's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Should Annika Sorenson get to play with the boys?(45 posts)

Should Annika Sorenson get to play with the boys?eschelon
May 12, 2003 1:12 PM
Like Augusta, I do believe that in life and sport, the men should be able to have their own corner in the world where women aren't allowed and the same for the women...but this discussion is not about that.

From what I read about Annika, she literally spanks the women golfers all over the world...all the time.So she wants to play the men's tournament coming up...and some players (male) aren't too happy about it.

I must admit, I have mixed feelings about this...but I am more leaning to saying she should be able to play against the men...I mean if she really is as good as she seems to be, I would find it extremly entertaining to watch her make the men look foolish by her beating them; not necessarily with her being #1 in the tournament...rather that there is a man below her at all...heh heh...but at the same time, you must admit, there's sadistic curiosity within myself and many other males to see her crash and burn to settle for a while the whole argument that men and women should keep some things only male and female.

What's your take people?
Sure, especially since they invited her to playmohair_chair
May 12, 2003 1:23 PM
What is the big deal? There are only two ways to get on the PGA tour. One is to get your PGA card by qualifying at Q-school, which isn't easy. The second is to do what Tiger Woods did, which is to get sponsor exemptions, which basically makes you an invited guest. If you win enough money with playing under sponsor exemptions, you can earn your PGA card by being in the top-150 (or so) money earners. One tournament win oughta do it.

If a woman can earn a PGA card via either one of these methods, how can anyone complain about it? As long as they don't slack the rules for women, everyone has an equal shot. There are very few women who can compete with the men on an equal basis at the PGA level, so I don't know why people get their panties in a bunch. If men feel so threatened that they will lose a place where they can scratch their crotches and leave the seat up, maybe someone should remind them that the tournaments are played in front of crowds and televised, so they have to be on their best behaviour anyway.
"why people get their panties in a bunch" :O)Live Steam
May 12, 2003 1:36 PM
I like it! Now for why she should or shouldn't - well in this case she should as she was invited. However I am not really in favor of it as a rule unless it were reciprocal. Admittedly not everyone can be Tiger Woods. So there are guys hacking out a living on the Tour that from week to week, really don't have much of a shot at winning. They are the domestiques of the PGA. They are there to make the field more interesting and keep everyone honest. These guys have paid their dues sort of speak. Allowing women to now play in PGA tournaments further dilutes the field and the associated purse money. I say if they let the better women compete in the PGA they should open the LPGA to men who think they have a better shot of winning an LPGA tournament. Maybe they should just do away with the LPGA and make everyone compete for fewer spots on the PGA tour. I doubt that the women would like that - don't you?
Judging from what I've seen,Spoiler
May 12, 2003 1:42 PM
if they let Jack Nicholas play in the LPGA, he'd have the biggest set of t!ts in the whole group.

PC, that's me.
:O) :O) :O) ROFLMA nmLive Steam
May 12, 2003 1:51 PM
same tee boxes? nmDougSloan
May 12, 2003 1:39 PM
Yep. nm.No_sprint
May 12, 2003 1:50 PM
of courseDougSloan
May 12, 2003 1:38 PM
I don't think there should even be separate men's and women's sports. That's discriminating, a "separate but equal" sort of thinking, which we would never tolerate based upon race.

If you do have separate leagues, then it doesn't make any sense to mix them up. If she can compete with the men, then why shouldn't men be allowed to compete with the women?

Why are exclusionary practices ...Live Steam
May 12, 2003 1:59 PM
always accepted when they are benefiting the minority? There are lots of examples of this. Gender leagues. Minority awards shows. Gender specific clubs and minority specific clubs. I know the right of free association is in the Constitution. How do people defeat this in court?
I agree almost 100%TJeanloz
May 12, 2003 2:09 PM
I think all sporting event should be open to any person, regardless of race or gender, for equal participation. When I was at CU, we had a female placekicker on the football team (though I don't believe she ever kicked in a CU game). And Manon Rheaume, "The Gorgeous Goaltender," played a preseason hockey game for the Tampa Bay Lightning, and played several years in [men's] minor league hockey.

In the Sorenstam case, I think a lot depends on her performance. If she's able to make a run at the leaderboard, or even make the cut, great. If she finishes last, it's a shame for the man who wasn't invited, but had a better chance to do well. There was a woman who qualified for the U.S. Open (golf), by winning the qualifying sectional - and I absolutely think she should play in the Open.

