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

[flashback]

fansince62, I don't think I've understood a single one of your posts in this thread. Do you think that Annika should play in the Colonial? Do you object to the existance of the LPGA? Is this all just a big rationalization to justify your support of Augusta not to accept women as members? So you don't have a problem with women "gaining entrance to formerly male dominated venues," (cuz it sure sounds like you do), but you want men to gain entrance to female dominated venues? What, like nannying and such? Is this about sex discrimination or some broader morality or ethos? I don't get it.

:?:

[fansince62]

flash...on the first point....sounds like a personal problem to me....

1) the first, and primary, reason presented for Annika playing in a PGA event: the best women's players need to test their skills against the best men's players ("it's all about competition"). yet, the excuses have already been laid in advance for her inability to compete. this will be written off as a grand success if she finishes 20th...much less makes the cut. we are in the process of redefining competition (yet again) to make it more politically correct. if she can't win, if she can't place even in the top 10....what exactly is the notion of competition in play here? that she can survive? let's accept from the git go that we know she cannot win....what then....is the point? at the professional level, we are redefining competition to showing up and placing rather than what it has always been about: winning. it is a sham and it is being done for politicial reasons....not competition.

note: if it's about competition...then set up a shoot-out of some sort that isn't as silly as the mixed couples competitions we have seen on TV. it doesn't have to be a tour event.

another note: a male playing on the women's tour deprives a woman of the chance to earn some scratch, but Annika playing doesn't? this seems a bit of a stretch. do the math. only so many players can play. exemption or not...somewhat is left out. it's called an opportunity cost (pun intended).

2) I object to the intellectually lazy and dishonest notion that women should be allowed into what has been exclusively male athletic arenas but that there is no corresponding equal opportunity reason to admit men into women's athletic venues that have been exclusive. this sort of case specific application of "fairness/equal opportunity" (whatever the purveyors of goodness are marketing today) has to be viewed in the larger context of what is happening elsewhere. in fact, it's rather funny how this has been presented to the rest of us: it's all about competition; giving Annika a chance to match her skills against the best. But don't allow a man to play in the women's tour because it will likely destroy or severely cripple the tour. I t will deprive some deserving young women of an opportunity to earn a living. It's a *amn double standard and everyone should see it for what it is. If it's a test of skills, then allow men with lesser skills to play on the women's tour...for the competition...right?

3) The rules argument is an obfuscation that ignores the larger principle.

4) Augusta is a private club. What does that have to do with the LPGA? But at least you're sniffing around what is really at stake: power. If we're going to traipse off on a tangent here....Martha Burke could give a rat's arse about women playing at Agusta much less membership. She's concerned about access to power and money.

Do I object to women playing on the PGA tour? No. Do I object to two sets of rules? Yes. Let competition reign. But don't proceed to set up all these little caveats and then act as though they're insignificant, "case specific" exceptions that have no bearing on what competition means, who is impacted, and the nature of "equal opportunity" in the aggregate.

[The Consigliere]

"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."

No they haven't. My point was that these leagues were created so women could actually play sports. Do you think there was an in to Basketball, too Football, to Baseball, to Golf for the greatest women athletes? Hell, no women's coach has even got a sniff at coaching in the NBA, is that because they aren't talented enough, or is that because of a combination of sexual dynamics in our culture and outright sexism on it's face? You know the answer to that. It's because women are women, and they aren't even considered for the job. I won't argue, and as you note, I didn't argue that women by and large as good as the very best male athletes in sports. However it's disingenuous to say that that is precisely the reason why there are no women in the NFL, MLB, NBA, or PGA. They're never even considered, in fact until the nineties it was almost completely unheard of for any woman anywhere to even have a shot at playing Pop Warner Football, AYSO or CYSA soccer, or Little League Baseball w/the boys growing up, let alone as an adult in the NCAA or in the pro's.

They've never even had the chance Art. Could some compete w/the best men? In my view, a few probably would be able too, but not enough. In response to this, men and women created a league so that women would have the chance to compete. It wasn't created because they couldn't hack it, these leagues were created because women never even had the chance to show whether they could hack it in the first place.

"...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...."

No, you're wrong. This second set up, and Title IX we're created so that women who actually dreamed of playing collegiate, and certain pro sports could actually do so. Where are the proofs of oodles of women failing in the minors to make it in the pro's in MLB? Where are the proofs of loads of women failing to get their card while competing in Q school to make the PGA. Where are the proofs of loads of women sitting on benches as third stringers in the NFL, or as backups on College Basketball teams? By and large there is no history because women we're quite simply blocked out. The niche market wasn't created so that lessers who couldn't hack it, could compete (like A ball, and double A ball, and Triple A and rookie leagues in Baseball, and Juniors and the AHL in hockey), these leagues were created so women could actually get the chance to play at all.

