I'm sooo sick of this... [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

TroyF

05-22-2003, 12:12 PM

Typical reaction I expected. She played poorly, she'd have been laughed out of town.

She played well, people would start in with the "play football, play the US Open against the guys, it's one tournament-so what"

People get overpublicized all of the time. Lebron anyone?

Don't worry bbor. It'll all be over this weekend. (or sooner) Then you can get all of your "all-male, all the time" sports stories and programming again.

TroyF

bbor

05-22-2003, 12:16 PM

Has nothing to do with All male all the time.

I just don't think it is such a big deal.She's playing golf against the guys.Great...end of story.

Now...if she is in the lead...or just off the lead great..pick up the story again,just like they would normally do.

But to have 518 acredited journalists to cover one person?

Is this not over kill..has it not been killed to death?

I am NOT a male chavanist(sp) at all...i think it is great tha she made it.But it means nothing to golf.

Anrhydeddu

05-22-2003, 12:18 PM

Same thing happened with Tiger Woods, only it went on for years.

Ksyrup

05-22-2003, 12:37 PM

What I really don't understand is why there are artificial barriers in golf and tennis. I recognize the need to have separate tours, because if you took the top 100 men golfers/tennis players, and added the top 100 women in each sport, 95-99% of them would be men anyway. So having a women's only tour allows for women who can't compete against men to make a living.

But why not allow women to compete on the men's tour? Why the artificial barrier? In hockey, baseball, basketball, and football, it's fairly obvious that there are physical differences which keep all women from being able to compete on a pro level. These leagues aren't designated the Men's NBA, or Men's NFL. If women could play at that level, there's no doubt in my mind that a desperate team would give one of them a shot. But it hasn't happened, outside of a couple of female goalies trying to make it. Even women place kickers haven't made it to the levels you might think they could.

But golf and tennis? If they can compete, let them do it.

I understand why this is such a story, but really, it shouldn't be. Even if Annika is mediocre, she should be permitted to continue playing on the tour just like any other mediocre player. If she does well,then she deserves to be there that much more. Why this hasn't happened on a consistent basis before, I don't understand.

That 13 year old that can hit the ball 280 yards already will certainly be making a strong argument for playing on the tour.

Honolulu_Blue

05-22-2003, 12:37 PM

Golf sucks.

Fritz

05-22-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Ksyrup
What I really don't understand is why there are artificial barriers in golf and tennis. I recognize the need to have separate tours, because if you took the top 100 men golfers/tennis players, and added the top 100 women in each sport, 95-99% of them would be men anyway. So having a women's only tour allows for women who can't compete against men to make a living.

But why not allow women to compete on the men's tour? Why the artificial barrier? In hockey, baseball, basketball, and football, it's fairly obvious that there are physical differences which keep all women from being able to compete on a pro level. These leagues aren't designated the Men's NBA, or Men's NFL. If women could play at that level, there's no doubt in my mind that a desperate team would give one of them a shot. But it hasn't happened, outside of a couple of female goalies trying to make it. Even women place kickers haven't made it to the levels you might think they could.

But golf and tennis? If they can compete, let them do it.

I understand why this is such a story, but really, it shouldn't be. Even if Annika is mediocre, she should be permitted to continue playing on the tour just like any other mediocre player. If she does well,then she deserves to be there that much more. Why this hasn't happened on a consistent basis before, I don't understand.

If you are going to have a women's only segregation, then you MUST allow men's only segregation. Anything else is idiotic.

Ksyrup

05-22-2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Fritz
If you are going to have a women's only segregation, then you MUST allow men's only segregation. Anything else is idiotic.

Why? It's what the market will bear. If people want to watch the best golfers in the world, and a few of them happen to be women, then what is wrong with that? I think it goes without saying that if you let men on the women's tour, there would be no women's tour. You have a non-gender-specific main tour, and whatever other tours want to start up - women, seniors, squid (both collosal and miniature), fine.

It's like basketball is right now. Women are not precluded - that I know of - from being in the NBA, but in order for women to capitalize on whatever market they think there is for women's basketball, they have a separate league. If there was a women - maybe a scrappy point guard-type? - who could play in the NBA, I don't see any reason she couldn't, and the fact that there's a women's league wouldn't preclude her from playin the NBA, if she was good enough.