The seperation issue is the one part of your post that I disagree with - if the women want to be discriminatory, they, like Augusta, can chose to do so, but I'd like to think the PGA will take the high road and integrate.
the man who wasn't invitedmohair_chair
May 12, 2003 2:28 PM
The tournament invited her, which means the man who wasn't invited is a CEO or CFO of Widgets Inc, or maybe some local celebrity of some sort. At a certain level of sponsorship, the sponsor gets a few slots to give away.

So, she's not taking a slot that would normally go to a PGA pro. Nobody has anything reasonable to complain about here.
Plus, who cares about the 156th least crappy male golfer? (nm)czardonic
May 12, 2003 2:36 PM
Maybe that golfer, who's struggling to make ends meet (nm)TJeanloz
May 12, 2003 2:41 PM
Adversity builds character. What's the purse for dead last? nmczardonic
May 12, 2003 2:44 PM
Depends, $8,428 if you make the cut, 0 if you don'tTJeanloz
May 12, 2003 2:48 PM
The odds of a male sponsors exemption making the cut are significantly higher than the odds of Annika making the cut.
What about the odds. . .czardonic
May 12, 2003 2:52 PM
. . .of Annika parlaying this appearance into profits for herself, her sponsorers and the event organizers?
Not really,TJeanloz
May 12, 2003 2:39 PM
The "Sponsors Exemption" which Annika is playing under, typically does not go to a CEO or CFO. It usually goes to a golfer who has some particular connection to the event, but has not otherwise qualified for it. Like he's sponsored by the same company that's sponsoring the tournament, or he's the best local golfer in 20 years, and this could be his big break, or he's the hotshot pro at the local club. That's usually who gets the sponsors exemption. I don't believe any corporate CEO has ever played in a PGA tour event (excluding Pro/Ams). The worst celebrity exemption in history probably belong to Redskins QB Mark Rypien (1992). Sorenstam could well play much worse that he did. Those situations are VERY rare - not commonplace as you propose.
. . .or she's the top female golfer? (nm)czardonic
May 12, 2003 2:45 PM
Yeah, but the person usually has a CHANCE of winning (nm)TJeanloz
May 12, 2003 2:50 PM
"Usually"? "Chance"? Please. (nm)czardonic
May 12, 2003 2:59 PM
Same resultmohair_chair
May 12, 2003 2:56 PM
Whoever gets the exemptions, they are not necessarily going to PGA members, so no one on the PGA Tour has a legitimate claim to being "the man who wasn't invited."

As for all those other struggling golfers out there, who cares? Nobody owes them a living. I don't. The PGA doesn't. The sponsor certainly doesn't. If Joe Pro isn't good enough to qualify for the tournament, he isn't good enough. What more needs to be said? He can sit around waiting for his phone to ring with an invitation, or he can go out and hit some more balls.

I want to ride the Tour de France. Every year, I don't get to ride, making me "the man who wasn't invited." Why isn't anyone upset about that?
May 12, 2003 2:10 PM
I don't claim to be a golf insider, however, it is my understanding that Annika was invited to play any and all PGA events she wants to this year. She decided to play only one. She chose the course the carefully. Colonial is relatively short in comparison to many others. It is not really a shotmakers (technical) course either. I've got a member friend and played it about 5 years back. Background: Annika lies mid-pack in comparison to PGA Tour card holders in driving distance. Approx. 280 I believe. I'm not sure where she lies in accuracy. All other stats compared render her to be significantly competitive with the men's field. She was invited partly because she has been far more dominant on the LPGA tour than even Tiger has been on the PGA. She is, arguably, the most dominant player in the history of golf. Another sidenote, Cristie Kerr played a course a couple months back, I don't remember which now. Anyway, while plenty of guys popped par the first couple of days, the cut was well under par with the winning score at 19 under or better. I believe she hit from the back tee and shot a 5 over or so.

Watch the ratings soar. My guess is they stand a good chance of being higher than any other golf tourney, ever, and that's pretty darn high.
Do you like watching golf? Or, do you like watching <i>men</i>?czardonic
May 12, 2003 2:11 PM
If the former, wouldn't you want to see the best in the world, regardless of gender?