"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.

No, I think most of us believe that women who want to play competitive sports should be allowed to do so. This set up where women were by and large banned from competing with men was set up long ago. Unlike the Negro Leagues and baseball, a secondary characteristic of this issue, was that many of the best women athletes would not be able to compete w/the best male athletes even if they wanted to...as compared to the obvious exploits black ballplayers from the Negro Leagues showed the second they got in. However, the women were blocked out, and so set up their own league. Inumerable aspects of society involve the separation of the sexes, I'm all for equality too Art, and I see you're argument, but I think there's a fundamental difference between a woman wanting a chance to break into the best league possible, and a man wanting to crash into a league that was set up and exists precisely because men blocked women's access to professional sports.

"First, the exceptional woman can compete at the highest levels -- at least before you get to professional levels."

I wouldn't disagree with this. I think the sharp divide happens, much like the NFL, between collegiate athletes and professional athletes. Heck, all I have to look back on, is my highschool track team, where two twin Italian girls were two of the three fastest sprinters in our highschool, and were ranked in the top 10 of all, Male and Female, Sprinters in the Peninsula Athletic League in the bay area back in 1993. Once we got to CCS, they were still among fastest women, but couldn't hang with Senior High School sprinters that were running low 10 100's. I think women could potentially be nearly as good, though not consistently as talented as male athletes, but will likely never know because of the way in which we raise sons versus daughters in most families.

"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?"

Why? Sport's has been proven to add inumerable positives to the lives of young men and women when it comes to building life skills. If men can have an outlet in professional leagues to make money with their athletic skills, why can't women have an avenue as well w/women's leagues? When it comes to Annika, of course, we have the issue of here jumping into the de facto men's league, but considering she's getting in on a sponsors exemption, I have no problem with it. I wish she'd try Q school too, particularly if she decides after this week to do so again, but considering she's getting in based on that exemption, in the end, I'm fine w/it.

[fansince62]

Anyone notice how slyly Consig advanced the idea that if you take issue with this staged event you are somehow a sexist recidivist? that it has been those nasty, racist white guys all along? hey....no gross generalizations and pejorative language going on here!!!!

examine your own bigotted thought processes.....

[Art]

Consig, let me reply within.....

"No they haven't."

Simply put. Yes they have. If a woman is good enough, she'll be at the highest levels of any sport she participates in because the teams that comprise the best players don't have gender rules. Only women's leagues do.

"My point was that these leagues were created so women could actually play sports."

My point is that creating these leagues so people with less ability, in this case women, can play sports is unfair to society. It's unequal treatment. It's separate but equal support on your part. Are you a racist? No. Why, then, are you sexist? Why then is your first response in defense of women's lesser abilities to give them greater access than you give all men. As an example, I am a better basketball player than any female scholorship athlete in the country. Yet, THEY have an additional opportunity for that scholorship and to play for their school and I do not. I'm not good enough to play on the university team. I am good enough to play on the women's team. But, why is it ok to have a women's team in the first place? I played club sports and intramural sports and I was just fine. Why is this option not an option for women who want to play sports? It's available to them you know?

"Do you think there was an in to Basketball, too Football, to Baseball, to Golf for the greatest women athletes?"

Yes. It's called ability. That's the in. I have the same in to the same sports. So do you.

"Hell, no women's coach has even got a sniff at coaching in the NBA, is that because they aren't talented enough, or is that because of a combination of sexual dynamics in our culture and outright sexism on it's face?"

Well, yes, I'd argue they aren't talented enough. But, not only that, women aren't often leaders of men. Men tend to take lead by example. Increasingly in order to coach at the highest levels you have to have been in the battle yourself. Fewer and fewer opportunities are out there for men who didn't play the sport, much less women. Some people have achieved success without that status in various sports, and for one, I don't feel it's necessary to have played to be a great coach in any sport. The ability for women to coach teams with men is limited by the natural dominance effect a male athlete would have. Even the GREATEST female coach would fail with a men's team because the men's team wouldn't really believe in her or the program. Is that sexism? Perhaps. But, no more so than the idea you have that women who aren't good enough to do something should have additional opportunity to do something. So you share a trait.