Or hell, look at that senior baseball league that started up (and then folded) a few years ago. If those guys could still play in the majors, they'd be there. There's nothing saying that anyone over the age of 45 can't play in the majors, it's just a fact that nearly all of them cannot compete anymore. Similarly, most women probably can't compete against men, but the few that can, should be able to.

moriarty

05-22-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Ksyrup
What I really don't understand is why there are artificial barriers in golf and tennis.

Not sure what you meant by 'artificial' barriers, but there aren't any barriers for women on the men's tour.

In fact, the PGA Tour specifically says 'the best players' (not the best male players). Annika or any other female is free to play the male tour, she just needs to qualify via Q school or top 125 in earnings like any other pro.

Of course, there is a barrier on the LPGA for the reasons you mentioned.

Fritz

05-22-2003, 01:01 PM

well, then there is no "mens" tour. But if someone wants to start one there should be no barrier.

Tekneek

05-22-2003, 01:07 PM

Oh well. So a woman is playing in a men's golf tournament. Big deal. As much of a non-story as I have heard recently. She should do the entire tour.

Draft Dodger

05-22-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Tekneek
She should do the entire tour.

um, yeah.

Samdari

05-22-2003, 01:14 PM

Tennis is different from golf as well. The physical advantages men have over women come into play far more there than in golf. Fully half the shots in par golf are alloted for putting (more this week) in which men have no apparent physical advantage. In tennis, women would be at a tremendous disadvantage on every shot.

The Williams sisters are complete physical freaks, they might be able to crack the top 25 in tennis (but I doubt it). No other woman would be able to compete with a top 50 male tennis player. As much as Serena has been dominant on the women's tour, every top 50 male is as big as her, hits as hard as her, and moves as fast.

Before anyone brings up the King/Riggs fiasco, that was the best famale player ever in her prime against a washed up also ran. Riggs at that point would not have been a top 100 player. I have also been told that the rules were changed in that match to favor her (she would be allowed to hit in the doubles lanes).

JeeberD

05-22-2003, 01:15 PM

I have no problem with her playing at all. I wish her the best of luck...

Tekneek

05-22-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
um, yeah.

I'm not much of a golf fan at all, so that is part of the reason why I do not care at all about this story that refuses to go away. However, if you really want to see how somebody's game stacks up, they need to play a lot more than one tournament on the PGA tour. Is it reasonable to assume she would qualify for the PGA tour? From what I read, it is pretty likely. After that, you would get a good idea over the tour how things would land.

I don't have a problem with her playing. Every golf tournament could be a 50/50 mix of women and men as far as I care. I just don't get excited about a one-off tournament because it proves nothing and does nothing to advance the game at all, IMHO.

JonInMiddleGA

05-22-2003, 01:26 PM

I have to disagree with regard to any notion of overkill. This is the first particularly interesting thing I've seen involving the PGA in years with the exception of the nauseating all-Tiger-all-the-time coverage (and that's really about the coverage, not about the PGA Tour).

Also, about the notion of "what the market will bear" -- I think it remains to be see what impact this will have on the image & attraction of the PGA Tour.

moriarty

05-22-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Tekneek
I'm not much of a golf fan at all, so that is part of the reason why I do not care at all about this story that refuses to go away. However, if you really want to see how somebody's game stacks up, they need to play a lot more than one tournament on the PGA tour. Is it reasonable to assume she would qualify for the PGA tour? From what I read, it is pretty likely. After that, you would get a good idea over the tour how things would land.

Well I agree a truer test of her ability to compete on the tour would be to measure her over several tournaments. And clearly she would have problems as she picked this course because it suited her skills. But her goal isn't to make the PGA tour, it's to challenge herself, see how good she really is.

I disagree though, and think it is a newsworthy story if she makes the cut. Now, of course it's overblown as with all news these days (see Lebron, Gulf War II, etc.), but it's still newsworthy.

BTW - I think she would have a decent chance at making the PGA tour if she wanted. She's proven to me she can hit the ball as far as Corey Pavin. She, like Corey nowadays, would likely never really contend though.

Ksyrup

05-22-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by moriarty
Not sure what you meant by 'artificial' barriers, but there aren't any barriers for women on the men's tour.

In fact, the PGA Tour specifically says 'the best players' (not the best male players). Annika or any other female is free to play the male tour, she just needs to qualify via Q school or top 125 in earnings like any other pro.

