Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Anne Elk
Sorenstam did not qualify for this event. Shortly before they announced that she would play in the Colonial a club pro female (can't remember her name) qualified for the Greater Hartford Open by winning a tournament. She played with the men, fromteh same tees as the men and won the darn thing. She deserves to play. Annika in the Colonial is just a publicity thing and in my mind takes away from the achievment of the other player. She is playing from the same tees as the men.

Wrong. http://ydr.com/story/salter/4259 ["she played from forward tees and played 10 percent less of the course than did her male competitors."] But I agree that she deserves to play more than Sorenstam. She qualified for the tournament under the PGA's rules.

TM

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Wrong. http://ydr.com/story/salter/4259 ["she played from forward tees and played 10 percent less of the course than did her male competitors."] But I agree that she deserves to play more than Sorenstam. She qualified for the tournament under the PGA's rules.

TM

My bad. Should have read the article before I posted it. Never heard anything about her playing a shorter course than the men. That doesn't seem right, especially since it's only a 10% difference.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Someone will bring up Serena. I will say that she couldn't beat any male pro ranked 50 or higher. And here's the key: she's not interested in trying to prove that she can. She is satisfied knowing that she is the best female tennis player in the world. Why isn't that enough?

. . .

Sorenstam is an unbelievable golfer -- of the same class as Tiger Woods. She doesn't get the recognition or the cash that he does and that's unfair. I just hope Sorenstam doesn't embarass herself.

TM

The difference for Serena and other top female tennis players is that now, even though they are not competing against the men, they are competing in the same big tournaments. If the men's and women's tours didn't converge at the Grand Slams women's tennis would never be as visible as men's.

Serena doesn't have to prove she can play as well as the men because she gets to kick ass on Center Court and in Arthur Ashe stadium and do it in front of essentially the same audience that will watch the men's match the next day. It wouldn't be the same if Women's Wimbledon were an entirely separate competition that took place at another time. If the only way Serena could show her talent to a wider audience were to compete against men, she would probably want to do it however much it would suck.

As you suggest, that's the essential unfairness of Sorenstam's position. She can't be just like Serena because she cannot compete against women in the same arena as the men.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Golf is not only strength, it is strategy, skill, and dare I say finesse. The best golfers are not always the longest hitters. I might agree if this were football, basketball, baseball or hockey, but golf is a non-contact sport, (except for those few times when I was in college and my buddies and I would get really drunk and play), but that's another story entirely. I recognize the biological differences, but in this case, they're largely irrelevant. Let me ask you this. Who stands a better chance of doing well in a PGA event, Annika or Bill Murray?

There's a world of difference hitting an 8-iron into a green from 160 yards, and hitting a 6-iron from the same distance. The tee box is not the only place on the course where being able to hit it farther is an advantage.

No one disputes that Annika is better than an average golfer like Bill Murray.

Originally posted by bilmore
As someone also with a daughter, I see more harm than good. PC aside, basic biologic differences mandate that different sexes have (generally) different strengths. If we are going to merge male and female sports, most females are going to end up eclipsed.

I don't think this will merge male/female sports anymore than the Billy Jean King/Bobby Riggs match did. She kicked his ass (old and over the hill tho it was), no one was shouting for women to play men in Wimbledon.
I don't see the harm here - she's in under a sponsor's exemption, not a novel concept and isn't taking a qualifying man's place anymore than a man playing under a sponsor exemption. If that's an issue, get rid of the sponsors exemption overall, it won't happen again.
It will be interesting to see how she does - noone - including her, believes she is going to win, but I believe most of the clamoring is on behalf of the lower portion of the field that will be beaten by her, thus embarassing a percentage of male pro golfers.
I also don't see the harm to the LPGA - if she doesn't do well it may affirm the thoughts of those that say women can't play golf - but they weren't supporters of the LPGA to begin with.
I can' quite figure out why there is such a panic over this.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

this was alluded to in another post, but here's a link to the article where Tiger gives his opinion about Annika playing with the boys:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/913443.asp

In short, he thinks she should get a chance.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Golf is not only strength, it is strategy, skill, and dare I say finesse. The best golfers are not always the longest hitters. I might agree if this were football, basketball, baseball or hockey, but golf is a non-contact sport, (except for those few times when I was in college and my buddies and I would get really drunk and play, but that's another story entirely.) I recognize the biological differences, but in this case, they're largely irrelevant.

You've just exposed your signficant lack of knowledge of the game.

As a general matter, golf is a game of skill and not muscle strength in the way most people think of strength (football, basketball, etc.). But male golfers are strong in ways that female golfers are not. Sorenstam drives the ball quite well for a woman. She may even outdrive some of the (much) smaller men. But I guarantee she will be at least 20-30 yards behind her playing partner on every driving hole at this event. And she can't hit her irons as far either. This will mean that she can never reach a par 5 in two and that she will be trying to land on small, fast greens with 2 and 3 irons on par 4s. I'm sure you know that the higher the number on the iron, the higher the ball flight and the more accurate the shot. Whoever she plays with will be hitting an 8 iron into a green and stopping it on a dime. She'll be lucky to hold the green. The differences are MAJOR.

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
this was alluded to in another post, but here's a link to the article where Tiger gives his opinion about Annika playing with the boys:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/913443.asp

In short, he thinks she should get a chance.

Tiger's right, although he's still a big fucking dork...

