considered and weighed against one another. In this case, the LPGA's right to exist outweighs Scott Contak's right to compete with it's members. I'm saying it is fair because Scott has plenty of opportunities outside of the LPGA to earn a living playing golf. Can you say the same thing about the women on the tour?

I'm sure you would have enjoyed ambling about with Socrates' peripathetics (small pun!)......

we'll skip the logical problem of equating an organizations rights to "everyone's rights" - read as individuals. the two obviously aren't the same.

although I understand what you intend to say, rights aren't weighed against one another. what you are suggesting is not what is usually intended. generally, when rights are bounded, it is meant that the exercise of one's rights should be constrained in such a way as to not interfere with someone else's exercise of their rights. it does not imply some micrometer measuring tradeoffs. employers don't sit around the walnut table and decide how to balance discriminatory actions against their employees. every employee has the right, by law, not to be discrimiinated against on the basis of race, religion, etc., etc. there is no balancing act.

small aside...kinda arrogant aren't you? you mean to suggest that the women on the LPGA are so hapless that the only thing they can do in life is play golf? in short, you either don't know, or you are arguiing that they enjoy some trascendent right to earn a living as professional golfers on the LPGA.

my point still stands. be sure you understand what you are bargaining for. the notion in play is that fairness can be "administered" on a case specific basis. fine by me!!! but, don't ever quibbe with someone else's "case specific" interpretation of fairness. you have left the door wide open as there is now no general principle. I could care less about whether Annika plays or not. It is this latter notion that matters to me because it justifies anything I or others might want to support downstream! and by the admission of many on this board - this is perfectly acceptable!!!

[Hersh]

I don't see what the big deal is. Others have already stated the written rule of both tours so I'll pass on that. Plus Annika has already acknowledge, sometime ago, that she couldn't compete with the men on the longer, straighter courses because she simply doesn't have the length. You gotta admire the PR this creates. The ratings will be through the roof.

[The Consigliere]

No problem at all with it. I'm stunned that some people do have a problem with it. She want's to compete against the best there is, and that's in the PGA, why on earth would a man want to compete against the most lesser of all potential competiton in the LPGA? Besides, the LPGA was created to give women a chance to golf competitively, men have had the PGA to golf in as a non-gender specific (though tacitly acknowledged as male) ever since it became a competitive sport with money awards.

The if annika can do that, then fill in the blank----- male should be able to do it as well, is a childish argument at best, that is already denied by the LPGA charter in contradistinction to the PGA set up. Aren't we bigger than that? Wouldn't we applaud a woman who has the cojones to lay it out on the line against the very best, instead of hammer away at lesser competition in the LPGA? She's like Wilt or Jordan in a Fifties era NBA, dominating, and likely a bit bored w/the situation (and I'm certain her sponsors are salivating at the potential revenue that could come from it, but I don't believe that's the prime motivator, as it is her life, her pride, and her game on the line, and at front stage center. The sponsor money would be there regardless, though to a lesser degree). Beyond that I'm reading too much into her motivations, but I say, "Bravo," and I hope she does brilliantly. Anything to encourage women to compete in the sports arena is a good thing in my view.

Just don't get me started on Title IX, where I have a more "knuckledragging Male" stance (Basically it makes me ill that women will fight like mad to get that instituted but will continue to refuse to support women's sports with their $, and expect the money men spend on male sporting events to be shared equally w/women's programs. I cannot understand how women can fight for Title IX, and then do nothing to actually financially support women's sports leagues like the WUSA, WNBA, and college sports, where the cause is equally important, and would render all male complaints about Title IX, silent, because colleges could then afford to keep Male swim, rugby, diving, golf, soccer, lacrosse teams going w/those monies) I'll grant the role that football (not just Title IX) plays in getting other college sports cancelled, but if more women actually put their $, where their mouths were in this regard I think Title IX would be a non-issue, and the athletic daughters w/sporting dreams could find a future career in sports.

[HogsOfWar]

I think ESPN's page 2's The Sports Guy is relevant here. Here is a quote from him discussing the Boston Marathon

"Kenya's Cosmas Ndeti currently owns the course record, having finished the '94 race with a time of 2:07:15. Fellow Kenyan Margaret Okoyo set the women's record last April -- 2:20:43, a full 13 1/2 minutes slower than my man Cosmas. The lesson, as always: Men are faster than women."