Of course, there is a barrier on the LPGA for the reasons you mentioned.

Well then that makes this even more puzzling. Is this something she wanted to do? Has no other woman (other than Babe way back when) stepped up and said I want to play?

Sounds like self-esteem issues to me. If they can play, they can play. Why hasn't this been the case for decades, or at least in the past 10-20 years?

GrantDawg

05-22-2003, 02:12 PM

I think she could make the tour, and probably stay in the top 30 in the money, though she would probably never win a tourney. She'll probably never do that though, because I imagine it would be pay-cut.

GrantDawg

05-22-2003, 02:18 PM

sterlingice

05-22-2003, 02:23 PM

I gotta say that this is quite different than Tiger if for only this reason: Tiger became a phenom because he won at a level like it had never been seen before. Annika, on the other hand, would be cut if they made the cut today.

If it's about the sport, make it about the sport not the sports news equivalent of a sappy human interest story. If Tiger were white, would it still be news? Yes. If Annika were a man, would it still be news? No.

SI

moriarty

05-22-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Well then that makes this even more puzzling. Is this something she wanted to do? Has no other woman (other than Babe way back when) stepped up and said I want to play?

Sounds like self-esteem issues to me. If they can play, they can play. Why hasn't this been the case for decades, or at least in the past 10-20 years?

Well there's a difference in playing a tournament as a 'sponsers excemption' which is what Anika is doing this weekend and playing on the tour. Sponsors can basically get anyone into their tournament (they're restricted in the number of excemptions). Of course, the sponsors dont' want to piss off the pros by allowing someone that cannot compete, or at least be respectable, so there hasn't been a big push to invite women in the past.

Incidentally 'Babe' played her way into the US Open by qualifying in the qualifying tournaments. I belive there is another lady this year who has also qualifed for an event.

Actually playing on the tour w/out excemptions is much, much tougher. The player (male or female) has to either place in the top X in the Qschool tournament which is a grueling competitive 5 day event or finish at the top end of the season long Buy.com (or whatever it's called these days) minor league tour. Or they have to make enough money in their sponsorship excemptions to make the top 125 money list. This would be very tough for Anika or any female golfer, and they'd be giving up big paychecks on the women's tour to take this chance.

Ksyrup

05-22-2003, 02:32 PM

Thanks for the info. Despite the fact that I'm an attorney, I can't stand golf, so I know very little about how to play, and even less about how it's run.

moriarty

05-22-2003, 02:34 PM

Incidentally,

Does anyone know what the requirements are to get into Qschool?

I could actually see Anika testing her abilities next by competing in Qschool and trying to get her PGA card.

moriarty

05-22-2003, 02:48 PM

Edit the double post and putting in a Dola:

Thought this was interesting (work is a bit slow today) -

According to SI and the PGA website, Anika made $2,863,904 in earnings last year on the LPGA tour. She would have had to finish in the top 7 on the PGA tour in 2002 to avoid a paycut (Rich Breem earned $2,746,889 at #7 on the money list).

Anrhydeddu

05-22-2003, 02:58 PM

1. She is quite rich already
2. She had a phenomenal year last season

Ksyrup

05-22-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by moriarty
[i] (Rich Breem earned $2,746,889 at #7 on the money list).

Who? :eek:

Cards4ever

05-22-2003, 03:07 PM

I think he means Rich Beem, he won the PGA Championship, which is probably a big chunk of his winnings.

I don't know, I don't see anything wrong with the top Woman in the LPGA getting a chance to see what she can do against the guys once or twice a year, it's a sponsors exemption, so it's not taking a spot away from a qualified man.

digamma

05-22-2003, 03:09 PM

It's actually Rich Beem and he won the PGA Championship last year.

This is also kind of a race for publicity deal. If you remember, the idea was first bandied about after a woman won a tournament that grants the winner an automatic spot into the Greater Hartford Open. The woman announced she would play.

A number of tournaments then offered Annika sponsorship exemptions to beat the GHO to the punch. Annika selected the Colonial.

Interestingly, the woman who won the tourney to get into the GHO played the qualifier from women's tees. The PGA has since changed the rules to require women entering PGA tournaments from similar qualifying tourneys to have played from the men's tees in the qualifier.

cuervo72

05-22-2003, 03:09 PM

Brich Cream?

moriarty

05-22-2003, 03:18 PM

Brill Cream, Rich Beem, ... no one still knows who he is. Maybe I should have referenced Justin Leonard at # 8 on the money list.