"You know the answer to that. It's because women are women, and they aren't even considered for the job. I won't argue, and as you note, I didn't argue that women by and large as good as the very best male athletes in sports."

I know you didn't say that. And though your coaching example is of interest, it is not persuasive to the conversation. Simple realities take precedent in considerations of coaching teams. Men, especially outstanding athletes, are surrounded by women who throw themselves at them their whole lives. The groupies and sluts. They father children from city to city. They have sex with thousands of women. They don't respect, as a general statement, women. They wouldn't be able to respect, as a coach, a woman. But that's a completely different concept to address than the concept of whether women deserve a separate but equal opportunity at sports themselves. In fact, if you want to break down the barriers to female coaching staffs at the highest levels, all you have to do is get women to compete on the same court with men, and those women will be your next generation of coaches. But, only if they are good enough to do so.

But, since YOU support a system of segregation that pulls women apart from men when they aren't good enough, yet allows them to play with if they are, and they so rarely are, it means you never want equality in athletics. You want to be dad to the girl who loves sports and deserves the opportunity because she's your precious girl. Whatever you do, don't direct her to do something she's able to be the best at. Foster an atmosphere that allows her to play something she can't be as good at as half of society. Do something for women you wouldn't do for race, making your position dishonest and lacking. Deny genetic differences in the races that may allow advantages at various sports -- or, exclude some from others, in terms of genetic height, or muscle mass in some races that essentially keeps them from playing some sports -- but embrace the weakness in women such that they must be given additional chances at the same apple. Again. Be the proud dad. Don't, however, be rational. Don't allow yourself to see the clear truth and inconsistencies in your position. Simply wonder that the whole world doesn't share your paternal view toward women.

"However it's disingenuous to say that that is precisely the reason why there are no women in the NFL, MLB, NBA, or PGA. They're never even considered, in fact until the nineties it was almost completely unheard of for any woman anywhere to even have a shot at playing Pop Warner Football, AYSO or CYSA soccer, or Little League Baseball w/the boys growing up, let alone as an adult in the NCAA or in the pro's."

The reason there are no women at those highest professional levels is because they aren't any good at those sports. It's not really all that hard. You used the Negro leagues as an example earlier. Ability breaks down barriers. Always has. That's why sports were integrated far earlier than most other parts of our society. Ability breaks down barriers. You want to keep them up for gender based programs. I want to tear them down.

"No, you're wrong. This second set up, and Title IX we're created so that women who actually dreamed of playing collegiate, and certain pro sports could actually do so."

Title IX, in application, says that women must be granted equal funding and opportunity to athetics despite being lesser able, generating lesser revenue -- save the top three or four women's basketball programs -- and having fewer women in the general population of the school even interested in athletics than you do men. Title IX is an outrageous violation of the count-found constitutional principal that separate but equal is Unconstitutitional.

Again, every woman has the opportunity to play for Coach K. Every one. The FIRST woman good enough to do so will be on that team. Only ONE team on the college level has gender rules. It's the women's team. The team that has men has no such rules. Women can play on those teams. When a woman is able to play on those teams, they will play. Until they are able, they won't. And, like the multitude of men out there, their option should be the same, rather than this gender inequity you support of creating a secondary opportunity due to their own inability.

"Where are the proofs of oodles of women failing in the minors to make it in the pro's in MLB? Where are the proofs of loads of women failing to get their card while competing in Q school to make the PGA. Where are the proofs of loads of women sitting on benches as third stringers in the NFL, or as backups on College Basketball teams? By and large there is no history because women we're quite simply blocked out."

They are blocked out simply by being incapable of even qualifying for Q school. Even qualifying for a chance at the lowest levels of male sports on a professional level. Sorenstam, who is said to be the best female golfer perhaps in history is being given a unique opportunity that conventional wisdom suggests will turn out terribly for her. If it DOES, that just further shows the distinct differences between men's and women's sports. They aren't shut out for any reason than they aren't capable.

If, however, Sorenstam does well, more credibility will be granted to your thought they are shut out. But, why Lisa Leslie and Holdsclaw and the best women players in basketball in the world are in the WNBA and not the NBA is because they aren't good enough to play Division III basketball against men. I can take seven other men from any YMCA in the country and beat an All-Star team of women in basketball. They have such low level abilities they can't even qualify for chances at the lowest levels of male professional sports. But, they aren't blocked out because of sexism. They're blocked out because they blow.