The whole point of mens leagues is to compete against the best. That is inevitably men. But if women are not allowed in to try and compete from time to time, then some hippy that doesn't understand sports may be so deluded as to believe that women can compete against men in sports. They can't.

And frankly, any man that wants to keep women out is a *****.

[fansince62]

well....if we must be patronizing to women...so be it!!!!!!

[Art]

The bottom line is, there's not a single one of you here who would support teams or leagues or educational opportunities based on race. That makes any of you who would do the same for opportunities based on sex hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.

Though, to be fair, a professional league can be whatever it wants to be. It can exclude anyone it wishes because it's a business and that's different than the created, taxpayer funded equality forced upon colleges, high schools and little league.

I agree that the LPGA probably shouldn't have men playing in it as long as it's the Ladies PGA. If it wants to be the Lesser PGA, then let men on it. Colleges and high schools is where the false opportunity and advantages are granted because the same rules apply. Any women who was good enough would be playing on the University team that currently has only men on it. There's no rule against women being on that team.

There shouldn't be.

There also shouldn't be secondary, separate but equal teams simply for women. And if you doubt that, just ask yourself if you want to see society segregated by race and if you can't say yes, then you can't say yes to having it so by sex either.

[Art]

Jbooma,

There's not a female basketball player in this country that's anywhere NEAR the NBA level in terms of ability or potential. I've actually helped prepare some of the best women basketball players in the world. From Leslie to Swoops, back when the "Women's Dream Team" was formed. I'm just a duffer, and these women couldn't compete with other duffers like me.

Woman's basketball is improving, but, we're not anywhere near the point where the NBA will have a woman playing in it. One day, perhaps. Just not today and not because it is an unfair league. Only because no woman is good enough.

[The Evil Genius]

Art,

Just out of curiosity - does your argument also apply to junior high school kids who want to play varsity? Since they have a lesser league to play in?

Or just high school girls who want to play, say, baseball or basketball on the Boys team?

Again - if I was a PGA pro, I would be more worried about this 13 year Hawaii based female thats coming..

[codeorama]

The LPGA is an exclusive women's league. Women don't have a problem with it being exclusive. But they have a problem with Augusta being exclusive. Makes no sense to me.

I understand that the PGA does not have exclusions, it is not a "mens" league, it is just for the best golfers.

My problem is with the fact that it's ok for women to exclude men, but it's not ok for men to exclude women.

This whole argument is kind of apples and oranges.

[Henry]

My problem is with the fact that it's ok for women to exclude men, but it's not ok for men to exclude women.

Men exclude women simply by being much much better. They don't need a special league to keep women out. So that point is moot (that's right, I said MOOT! )

If women start making the cut regularly, say 20-30 percent of the golfers are women, the LPGA will die a natural death. Until then, this whole b!tch session is pointless.

And Art, leagues seperated by race are completely different than leagues seperated by gender. A black man can compete with a white man in an athletic event. Except for extreme cases, a woman cannot compete with a man. You are arguing apples and oranges.

[NavyDave]

I'm agreeing with Henry over Art this is a first.

And the other chick qualified from the women's tees.

Annika was beat already by to baseball players; pitchers from the Braves.

If you want more LPGA viewers have the babes wear makeup, attend so taebo or pilates classes shorten skirts (I prefer the school girl look) and leave the women in comfortable shoes at home.

[codeorama]

Henry, I said in my post that "this" particular debate was apples and oranges, I understand that the PGA is not an exclusive Men's only league that Sorenstam is crashing.

However, in general, I believe that women think it's ok for men to be excluded, but not the other way around... See Augusta.

You can't compare the Augusta situation with this one, because there is nothing that says Annika can't participate because the PGA is not a Mens league, it's the best league. But women have a problem if Augusta decides that they want to be men only.

This whole subject is kind of blurred... I keep hearing on the radio, people saying that women are not allowed to play at Augusta, which is not true at all.. they are just no women members. Women can play all they want. Heck, If Annika was good enough, she could play in the Masters if she qualified.

[Kilmer17]

Just for the record, the woman in Connecticut that qualified for the GHO did so from tee's shorter than what the men were playing. However, if she plays in the event she will have to play the mens tee's.