[soup sandwich]

Edited to delete duplicate post.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
Alveslohe, Germany -- Tiger Woods not only thinks Annika Sorenstam should play next week's Colonial, he believes she needs several chances to prove she can compete with the men.

"I think it will be more fair to her if she could play four or five tournaments -- then you could judge on those results," Woods said Wednesday before playing in the Deutsche Bank Open. "I'm sure if she did play four or five, she'd get on a roll ... In one tournament a lot could go wrong for her."

Edited to put in this link so y'all don't think I am making it up.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sp...3/14tiger.html

He must be back peddling although, I may have overstated what he said earlier since it was from memory. Here's the quote I'm referring to: "She also brushed off comments by Tiger Woods that a bad showing would set back women's golf."

TM

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Not true. She won the qualifier by playing tees about 10% closer to the hole. For the Greater Hartford Open, she will play from the same tees as the men.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Wrong. http://ydr.com/story/salter/4259 ["she played from forward tees and played 10 percent less of the course than did her male competitors."] But I agree that she deserves to play more than Sorenstam. She qualified for the tournament under the PGA's rules.TM

Originally posted by soup sandwich
There's a world of difference hitting an 8-iron into a green from 160 yards, and hitting a 6-iron from the same distance. The tee box is not the only place on the course where being able to hit it farther is an advantage.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
This will mean that she can never reach a par 5 in two and that she will be trying to land on small, fast greens with 2 and 3 irons on par 4s. I'm sure you know that the higher the number on the iron, the higher the ball flight and the more accurate the shot. Whoever she plays with will be hitting an 8 iron into a green and stopping it on a dime. She'll be lucky to hold the green. The differences are MAJOR.TM

What, is there a fucking echo in here or somehting?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Golf is not only strength, it is strategy, skill, and dare I say finesse.

Certainly, but your point is somewhat weakened by the fact that she is admittedly one of the very few women who can (partially) compete with the men in this event.

Originally posted by spookyfish
And don't imply that I'm PC. I'm offended. You've read plenty of my posts and should know better. Take it back, right now, hobbit! I just fail to see where this is going to cause the earth to tilt off it's axis, that's all.

"Imply"? I thought I was pretty direct! When I want to imply something, bucko, well, you'll know it!

My point is, our desire to build a more fair world notwithstanding, bios trumps ethos, and any attempt to artifically insist on "equality" in large-muscle-group performance is only bound to hurt women more than help them.

Now, if they would play nude, . . .

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by TM
As a general matter, golf is a game of skill and not muscle strength in the way most people think of strength (football, basketball, etc.). But male golfers are strong in ways that female golfers are not. Sorenstam drives the ball quite well for a woman. She may even outdrive some of the (much) smaller men. But I guarantee she will be at least 20-30 yards behind her playing partner on every driving hole at this event. And she can't hit her irons as far either. This will mean that she can never reach a par 5 in two and that she will be trying to land on small, fast greens with 2 and 3 irons on par 4s. I'm sure you know that the higher the number on the iron, the higher the ball flight and the more accurate the shot. Whoever she plays with will be hitting an 8 iron into a green and stopping it on a dime. She'll be lucky to hold the green. The differences are MAJOR.

We'll see. Not everyone can hit the green every single time doofus. The skill in the game comes from consistency, and if she's consistent with HER game - she'll do fine. Case in point - my husband drives the ball about twice as far as I do - 150 yds off the tee is a great day for me. And yet, he has NEVER beaten me. His short game sucks.
No one is expecting her to win - just to make a good showing. You can bet that the guys in the middle of the pack will be watching HER score the whole way - that's additional pressure she won't have.

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I didn't watch the show but I did read the Fox recap. Whoever writes that thinks the show and Hayley and all the men are pretty dumb, you can tell (sort of like a TWoP recap by the station that is putting on the show). Anyway, I will bet any takers that she picks Will and Fox does the stupid fairy-tale ending shit they did on Joe $$$. I have serious doubts that the people picking on those two shows had any actual right to pick. I think that Fox told them who to pick so that Fox could make up the story how they want it to be. The theme in this one will end up being -- she picked for personality, but ended up with her prince charming millionaire instead of the hypnotist scoundrel.

Unless the execs at Fox really hate Hayley, in which case they'll have her pick weirdo hypnotist guy.

n(how jaded must I be that I no longer believe that reality tv is real?)cs

Being a vet of 2 game shows, I really doubt it. There are federal laws re tampering with game show outcomes that have game show producers scared shitless. (By the way, did anyone see that special on the folks who cheated on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?). I don't think that there'd be any blatant tampering going on like NCS suggests. That said, I think there's TONS of subtle tampering on all reality shows. On viewer-vote shows, I think the editing steers the audience to vote for the producer's choice (aka the Julia DiMato incident). On shows like Bachelor, they can send one couple on a date to rainy Phoenix, and another to Hawaii. Oops, well maybe that's not such a good example. But y'all know what I'm saying.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
Tiger gives his opinion about Annika playing with the boys

On a call-in radio show this morning in which almost all of the callers were of a delusional "wouldn't it be cool if she beat Tiger" mentality, someone claimed to know that Woods and Sorenstam are friends and have played informally. In fact (according to this caller, so huge grain of salt), Woods, Sorenstam and Carl Pavano recently played a round. Sorenstam finished third.

(When he isn't golfing, Pavano pitches for the Florida Marlins.)

In fairness, I can't find any confirmation of this anywhere on the net.