"The niche market wasn't created so that lessers who couldn't hack it, could compete (like A ball, and double A ball, and Triple A and rookie leagues in Baseball, and Juniors and the AHL in hockey), these leagues were created so women could actually get the chance to play at all."

Simply false. The niche market was created because women lack ability at most sports. Some could integrate fine. The essential truism remains. EVERY woman in the world has the opportunity to play sports on the highest levels. When they have the ability to accomplish this, it will happen. Until then, it won't. Until then, it seems that allowing a segregated system that rewards inability is less ideal than embracing equality. Intramural sports and club sports abound at every college campus. Men and women of all sorts play. Men and women have the ability to get scholorships on university teams as well. Only women have an ability to get them on women's teams, however. And here is where the line between opportunity and inequality has been crossed.

"No, I think most of us believe that women who want to play competitive sports should be allowed to do so."

I believe the same. I played in competitive sports. Lower level in some. Higher level in some. But, I played in competitive sports my whole life. Women should, absolutely, have every door open to them to play competitively that I had. Not any additional doors. Just the ones I had. That's what equality is. And, women have the same opportunities I had. Plus, they have their very own segregated leagues that I don't have access to. And again, do you believe this should be allowed by race? Should we segregate education or athletics by race? If you say no, then you can't say yes to doing the same for women.

"This set up where women were by and large banned from competing with men was set up long ago. Unlike the Negro Leagues and baseball, a secondary characteristic of this issue, was that many of the best women athletes would not be able to compete w/the best male athletes even if they wanted to...as compared to the obvious exploits black ballplayers from the Negro Leagues showed the second they got in. However, the women were blocked out, and so set up their own league. Inumerable aspects of society involve the separation of the sexes, I'm all for equality too Art, and I see you're argument, but I think there's a fundamental difference between a woman wanting a chance to break into the best league possible, and a man wanting to crash into a league that was set up and exists precisely because men blocked women's access to professional sports."

And again, men have never blocked access to any sports. Professional or otherwise from women. Women have never been good enough to play on those levels. Men did block access to sports from blacks. Blacks formed their own leagues and talent got them into the highest levels. Women have had their own leagues for decades. And talent isn't getting them in. It's not institutional bias. It's inability. If you don't see that then you are blinded by your paternal, "Yes sweetie, you can do anything you want," syndrome with regard to women. You don't honestly, because you can't honestly, think the best woman basketball player in the world wouldn't be in the NBA if she were talented enough to play there. There's no gender rules against that. You can't believe the best woman player wouldn't be playing for the best Division I teams that have men on them if they were able. Of course they would. The difference between blacks and women is blacks WERE good enough and all barriers were torn down in sports because of their ability.

Women aren't good enough. Won't ever be good enough. But, they DO have the same opportunity. They lack the same ability. And creating additional opportunity to cater to gender weakness is something that should cause you discomfort.

"I wouldn't disagree with this. I think the sharp divide happens, much like the NFL, between collegiate athletes and professional athletes. Heck, all I have to look back on, is my highschool track team, where two twin Italian girls were two of the three fastest sprinters in our highschool, and were ranked in the top 10 of all, Male and Female, Sprinters in the Peninsula Athletic League in the bay area back in 1993. Once we got to CCS, they were still among fastest women, but couldn't hang with Senior High School sprinters that were running low 10 100's. I think women could potentially be nearly as good, though not consistently as talented as male athletes, but will likely never know because of the way in which we raise sons versus daughters in most families."

I also think there are many sports, running is one, that the best women could surpass the vast majority of men. Tennis too. Golf as well. Swimming, and diving. I'd say the better women in those sports are superior to 99 percent of all men who play the sports. In basketball or baseball or football it's different. The elite women in basketball are not better than 5 percent of the men that play the game. Perhaps that's even too great a percentage. There appear to be simply genetic differences that women can't overcome, in terms of natural strength, to be among the best in some sports.

But, the REASON we won't really know which sports women can surpass men is not because of the way we raise our sons versus our daughters. It's because of you. You and all those like you who believe you have to carve out separate but equal leagues for women. People like you who believe women need to be catered to. Given better access to taxpayer funded athletics. Be taken from playing against men and put in their own leagues. In fact, you are far more sexist and harmful to women than you know.

I believe if given the opportunity to play in against men their whole lives, women athletics in EVERY sport will improve. You'll even find advantages you wouldn't have imagined. But, you can only find that through equality. Not your world of unequal, paternalistic protection. Not in your world where you feel the compulsion to protect women from their inabilities by making them feel better about them in their own leagues where they can never truly measure themselves against better athletes.