[Art]

TEG,

I'm not sure where what I said got twisted into the convoluted tripe you think it was, but, perhaps the issue between you and I could be lessened should you actually bother to try to express what I've said in a fashion that actually demonstrates some hint of comprehension on your part.

I'm all for women and girls of all types competing at the highest levels of every sport available to them. I'm happy to discover women capable of competing on teams usually comprised of men if they have the ability to do so. Just as when some JV boys are able to play varsity athletics, it's great to see.

That's precisely the point. I want and encourage that opportunity, which already exists. Every woman athlete has the opportunity, right now, to play sports at the highest levels of whatever division, organization, school or level they are on. Where I differ from you, perhaps, though I don't know for sure, is that I don't like giving women an additional opportunity to play for teams that men are excluded from.

Here is where equal opportunity is either meaningful or not to you. Henry points out that only the exceptional woman is able to compete on an equal level athletically with men. Great. And that woman has that opportunity, which is equal to men. Carving out secondary opportunity for women because of a perceived lack of ability on their part is where you enter a realm that disturbs me and should disturb you.

That Henry recognizes that a woman, no matter how exceptional, can compete against men equally in a sport means he recognizes that women, if good enough, have the same opportunity all men have to compete in sport. Unlike men who are not good enough, however, women are given a second, taxpayer funded, shot at "equality" that, in fact, is not equality at all.

In some sports, the better women are superior to all but the most elite men. Tennis and track leap to mind as examples. Since every woman has the opportunity to compete on the same playing field as every man, in order to support a view that they should be also granted additional opportunity not afforded to lesser able men is where an argument starts to fail.

And, it's precisely the same thing as to whether you believe we should segregate by race in education or athletics. If you don't, then you can't believe we should segregate by gender. You can believe that women don't have the same ability as men in sports. You're probably right to believe it. You just can't admit on one hand that the best women do have the opportunity to compete against men because of their exceptional abilities, but then willingly carve out additional opportunity for the lesser able females that you don't agree should go to the lesser able males.

Again, I'm more talking about this as an issue on the high school and college level more than at a professional level because as has been correctly pointed out, at a professional level the teams cater to a specific audience all the time.

[The Evil Genius]

Thanks.

[Jimbo]

Women are playing catch-up to men, NOT the other way around. I am all for women playing a man's sport IF they qualify and IF they are as good or better than the men currently playing it. I am NOT for men playing on women's teams. It is a step DOWN for men, not up or equal. Men are athletically superior, for the most part, to women. Why would men want to play on women's teams just because women want to take a step up and play on men's teams? If we don't get to shower with them, I don't see the point in playing with or against them on their level. Athletes should always strive to be their best and play with the best, NOT the other way around.

As for Sorenstam, I only object to her playing because she didn't qualify for this tournament and she does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Since it's a sponsor's exemption, the sponsor has the right to allow her to play. I also see it as a positive for not only women's golf and the LPGA, but the game of golf in general. If she makes the cut, I'll be the first one to cheer for her. If she doesn't, I'll say nice try and "Now go back where you belong and don't come back until you TRULY qualify".

[Braves On Warpath]

LET HER PLAY!

[The Consigliere]

Quote

"The LPGA is an exclusive women's league. Women don't have a problem with it being exclusive. But they have a problem with Augusta being exclusive. Makes no sense to me.

I understand that the PGA does not have exclusions, it is not a "mens" league, it is just for the best golfers.

My problem is with the fact that it's ok for women to exclude men, but it's not ok for men to exclude women."

I'm really having a hard time understanding your argument here. You need to look at this situation like you would look at the Negro Baseball leagues during the first half of the previous century. Much like the LPGA, the Negro Leagues weren't created in order to exclude whites from baseball leagues with black players, the league was created so that black baseball players could actually play, rather than sit on the sidelines, and wonder what could have been in the segregated MLB, just as the LPGA was created so that talented women golfers could play in their own professional league rather than watch, and dream a dream that wasn't to be.