Not passing any judgement here. There is nothing to be embarassed about if watching men enhances the experience for you.
That's exactly the issue...TJeanloz
May 12, 2003 2:24 PM
The real question is do you want to see the 156 best golfers in the world, as demonstrated by a rigorous qualifying procedure, or do you want to see 155 of the best golfers in the world, and one who might be good, might be lousy? If Annika Sorenstam is one of the best in the world, can't she qualify like most everybody else?

She has virtually no qualifications - it would be like somebody dominating the local Cat 5 industrial park crit, and have US Postal show up and say: "Wow, you haven't lost a race all year, could you ride in support of Lance at the tour this year?"
"She has virtually no qualifications"sacheson
May 12, 2003 2:59 PM
Comparing her to a local Cat 5'er is ludicrist. She's dominated her scene since she's been in it. Where can she go from there? You might be able to draw a comparison to Judith Arndt or Petra Rossner being asked to compete in a men's field, but not a Cat 5.

I think it's awesome that she's been invited and I hope she kicks the crap out of the half-a$$ed players on the tour ... if it wasn't Anika, someone else will eventually do it. Golf is a great game, but it is tied to useless tradition all too often.
If Annika Sorenstam is entitled to play on the PGA ...Live Steam
May 12, 2003 3:38 PM
should women be able to compete in the pro peleton? I ride each weekend with a girl who can certainly hold her own in a pretty strong field. Our regulars include a competitive triathlete/iron man, a few active racers and strong recreational riders. This girl is one of the stronger riders. She certainly contributes to the punishment and suffering. Her reason for her strength and threshold of pain - giving birth to three kids :O) There are a lot of strong women athletes in all fields of competition. Should they be able to compete in any event, including cycling events, so long as they can qualify?
I don't think anyone said "entitled". But . .czardonic
May 12, 2003 3:43 PM
. . .obviously women should be allowed to compete in any arena where they can be competitive.
Why not?mtber
May 13, 2003 7:51 AM
Case in point: Allison Dunlap regularly competes w/ the expert men in regional (Colorado) MTB races. Why? Because her finish time (when competing with the men) is often 5-10 min faster than the top pro woman's time. It is hard to improve when you have no competition. Allison (and any woman in any sport) should have the right to compete at the level that will allow her to be the best she can be. IMHO, Genivieve Jeanson should be doing the same thing. What good did it do her to be 18min up on the GC at the Gila? It would have been much more beneficial to her to be busting her ass in the 2's!
Do you like watching golf? Or, do you like watching <i>men</i>?sn69
May 12, 2003 4:30 PM
Youch, Czar. Oof, the wit-o-meter pegged on that one.

Still, I think your latter comment was right on the money. Come one come all when the competitive spirit merits it. That, however, might take some subjective interpretation. I would shudder to watch 99.9% of women playing American or Aussie Rules football or rugby. Soccer? I think it'd be fine (it helps that my wife is cousins with one of our World Cup team members).

Ultimately, I think it would be sport-dependant. A "genteel" (read: b-o-r-i-n-g) activity like golf would be fine in my notso opinion. Tennis did fine, a la King/Riggs.


PS--did you ever find any of those Tigers books? If not, I'll be back in SoCal in June. I can send you some to read.
Womens Aussie Rules?czardonic
May 12, 2003 5:06 PM
Women (the taller the better) climbing all over each other in a big, round, muddy arena? Not my personal cup of tea either, but tell me that wouldn't find an audience!

I think it works for soccer. I think it would work for basketball if they lowered the hoop to spice things up a bit.


There is a shop in Berkeley that carries Tigers, though I have yet to get my act together and go check it out. But I did just get my tax return. . .
Womens Aussie Rules?sn69
May 12, 2003 5:11 PM
Oh, actually I rather like your idea there. It's women getting torn to shreds by a bunch of unshaven Aussie drunkards that kinda bothers me. Your idea sounds more like a mud-wrestling free for all, and if it's only women, how bad could that be?

