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

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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.

I've heard that John Smoltz beat her as well, although he's a scratch golfer (but nonetheless a MLB pitcher and not a pro golfer).

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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.

Typical sports talk radio. I heard the same story, but with John Smoltz as the golfing pitcher.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by bilmore

Now, if they would play nude, . . .

I know you're totally kidding, but that comment is just asking for trouble.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
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.

I think this is a good point. But your argument essentially is, people aren't as interested in women's sports as they are in men's and the only reason why Serena and women's tennis is so successful is because it is completely linked to men's sports. Therefore, Sorenstam needs to identify herself with men (or the best because in this case the two are interchangeable) in order to achieve similar success.

I think this is unhealthy. I think that she should continue to dominate against women and the LPGA and everyone else should look into why women's sports and women's golf (in specific) isn't as popular. Maybe the answer is as simple as, "people want to watch the best." But I don't think that's true because I would rather watch women's tennis than men's any day. So what is it?

TM

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
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.

I think I may know who you are.












Dick Gautier?

[tmdiva]

I liked the format--I don't remember any time last season where the contestants sang three different songs in a night.

Kim: She had the best overall showing of the night. She sang the least familiar songs (Band of Gold; Anyone Who Had a Heart; Inseparable)--I was only vaguely familiar with the second one, and not at all with the other two. Anyone Who Had a Heart was her weakest performance--it seemed like maybe it was keyed wrong for her. Last year, what finally sealed Kelly as the winner over Justin (for me and my family) was how much better she was at selling a song unfamiliar to the audience. Kim has this ability.

Ruben: I love this guy, and would definitely buy his album, but this was not his best night, and his voice sounded raspy and tired. He seemed out of breath on Signed, Sealed, Delivered (too much dancing?), and on the Peabo Bryson song his pitch seemed a little off and he missed the high note at the end. Smile was GREAT.

Clay: I think you've got to be right, the producers have it out for him--they're probably just trying to even the playing field. On Vincent, he missed more than just a couple of words--more like several lines of lyrics in the bridge and reprise. This song (hello, about a tragic suicide!) really showed off his lack of emotional range. Mack the Knife was suitably cheesy and shallow for him, and he did perform it like a Vegas headliner, except that his tux didn't fit--what a pencil neck! Unchained Melody is a great song, but I think the too-fast arrangement was calculated to ruin it and succeeded in doing so (though he did hit the high note nicely).

Bottom two should be: Clay and Ruben, with Clay going home.

Bottom two will be: Clay and Kim. I can only hope my hour of pressing redial will help her avoid the axe. If not, may she go on to a career of at least Tamyra Grey quality.

tm

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
I know you're totally kidding, but that comment is just asking for trouble.

Kidding?

Asking?

(Running?)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
...and the only reason why Serena and women's tennis is so successful is because it is completely linked to men's sports. Therefore, Sorenstam needs to identify herself with men (or the best because in this case the two are interchangeable) in order to achieve similar success.

TM

Serena has identified herself with men by looking like one.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
General comments no spoilers. That sucked. The dialogue sucked, the episode was poorly edited, and everything was just ugh.

Cut them some slack. Penultimate episodes are gonna be disappointing. And it's gotta be especially hard to set everything up for a season finale when you don't know whether it's also the series finale.

Of course, there was also a lot of wasted time last night. Who the fuck cares if Anya and Andrew get to be best buds?

Joss was certainly lucky that WB ran the Angel season finale the week before UPN ran this episode, so he could do the whole folder/medallion/go to Sunnydale thing. For rival networks, they've turned out to be pretty accomodating.

[Edited because I really do know the difference between a season and a series finale]

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
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

Okay, Johnny Miller. Allow me to concede the obvious that, in general men are stronger and are able to exert more leverage than women which gives them a natural advantage with the game. That said, let's just look at the statistics for driving distance as a measure (Let me also concede that I'm well aware that there are other measures which could be used, but since you brought it up originally, we'll just use it).

Men's
http://www.pgatour.com/stats/r_101.html

Woman's
http://www.golfweb.com/stats/lpga/distance.htm

Annika has a better distance off the tee than a fair (not enormous) number of men on the tour. John Daly has the greatest distance off the tee, but how many tournaments has he won this year? Tiger is farther down the list than I expected (Currently 48th), and how many has he won this year? Furthermore, there are tournament winners this year who are not appreciably longer hitters than Annika (Scott Hoch, anyone?)