In basketball, for example, one reason women can't play is they can't create shots. They don't practice against leapers. They don't play 5-10 guys who can touch the top of the box. They don't play against 6-11 brutes. I do. I know how to create angles and body position and shots to overcome great jumpers or tall men, or strong men. I know how to do these things because that's what I play against. Women don't. They play below the rim. By in large they don't have to worry about height differences or leapers. And when facing men, they are woefully inadequate because people like you think they need their own league.

You are hurting women's sports. One day, hopefully you'll know that.

"Why? Sport's has been proven to add inumerable positives to the lives of young men and women when it comes to building life skills."

The premise of the question that received this response was that you should direct women with an inability at something over to directions in which they can excel. Therefore, your answer is odd. In fact, they aren't building skills. They are honing weakness. Skills are something they are great at. Doesn't matter what that is. Could be dancing. Could be music. Could be swimming. Could be any number of things. So, you're right that building life skills provide positives to the lives of men and women. And that's precisely why I said to direct our children to areas in which they have skills to build those live skills.

"If men can have an outlet in professional leagues to make money with their athletic skills, why can't women have an avenue as well w/women's leagues?"

Because there aren't men's leagues. Because women have the avenue to be professionals. But, again, I don't care so much about professional women's leagues. None of them make money. No one cares about them. But, if there's a market that can sustain them, then I'm all for professional women's leagues. I've said that. My concern is at the lower levels where my tax money is funding additional opportunity to women that I was not given.

"When it comes to Annika, of course, we have the issue of here jumping into the de facto men's league, but considering she's getting in on a sponsors exemption, I have no problem with it."

Neither do I. I'd liked for her to have qualified to add legitimacy to her game, but, she can do that by making the cut, so she can take care of it.

"I wish she'd try Q school too, particularly if she decides after this week to do so again, but considering she's getting in based on that exemption, in the end, I'm fine w/it."

So am I. And if she fails to make the cut, this woman, this greatest of female players it'll tell you something. It'll tell you she's not been blocked out of the PGA. She simply isn't any good. . Personally, I hope she succeeds. I hate golf and would love to see a woman win this tournament .

[joe]

Not too surprising that this caused such a ruckus here.

For the record she has started par, par, par, Birdie. A lot of men would wish for such a start.

I hope she kicks ass.

[flashback]

First of all, I realize everybody's probably sick and tired of this topic by now, but I wanted to respond. fansince62, thank you for the sincere effort to explain your position.

Originally posted by fansince62

1) the first, and primary, reason presented for Annika playing in a PGA event: the best women's players need to test their skills against the best men's players ("it's all about competition").

I don't think this is necessarily true. Sure, the reason Annika wants to play (and this is just a guess, I'm not actually Annika Sorenstam who's been masquerading as a Cowboy fan on a Redskins fan message board for a year, just waiting to reveal my secret identity) is to see how she ranks on the mens' tour. She knows shes #1 on the women's tour. But do you think the sponsors of the Colonial granted her an exemption for the same ad hoc reason? I don't. The PGA and the LPGA are first and foremost products. She's competing, first and foremost, to boost ratings, and make money for the advertisers, etc. IMO, there's nothing wrong with that.

yet, the excuses have already been laid in advance for her inability to compete. this will be written off as a grand success if she finishes 20th...much less makes the cut. we are in the process of redefining competition (yet again) to make it more politically correct. if she can't win, if she can't place even in the top 10....what exactly is the notion of competition in play here? that she can survive? let's accept from the git go that we know she cannot win....what then....is the point?

Well, there are going to be lots of golfers in that event who aren't going to make the cut. And even more who won't be in the top 20. Doesn't Annika have as much right to be there as them?

at the professional level, we are redefining competition to showing up and placing rather than what it has always been about: winning. it is a sham and it is being done for politicial reasons....not competition.

I don't see this at all.

2) I object to the intellectually lazy and dishonest notion that women should be allowed into what has been exclusively male athletic arenas but that there is no corresponding equal opportunity reason to admit men into women's athletic venues that have been exclusive. this sort of case specific application of "fairness/equal opportunity" (whatever the purveyors of goodness are marketing today) has to be viewed in the larger context of what is happening elsewhere. in fact, it's rather funny how this has been presented to the rest of us: it's all about competition; giving Annika a chance to match her skills against the best. But don't allow a man to play in the women's tour because it will likely destroy or severely cripple the tour. I t will deprive some deserving young women of an opportunity to earn a living. It's a *amn double standard and everyone should see it for what it is. If it's a test of skills, then allow men with lesser skills to play on the women's tour...for the competition...right?