I don't pretend to know a lot about soccer, but I've watched my wife's cousin play and she is one helluva athlete.
Any unshaven drunkards should definitely be weeded out.czardonic
May 12, 2003 5:52 PM
And any men too. Gotta keep things tasteful.
lol nmsn69
May 12, 2003 6:01 PM
I like watching men, but not necessarily men playing golf.Kristin
May 13, 2003 6:04 AM
I'd rather watch men on the beach, men on bikes, men jogging, men's legs, men swimming... but watching men at a game of golf is boring. I think I'll volunteer at a few tri's this summer!! ;-)
The job for you then is the "number marker."js5280
May 14, 2003 8:11 AM
Everyone has to get their numbers on their biceps and calves. Just a Sharpie between you and them with nice front and rear views to boot! When is the Denver Danskin again? ;-)
Hasn't anyone else noticed how boring women's sports tend to bepurplepaul
May 12, 2003 4:51 PM
at least in comparison to the men's version. Ok, maybe not volley ball when they start jumping up and down a lot. But women's cycling is nowhere near as aggressive as men's. Inline skate races are a snore fest until the final sprint to the line. For the bulk the race, it's just tame.

I don't think I'd want to watch the woman who can play with the big guys in the NFL, and I'd hate to see women become more manly so they can compete with men.

Golf, bowling, diving, those are sports where women should be able to compete with men as skill is more important than brute strength. But just because a woman CAN compete with men doesn't mean she should. Or shouldn't. But this whole equivalence movement really bothers me. If it keeps going, I really am convinced that at some point, a man WILL give birth.
Have you ever noticed how boring <i>men's</i> sports tend to be?czardonic
May 12, 2003 5:20 PM
Yet, they are wildly popular. How many of baseball's legion of fans are into it for the exhibition of brute strength? Would they enjoy it less if it was a couple dozen women standing around in tight pants groping themselves? You could still sit there on a hard, plastic seat, eat as much junk, drink as much beer and trade as many stats.

I can think very few sports that wouldn't be made more entertaining by an infusion of shaplier, scrappier players that relied on finesse and determination rather than steriods.
The above being said. . .czardonic
May 12, 2003 5:21 PM
. . .personally, I am not into entertainment that features bulging sweaty men. Obviously, many are. Different strokes. . .
I have, that's why I can't even conceive of how boring a morepurplepaul
May 12, 2003 5:30 PM
docile version could be. Baseball? Ha! Most guys just have to stand in place to be qualified. But power hitters have arms like tree trunks.

My point was meant to be that those sports that require a great deal of aggression would not be as exciting given the way most women play them. Then again, I've always found the cheerleaders much more interesting than the game, as long as they confined the men to the field.
I think women are plenty agressive. . .czardonic
May 12, 2003 5:43 PM
. . .given the opportunity to express it. Just take the IL hazing incident as an unfortunate example.
That's a good example of why we shouldn't encouragepurplepaul
May 12, 2003 5:50 PM
women to compete with men physically. Given enough time and inclination, is there any reason why women couldn't be as strong and violent as men? Probably not. Do we really want that? I sure don't.
I can't imagine why not.czardonic
May 12, 2003 5:57 PM
Why shouldn't women have a constructive (or at least non-destructive) way to express their agression and competitive impulses?

I doubt that many women would pump themselves up to compete bulge to bulge with men. There are plenty of male athletes who run with the big dogs without becoming one. They are just faster and often smarter.
Here's a reason...purplepaul
May 12, 2003 6:52 PM
The percentage of convicted felons who play professional football is huge. The more aggressive men and women are encouraged to be, and that's certainly what multi-million dollar sports contracts would do, the more anti-social they tend to be. Women have plenty of outlets for their aggressive and competitive needs without having to offer an even higher level to compete with men.

But I'm certainly in the minority who believe that most spectator sports are not a good thing.
"a couple dozen women standing around in tight pants groping"Live Steam
May 12, 2003 5:57 PM
This is note the premise of the topic. The premise is "should women be allowed to compete against men in sports"? We are not discussing women's leagues. They already exist and are fine as far as I am concerned. If women want to play hockey, football, what ever is not an issue. The issue is should they be on the same playing field as men? My preference is to honor tradition and have separation of sexes in sport. Is nothing sacred?
"My preference is have separation of sexes in sport"purplepaul
May 12, 2003 6:59 PM
I'd expect those who advocate the separation of the sexes in bed would be most vociferous in opposing the separation of the sexes in sport. And vice versa.