Anrhydeddu

05-22-2003, 03:25 PM

Can some of the Nike Tour players then step up and qualify to play in the LPGA?

Ksyrup

05-22-2003, 03:33 PM

Misspelling or not, I've still never heard of him. Is he the love-child of Rich Hall and Sid Bream? Is he a sniglet?

moriarty

05-22-2003, 03:34 PM

Can some of the Nike Tour players then step up and qualify to play in the LPGA?

No, no, no. You weren't listening. :)

The LPGA specifically states it's for women only. The PGA (and presumably the Nike Tour) don't specify by gender.

sabotai

05-22-2003, 03:51 PM

"Before anyone brings up the King/Riggs fiasco, that was the best famale player ever in her prime against a washed up also ran. Riggs at that point would not have been a top 100 player. I have also been told that the rules were changed in that match to favor her (she would be allowed to hit in the doubles lanes)."

Riggs at that point probably wouldn't have been more than a guy who occasionally played Challengers. The guy was in his prime during the 1940's. The 1940's!! The battle of the sexes was in 1973. And here he is playing a woman in her prime. and they call it the battle of the sexes.

I honestly don't know why women point to this as a triumph over men. A woman in her prime beating on an old man. Yeah, good for you ladies! (Of course, they always forget how Riggs demolished Court, the #1 Woman's player at the time, who was also in her prime.)

So I would definaly throw tennis into the list of sports where women just can't physically compete with the men.

Ragone

05-22-2003, 04:03 PM

Annika has already stated she wouldn't go to a mens event if she had to qualify.. she wanted only a sponsors exemption..

Maybe David Duval or Phil Mickelson can play a Lpga Major and finally win one... :)

moriarty

05-22-2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Ragone
Maybe David Duval or Phil Mickelson can play a Lpga Major and finally win one... :)

I think you meant just Phil (David won the Brittish open a couple years ago). ;)

TroyF

05-22-2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Can some of the Nike Tour players then step up and qualify to play in the LPGA?

NO, NO, NO.

I'm not sure why this is that difficult for people to understand. We will ALL agree that there is a physiological difference between women and men. The average guy will beat the average girl in almost any sport. In most cases, the average guy would beat the above average women.

Therefore, women need their own game to match up against each other.

Now what happens when you get the one exception to the rule? Say Diana Taurasi plays in the summer men's league and averages 15 points a game. Say she wants to take the crap and the challenge and attempt to play on the top level. Should we ban her simply because she's a women? Why?

I look at it like this: (you can make the same type of chart for the other sports): PGA: Best golfers in the world. The elite. LPGA: The top women's golfers in the world. Clearly a step down. Shorter courses to fit the physiology of the ladies. This is with the basic understanding the men on the PGA ARE better than 99.999% of these competitors. NIKE/Buy.com/whatever the hell they want to call it these days: A tour for the men who are not good enough or need their game's developed for the PGA. If a women wants to play in this tour, more power to her. Again, most women who play in this tour would be in the top 50 of the LPGA tour, so why would any of them want to do it?

I agree with Fritz. If the men want to close the doors to women, they should have the right to do it. I would not support that rule change or any league which does it. (again, look at the reasons above) They should still have the right to do it. I think any of them that do will be the ones missing out. Today was a great story for GOLF. Not the PGA, not the LPGA. . . Golf.

TroyF

Cards4ever

05-22-2003, 04:11 PM

I think the best thing to do, if you don't like all of this, is just ignore it for the weekend. Next weekend Annika will be back on the LPGA tour and it will all be back to normal.

QuikSand

05-22-2003, 04:16 PM

Is there something fundamentally wrong with a sport (demanding physical competition) deciding to organize a competition among people within some sort of restricted class?

Do heavyweight boxers complain that they aren't allowed to fight against flyweights?

Do mediocre distance runners complain because they aren't eligible to compete in the Special Olympics?

Do high school students argue that they ought to be allowed to join the 7th grade baseball team?

Isn't it inherent that in most popular sports, it simply makes sense to maintain various levels of competition: one level for the very best, and other restricted levels for other people who aren't the very best, but still want to compete (or have fans that would like to see them sompete)?