3) The rules argument is an obfuscation that ignores the larger principle.

The PGA isn't exclusively male. Traditionally it has been, but it isn't intrinsically male-only. And it shouldn't be. The PGA attempts to showcase the best golfers in the world competing with one another for our entertainment. There's nothing in the rules about sex at all. Having a woman on the PGA tour is not an exception to the rules, nor was there any particular "allowance" or "opportunity" given to Annika. She asked to play and the sponsors jumped at the chance to let her. But in principle, I agree. If any sponsor on the LPGA wants let a man play, they should be able to that.

4) Augusta is a private club. What does that have to do with the LPGA? But at least you're sniffing around what is really at stake: power. If we're going to traipse off on a tangent here....Martha Burke could give a rat's arse about women playing at Agusta much less membership. She's concerned about access to power and money.

Do I object to women playing on the PGA tour? No. Do I object to two sets of rules? Yes. Let competition reign. But don't proceed to set up all these little caveats and then act as though they're insignificant, "case specific" exceptions that have no bearing on what competition means, who is impacted, and the nature of "equal opportunity" in the aggregate.

So, you don't blame Martha Burke in particular and women in general for pursuing access to money and power, but you don't want to be vilified for denying them access to money and power, right? That's fine. I'm not quite that Machiavellian, but its a free country.

[Drex]

I think the publicity is good for the game of golf.

[matty dread]

A 1 over for the day, not bad at all, especially considering all the pressure on her.

I think she showed today she can hang with the big boys, had she knocked down some of those birdie chances she could have easily been 3 or 4 under.

Good job Annika!

[Jagsbch]

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/story?id=1557324

Leaderboard as of 3:54

BANK OF AMERICA COLONIAL

FIRST ROUND

1. Sheehan -5 F

2. Forsman -4 F

3. Browne -3 F

3. Cink -3 F

3. Henry -3 F

3. Jobe -3 F

3. Roberts -3 F

3. Sposa -3 F

3. Waldorf -3 F

3. Williamson -3 F

76. Sorenstam +1 F

PAR: 35-35--70

YARDS: 7,080

PURSE: $5 million

SITE: Colonial Country Club, Fort Worth, Texas '>http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/index

So now that she is in 76 place what do you guy's think she thinks of the level of compettition, or should I say recognition. This has got to be one hell of a day for this gal.

[The Consigliere]

You know, I haven't read Art's latest stuff, but I found his arguments interesting, and certainly difficult to counter, and very thought provoking. Havent read anything from Farsince that really won me over, but who knows.

As for slyly bringing up anything, I don't think it was slyly brought up at all. I think I was rather straight forward w/it. Art has me rethinking my take on that analysis though, and Im more than willing to retract that take in regards to Art. Not so w/some of the arguments I've heard from others. But I'm certainly willing to listen and keep an open mind. Art certainly opened mine to his perspective. I think the difference comes down to Art and I finding distinctly different reasons as to why Women's Leagues were founded in the first place. We won't be able to bridge that gap of disagreement, I simply don't buy the argument he's selling as he does not buy mine. Additionally we disagree on the ramifications of having a second league for women, I find no problem with it based on it's origins, he does, because of it's de jure exclusivity. I can see his argument here, and it is a well reasoned one difficult to counter. In the end, I counter it, because of the reasoning I find for it's origins, and my view that it's essential to encourage the further development of women's athletics, and this is accomplished most readily through the creation of women's leagues.

He will find that I, myself, have problems w/Title IX, but I guess he missed that point in my original thread. I think it's enforced haphazardly, and is not adjudicated fairly. I also think that there is a serious problem when women (and the men who support Title IX) have no problem instituting the legislation, but have a real problem providing the funding by actually paying tickets to see these events. It seems to me that Title IX (and to a degree, men's football programs) is killing off other men's sports in no small part because women are only willing to support womens athletics w/their votes, and not w/their wallets at the ticket gate. I don't think these men's athletic programs would be suffering if women supported female athletics as much as men support men's athletics. But I digress.

The bottom line for me, is that much like the Negro Leagues, the LPGA was created not as a minor league system, but rather as a league of last resort for individuals kept out because of sex, or race, or establishment mores. If Annika wants a shot at competing against the very best in the PGA, I have zero problem w/it, although if she decides she wants to compete in multiple events she'll need to do Q school. A sponsorship exemption can only go so far.