My point, which should be obvious, even to golf experts such as yourself, is that you can win (or let's just settle for being competitive in) a tournament without being the longest hitter, off the tee or otherwise. We could make other comparisons, but then you're getting into apples and oranges, b/c women play off the shorter boxes. Do I think Annika can win? No. Do I think she deserves a chance to compete? Why not? Someone brought up Arnie and Jack playing in the Masters long after their days of consistent competitiveness were over. How is this all that different, except for her um, equipment?

[Dualit]

Originally posted by fufu
MJ is black?

MJ is male?:eek2:

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Typical sports talk radio.

Actually, no. It's a Triple-A format station. They just have a lot of call-in stuff on the morning show.

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone I heard the same story, but with John Smoltz as the golfing pitcher.

Shit. I misremembered. It was Smoltz. No wonder I couldn't find any confirmation.

http://www.golfserv.com/gdc/news/article.asp?id=11302

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think this is a good point. But your argument essentially is, people aren't as interested in women's sports as they are in men's and the only reason why Serena and women's tennis is so successful is because it is completely linked to men's sports. Therefore, Sorenstam needs to identify herself with men (or the best because in this case the two are interchangeable) in order to achieve similar success.

I think this is unhealthy. I think that she should continue to dominate against women and the LPGA and everyone else should look into why women's sports and women's golf (in specific) isn't as popular. Maybe the answer is as simple as, "people want to watch the best." But I don't think that's true because I would rather watch women's tennis than men's any day. So what is it?

TM

I don't think the argument boils down that way. I agree that such a view would be unhealty. But I was really talking about the visibility of the sport, not about people's inherent interest in it. People tend to be interested in what's visible, for better (tennis) or worse (the Bachelor). Women's tennis became more visible, and thus generated more interest, because it was linked to the visible tour. Women's tennis is now successful not because it's linked to men's tennis, but because the link gave the women the opportunity to show off -- which the Williams sisters have done in spectacular style.

It's unfortunate that it had to come about that way, but the results show just how silly it is to banish the women's game to second tier status. You are not alone in finding women's tennis to be that much more interesting -- in fact, some people think that women's tennis is what's keeping the pro tour alive.

Annika's making a strong showing in a PGA event may increase visibility and may help make women's golf more popular, but it would be a shame if it pulled women away from LPGA events in favor of competing in the PGA. But barring a total revolution in the way that the tours are organized so that the women can benefit from the PGA tour's pre-existing visibility (i.e. setting it up so that the men's and women's US Open, etc. occur during the same period with alternate days/times of play) women's golf just won't reach the same level of popularity. TV only has so many minutes it will devote to golf, and TV execs don't want to sacrifice advertising revenue for the sake of advancing the women's game.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think this is unhealthy. I think that she should continue to dominate against women and the LPGA and everyone else should look into why women's sports and women's golf (in specific) isn't as popular. Maybe the answer is as simple as, "people want to watch the best." But I don't think that's true because I would rather watch women's tennis than men's any day. So what is it?

TM

Generally, women's sports are not as exciting to watch (unless you are there in person, then it's exciting). Tennis is the exception - women's is more exciting to watch than men's because the finesse is greater in the women's game than the men. People like Venus and Serena, in my opinion, threaten to turn it into the slam fest that is the men's tour. Although I can't stand her, I'd prefer to watch Hingis than the Williams sisters any day.

Men's golf is more exciting than women's. I don't know why - men just seem to make more spectacular shots than women (short and long). And they put better, so you get those incredible long puts.

At least this is just my opinion - mens sports are generally more exciting to me.

This writer a few years ago made a comparison to mens sports played around the turn of the century and women's sports today. He argued that the men's hockey of the turn of the century is the women's hockey today. I am not sure if that is true, but it strikes me that probably men's tennis was more exciting way back when before it became such a game of power.

And I have about 10 different conflicting opinions about merging men's and women's sports, but I have to say that I admire Hayley Wickenheiser - going to Finland to play men's hockey because that is where the game is at her level. She's scoring goals and taking checks and everything. If you have to play with the men to play at your proper level, you should be allowed to, I think. Annika, unfortunately is between levels - better than the women but not nearly as good as the men. It must kind of suck to be her, in a way.

[ABBAKiss]

I totally heart Ed Norton, but he is not nearly as "fancy" as Brad Pitt. Please revert to the Brad Pitt avatar. Or send me my Brad Pitt G-string already.