We used to have a professional basketball league for people under a certain height. We have softball leagues across the country for people of a certain age (over 30, over 40, etc.). We have many amateur sporting events where any professional athlete is banned from participating. We have countless events where the ability to join is restricted - many times to those who don't have certain advantages that others might enjoy.

Why is it that this practice... which is so well-understood and accepted within the sports world... becomes some huge bloodbath when the restriction is based on gender? Why do men insist on this absurd notion that somehow there is "justice" if we destroy (or at least compromise) a women-only sport, because somehow a woman intrudes into the sacred territory of a so-called "men's" sport, which is really just the "best of the best" class in that sport, not restricted to men in any overt way? Why does this happen?

tucker342

05-22-2003, 04:18 PM

It is a big deal, but they are definently giving way to much attention to this story...

bbor

05-22-2003, 05:06 PM

Booby Riggs was 65 when he played BJK...and he defended the doubles court while she defended the singles court.

But that is not what i had in mind when starting this thread.

I meant that i had had enough of hearing about whether she belonged or not....

I don't really care....i watch/play golf because i enjoy it....not because of which golfer is gonna win each week.It is the competition that i enjoy.

If per chance a rookie wins this tourny this week,,,will he be remembered next near as the past champion? or will it be remembered as the tourny Annika played in?

When does he get his due?

TroyF

05-22-2003, 05:10 PM

QS,

Nice post. We agree on most every point.

To the people who think this story is getting to much ink:

I do not think it's getting to much ink. I do think it is getting ink for all of the wrong reasons. The story to me is the courage of Sorenstam. For a top athlete (or sportsmen if you start with the athlete debate about golf) to put themselves on the line is the incredible thing here.

Listening to Jim Nantz on PTI really shows how important this really was. All TV ratings and publicity stunts aside, you could tell it really impacted him. It impacted me. To watch her go out and strike the ball that well with all of the pressure on was an amazing thing. It's just dissapointing that her putter wasn't a bit stronger to show just how terrific she really played today.

TroyF

Happy29

05-22-2003, 05:14 PM

There's no one who wouldnt want her to succeed, I want her to succeed but I'm not Annika's #1 fan, I didnt even know who the heck she was before this story popped up. Big deal, There are a lot of women leading new causes everyday and hell there are probably a lot of women playing in more male-friendly tournaments. So, Happy agrees with you all.

Ksyrup

05-22-2003, 05:14 PM

That's somewhat ironic - that her putter was the weakest link, since that really has less to do with the physical differences between men and women than most parts of the golf game.

TroyF

05-22-2003, 05:18 PM

bbor,

When was the last time a rookie won this tournament? Who was it? How about the Greater Hartford Open? Or maybe The International?

I'm a fan of golf and I don't know the answers to any of those questions. I didn't even know Nick Price was the past champion of this tournament when it started. (I had to look up that information on the internet)

To say she's stealing someone elses glory would imply that there was glory to begin with. Before you get in a huff, I'll be happy for the rookie. I'll wish him well on a great accomplishment. Still, he should be thankful I ever watched to see him win it. I will know the winner's name BECAUSE of Annika. Without her there, this is just another tournament. One without a lot of big names. One I would have took a quick glimpse to read about on ESPN, but one I wouldn't have remembered next week.

TroyF

moriarty

05-22-2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by bbor

If per chance a rookie wins this tourny this week,,,will he be remembered next near as the past champion? or will it be remembered as the tourny Annika played in?

When does he get his due?

Actually if Annika makes the cut and some rookie wins this week MANY more people are likely to remember him winning because MANY more people will have actually tuned in to see him (even if they tuned in to see Annika).

Without Tiger in the field, most people wouldn't give a rats arse about the tourney. With Annika, more people are at least going to check and see how she did ... and guess what, they'll probably see who won.

GrantDawg

05-22-2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by QuikSand
Why is it that this practice... which is so well-understood and accepted within the sports world... becomes some huge bloodbath when the restriction is based on gender? Why do men insist on this absurd notion that somehow there is "justice" if we destroy (or at least compromise) a women-only sport, because somehow a woman intrudes into the sacred territory of a so-called "men's" sport, which is really just the "best of the best" class in that sport, not restricted to men in any overt way? Why does this happen?

Because there are many men with small pee-pees that are afraid that if a woman can play golf on the same level as men then they will have to consider woman as a person instead of sperm receptacle. Just my guess.