[fansince62]

Consig/Flash...you're missing the point. Yes.....this is partially about money...we all know that...this is America, after all!! Annika is playing to compete - not make money. Were she queried, I guarantee that would be the answer. She is considered the "best" female professional golfer in the world. She is testing her mettle against the better male professional players...the concept here is that like abilities compete (while the tacit criticism of the female tour is amusing!). Take a lesser male who is never going to place in the top 15/20, but could compete on the LPGA. He is excluded from playing/competing. Now, advance whatever prudential or historical reasons you prefer, the fact remains that said individual is prevented from playing on the basis of gender. Moreover, a certain subset of these individuals is prevented from competing against talent of equal or like capability. Art has framed the issue properly, and he captures the core concept I was trying express (although, I concede, with greater vitriol). This "episode" highlights the dishonesty in society today vis "equal opportunity". The both of you have admitted that gender exclusion is necessary to preserve the LPGA as an institution for women to compete at the professional level. That is a prudential reason - it is not about what is right or wrong. It certainly drives one to pause as he/she considers exactly what equal opportunity means. It would appear that it means the following: in those venues where there is some expectation of equal (or some probabilty distribution that is socially acceptable) outcomes then equal opportunity is required. Where the expectation of outcomes is not acceptable, then equal opportunity must be jetisoned. Many of us find this problematic, to say the least. The issue is not Annika playing in a PGA tournament, the issue is other citizens being prohibitted from playing on the basis of gender.

Note that it is amusing that while cavilling others as being variously racist or sexist, the position adopted is segregationist and sexist! But, it is valued because the outcome has value - to you at least.

Tangent...it's not clear to me what this immediate event proves. Yes, it hasn't happened for 58 years. Yes, someone who has won over 40 tournaments on the LPGA tour earns some brownie points for courage and mettle under stress while finishing the day at a stunning 76th! A male player with the same score wouldn't receive any notice at all. What exactly is being established here? That Annika has the skills to place in the middle of the pack? Were she a male and strung together 10 rounds of golf like today's, she would be unnoticed and ignored. No...this is about gender politics. It really isn't about competition. It isn't about opportunity - Annika can play a round of golf against men any time she wants. Be honest enough to admit that.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by fansince62

Yes, someone who has won over 40 tournaments on the LPGA tour earns some brownie points for courage and mettle under stress while finishing the day at a stunning 76th!

You mean a stunning 71 and if she putted well could have been a 68

I think what was amazing was how consistent she is, she missed one fairway. That is just incredible, I hope she makes the cut just to shut up all these crying men.

She showed yesterday she could easily earn her way on the tour.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by fansince62

note: if it's about competition...then set up a shoot-out of some sort that isn't as silly as the mixed couples competitions we have seen on TV. it doesn't have to be a tour event.

A shoot-out isn't the same as a tournament. When are you going to realize that. You don't have the same pressure, it is more relaxed. In a tournament is the only way you can judge how you would perform on the tour, there is no other way.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by jbooma

You mean a stunning 71 and if she putted well could have been a 68

I think what was amazing was how consistent she is, she missed one fairway. That is just incredible, I hope she makes the cut just to shut up all these crying men.

She showed yesterday she could easily earn her way on the tour.

She could easily earn her way on the tour, but she would be a bottom level player, struggling to make the cut each week where as on the LPGA, she's the female Tiger Woods. People are making a big deal about how well she played yesterday, but look at her standing.. the course is easy, everyone played well.

I don't have a problem with her playing, there obviously isn't a rule against it. But in my opinion, she should have to qualify. I understand that it was an exemption, but if she continues, she should have to qualify.

The real question is: Would she make more being a middle of the pack golfer on the PGA or as the star of the LPGA?

[jbooma]

I think she would make more being a middle of the pack then being on the LPGA, however, with all of this news the LPGA might start getting a lot more sponsers. It should be interesting, the sky is the limit for her now though.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by jbooma

I think she would make more being a middle of the pack then being on the LPGA, however, with all of this news the LPGA might start getting a lot more sponsers. It should be interesting, the sky is the limit for her now though.

If she could make more on the mens tour, If I were her, I would go for it. It seems like if she worked on her short game and became really good at it, she would improve her chances of finishing higher each week. I feel that people play to their competition as well. If she is beating the women easily, it's not helping her game.

[JimboDaMan]

fan, its always great to watch an adult male stamp his feet like a schoolgirl. Why does this threaten you so?