Now there was a rare exception to the exclusion of women from the PGA in the forties w/one tournament that Diedricksen played in, and there is nothing in the bylaws to suggest that women are not allowed other than the attitudes one is seeing in the press, and in the de facto practices of the PGA. There hasn't been a woman competing in a PGA tournament in nearly sixty years, now of course ability played a role in this, but the de facto practices and attitudes toward women and athletics and the (white) boys club that is golf no doubt played a huge role as well.

The fact is, there is zero equivalence between a woman trying to get a chance to play against the very best in the PGA, and a man trying to get into the LPGA. It's just not there, and to argue that there is some equivalence is non-sense. Men (normally white men until recently) have always had an in to play in the best league in the world. Women had to create their own association to have that opportunity themselves, they couldn't simply ask in, just as blacks in the twenties couldn't simply ask in, they had to create their own league as well. Now the similarities end there, for the most part. Black players in the negro leagues were every bit as good as the whites, women w/rare exceptions are rarely as good as the very best men in golf, and of course the negro leagues were created in response to racism, the LPGA was created as much simply for the chance to play at all, as it was in a response to a de facto sexism that excluded women from even having the option to play Golf professionally.

There is a difference here, in my view, those who don't want to see the difference between a woman wanting a shot at playing a PGA event, and a man wanting to playin the LPGA in response to that, simply has blinders on, at best, or is being willfully ignorant and/or sexist at worst.

[fansince62]

Consigliere...what a load of horse*hit.....it's preciselyyour version of fascist thinking that has purposefully and decidely undermined any notion of fairness or legitimate, principled thinking for the last 30-40 years.

let's dispel a few arguments....like....what is the point of Annika playing in this tournament?.....the reason advanced by yourself and folks desperate enough to need a political prop to get laid (apparently) is the idea that the best women golfers need to challenge the best male golfers iot take a true measure of themselves - to reach beyond the limits of their own tour. yet, look at the press, it is going to be considered a success if Annika makes the cut. There is no expectation, or rather expectations are being conditioned, that she will make a run for the championshiip of this tournament. so, from the very outset, just about everyone tacitly acknowledges that this is not about being the best or challenging the best. it is about playing a respectable round. in short, it has nothing to do with athletic competition and reaching for the highest standards. it is about placing. it is about showing and surviving with embarassmengt. it is yet another in a long series of compromises with mediocrity this society is in such a hurry to accomodate.

quit lieing. it's not very dignified to keep pandering this notion of bylaws as somehow framing the issue. we all know this is about promoting women's causes and gaining entrance to formerly male dominated venues. I have no problem with this. but THE PRINCIPLE needs to be applied in all areas of society. we have a curious self-delusion going on here: allow the best women to compete on the PGA, but discriminate against men on the LPGA because they would dominate. in other words, let's codify inequality of opportunity for money or political reasons. actually, this is ok also. just don't ever, ever, come to my front door when I elect to apply the principle someplace else you don't feel as comfortable with and announce that this offends your noblese oblige sensiibilities.....cuz I and a lot of others will respond with resounding contempt. you are now setting the stage........

have to run and take my daughter to pre-school....more to come for the "fairness police" who are so concerned over competition!

[Art]

Couple of points here.

Jimbo, you wrote, "Why would men want to play on women's teams just because women want to take a step up and play on men's teams?"

Well, this answer is going to be LESS an answer in professional sports and more an answer for college, but, it can fit both. Opportunity is the answer. Men, like women, would appreciate the extra opportunity to play on an organized level and represent their school. It would be nice if scholorships were made available to the lesser able men as they are to the lesser able women. On a professional level, the answer would simply be money, but, again, I'm good with professional leagues making gender a requisite part of participation.

Consig wrote that women haven't or don't have the opportunity to play at the highest level. Yes they do. As he pointed out and has been repeatedly pointed out, all women with the ability have the opportunity to play at the highest levels of EVERY sport at every level. Few women have the ability to accomplish this, and for that inability we have carved out a secondary niche market unavailable to men without the ability to play at the highest levels.

It seems many here are very satisfied with the overriding belief that since women aren't as good as men in sports that some special allowance should be made for them. I'm not comfortable making that assumption anymore than I'm comfortable making the assumption that blacks are genetically predisposed to better skill in athletics than whites. First, the exceptional woman can compete at the highest levels -- at least before you get to professional levels.

Second, assuming the truth that women can't compete, then, how about patting them on the back and directing them to areas where they can excel?