A middleweight boxer is always welcome to move up and try his luck as a heavyweight. Some of the really good ones have tried, usually with marginal success. But heavyweights are not allowed to "fight down", because this would quickly overwhelm and destroy the middleweight class. This should not be a tough concept. Where is the problem?

Also, you ask if she can't win, what is the point? Are you serious? While winning is always the goal, golf more than any other sport offers substantial rewards to those who compete well but not well enough to come in first. There are plenty of tour pros who make a good living without ever finishing on top. That doesn't "redefine" anything, its you who are trying to mangle the interpretation of things.

[Steve Y]

Okay, Let me start off by saying that I don't really care, how well she does. She's a great golfer, that is already proven. She could beat 99% of men 9.9 times outta 10. But why should women be allowed on the men's tour, but men aren't allowed on the women's tour. How is that fair? One good turn deserves another.

[NavyDave]

Consig apparently you haven't read TimeMagazine last year when the "discovered" that Men are different than women.

If women do evolve into a stronger being did you know that men will evolve also?

In the military there are different physical standards for men and women to pass.

If a man had the exact score as a woman did on the physical readiness test in push ups and the 2 mile run he is considered unsat and could be discharged while the women passed with a satisfactory score.

Women sports, when compared to men sport with the exception of cheesecake Tennis (Track and field), sucks.

Annika would have to break out the steroids and hope that all golf tourneys she attend have the soft greens and no wind.

Now that 13 yo girl may be a different story however she should accomplish everything on the LPGA and if the PGA doesnt want another circus they should change their rules to match the LPGA and ignore the liberal double standard types.

[matty dread]

Originally posted by Steve Y

Okay, Let me start off by saying that I don't really care, how well she does. She's a great golfer, that is already proven. She could beat 99% of men 9.9 times outta 10. But why should women be allowed on the men's tour, but men aren't allowed on the women's tour. How is that fair? One good turn deserves another.

What does a man playing on the women's tour prove??

It's not an issue of fairness here, the important issue is that Annika is proving that a women can hold her own with the men.

A man playing on the women's tour proves nothing and accomplishes nothing.

[fansince62]

jboomba...

1) stress is self induced. take a non-tournament event, put it on TV, hype it as the "Battle of the Sexes" and place a pot of gold at the 18th hole........and there will be stress. moreover, we're talking about a professional who has won over 40 tournaments...are you saying that she is under no stress during LPGA tour events but that the glare of TV has her rattled? she played very well as a golfer. she played pack for a PGA professional.

2) coulda, woulda, shoulda......either you make the putts or you don't. gee...if Phil Mickelson had only made those critical putts during previous masters...once again....a double standard.....Phil "chokes" but Annika performs admirably and was a whislkers hair from running away with the tournament.....cmon.....at least be consistent.........there's an old saw..."almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades".......

somehow my position vis equal opportunity reflects some repressed fears of female dominance? some unacceptable misogynist blathering?........kind of a lame argument.....but if it makes a bastion of apparent goodness and good will such as yourself feel better to think that: have at it!!!!

let's clarify...again......this isn't about Annika....her playing is simply a pretext for questioning the larger matter of equal opportunity and the selective application of this notion of fairness in sports and other areas of society.......btw....don't you have some images to post on The Daily Babe?

[Steve Y]

What does it prove that she can beat half of the field at a men's event? That she's only half as good? She beats the guys that never even sniff a leaderboard...Ooohh impressive. I for one always assumed that she could do that. She sure as hell could whip my a$$. So what??? I suck. What does that prove? It proves that neither of us could beat most of the men on tour.

It has everything to do with fairness. If a guy isn't good enough to make the men's tour, but he still wants to golf for a living, shouldn't he be given the same chance as a woman? There was a guy a few months back that tried this, and they shot him down. Because he was man it isn't discriminating based on gender. That sucks!!

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Steve Y

Okay, Let me start off by saying that I don't really care, how well she does. She's a great golfer, that is already proven. She could beat 99% of men 9.9 times outta 10. But why should women be allowed on the men's tour, but men aren't allowed on the women's tour. How is that fair? One good turn deserves another.

Steve, the PGA is not the men's tour. It says in its rules, this tour is for the BEST golfers, doesn't mention gender at all. The LPGA says you must be female to be on that tour. That is the difference.

[fansince62]

Jbooma...your last point is correct.....but that doesn't make it right.......which is the point many of us are trying to make......it's more in the way of a rationalization