Question:
If men are not allowed to compete in the LPGA, why is Suzy Whaley permitted to play in the Greater Hartford Open? Why the hypocrisy? Why the double standard?
Response:
If men are not allowed to compete in the LPGA, why is Suzy Whaley permitted to play in the Greater Hartford Open? Why the hypocrisy? Why the double standard?
Obviously because the standard isn’t set out in the PGA as it is in the LPGA. It probably never crossed the minds of the framers of the PGA by-laws committee that a woman would ever enter one of their tournaments. ___ o ’ | / . "Someone likes every shot" bk Troll intolerant. I took the RSG 2002 Pledge. Ignore them and they’ll go away.
Response:
She won the LPGA Club and Teaching Pro title last month, and she’s not the first woman to enter a PGA qualifying tournament…there have been several others. She’s just the first one who’s won it. More at: http://www.ctnow.com/sports/golf ___ o ’ | / . "Someone likes every shot" bk Troll intolerant. I took the RSG 2002 Pledge. Ignore them and they’ll go away.
Response:
If men are not allowed to compete in the LPGA, why is Suzy Whaley permitted to play in the Greater Hartford Open? Why the hypocrisy? Why the double standard?
Lots of competition have restricted and open events. Open events allow seniors, children, women, employees, students, and disabled players to compete. But we still have a seniors tour, various youth events, employee only events, high school events, disabled events, etc. Nothing wrong with limiting an event to kids under 8. Just recognize that the winner isn’t the absolute best in the world. A half century ago, some open events changed to invitational – so they wouldn’t have to invite blacks. I call the winners of those events champions of whites, instead of champions. The PGA is more inclusive than the LPGA, so its win means more. That’s OK.
Response:
If men are not allowed to compete in the LPGA, why is Suzy Whaley permitted to play in the Greater Hartford Open? Why the hypocrisy? Why the double standard?
Just to clarify: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to be one thing, while actually being or acting in a contrary manner. For example, a person who publicly says one thing, but says or does the opposite in practice is a hypocrite and the act would be hypocrisy. A double standard is to have different requirements for different classes of people. For example, having an unhandicapped (gross score) golf tournament where men played from one set of tees and women played from a different set would be an example of a double standard. OK, what do we have? Well first, "PGA Tour" stands for Professional Golfers of America Tour, not Professional Male Golfers of America and there are no gender requirements in any of the PGA Tour’s rules or conditions of competition. Hence, no hypocrisy. Secondly, if she elects to play in the GHO she will be required to play from the same tees as the men, so no double standard. Thirdly, the woman in question belongs to the PGA. The PGA, PGA Tour and LPGA are 3 separate and distinct organizations, each with their own rules, regulations and requirement. You completely missed whatever target it was you happened to be shooting at by accusing the 2 organizations that had nothing to do with this of both hypocrisy and of having double standards. You just whacked the topic with a broad brush and hoped some of the tar would stick. I’m afraid all that tactic does is make you look uninformed and ignorant. A far better method of getting your point across would have been to point out that the PGA (not LPGA or PGA Tour) allowed her to compete in an unhandicapped tournament from a shorter set of tees than the male players. That is a double standard and would have been a viable point for discussion. But you blew your credibility by attacking the wrong organizations, so we all know that your intent was nothing more than to stir up trouble. — Dan Driscoll Member USGA, NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
Response:
It was not a PGA Tour qualifying tournament. It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner. Since she won, she gets to play in the GHO if she wants. Unless the GHO and the PGA Tour want an all expenses paid trip to Hootie Hell, she doesn’t get uninvited.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – She won the LPGA Club and Teaching Pro title last month, and she’s not the first woman to enter a PGA qualifying tournament…there have been several others. She’s just the first one who’s won it. More at: http://www.ctnow.com/sports/golf ___ o ’ | / . "Someone likes every shot" bk Troll intolerant. I took the RSG 2002 Pledge. Ignore them and they’ll go away.
Response:
PGA events are not restricted by sex unlike the LPGA. PGA events are open to anyone with the skill level to compete, unlike the LPGA. Bottom line is, if there was not a sex restriction for LPGA events, there would be no females cashing a check in an LPGA event. The problem I have is it is my understanding that Suzy Whaley qualified for the GHO from a shorter set of tees. Why is she not required to play from the same set of tees as the men in the qualifier? How does that make sense? Either she is good enough to play (from the same set of tees as all others attempting to qualify) or she is not? Steve
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If men are not allowed to compete in the LPGA, why is Suzy Whaley permitted to play in the Greater Hartford Open? Why the hypocrisy? Why the double standard?
Response:
PGA events are not restricted by sex unlike the LPGA. PGA events are open to anyone with the skill level to compete, unlike the LPGA. Bottom line is, if there was not a sex restriction for LPGA events, there would be no females cashing a check in an LPGA event. The problem I have is it is my understanding that Suzy Whaley qualified for the GHO from a shorter set of tees. Why is she not required to play from the same set of tees as the men in the qualifier? How does that make sense? Either she is good enough to play (from the same set of tees as all others attempting to qualify) or she is not?
She qualified by winning an event (a PGA of America event). That event allowed her to play from a different set of tees. If the GHO is unhappy with her being able to qualify by winning an event run by another organization then the GHO should remove the automatic-qualification for the winner of that event. — http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=hayesd Troll Intolerant: http://rec-sport-golf.com/newsgroup/philosophy.html
Response:
PGA events are not restricted by sex unlike the LPGA. PGA events are open to anyone with the skill level to compete, unlike the LPGA. Bottom line is, if there was not a sex restriction for LPGA events, there would be no females cashing a check in an LPGA event. The problem I have is it is my understanding that Suzy Whaley qualified for the GHO from a shorter set of tees. Why is she not required to play from the same set of tees as the men in the qualifier? How does that make sense? Either she is good enough to play (from the same set of tees as all others attempting to qualify) or she is not? Steve
Apparently, "The rules of competition are established by the local section of the PGA of America, and whatever they set up, we accept," Combs said. "As far as we’re concerned, there’s a spot in the GHO with her name on it." I guess they could have had kiddy tees if they wanted and had the first child qualify and it would be OK with the GHO (any age restriction? I know there is to be on the tour). Maybe it was a way of assuring a woman could get a spot in a PGA Tour event. Great marketing in light of the AN/Hootie fiasco. Dar
Response:
My point is the course she played is 699 yards shorter than what the males played and from my experiance, in general, the farther back the tees you are playing the more difficult the angle to the fairway / green. Would anyone consider it fair if my 3 year old was allowed to play from tees 90% closer than the mens tees instead of the 10% closer she was allowed? Yes she qualified per the rules, congratulations to her. But any sane person must agree that per the rules, the playing field used for all of the players was not the same. I could not care less if a female qualifies as long as they are playing by the same set of rules which in my opinion must include hitting from the same set of tees. GHO. There will be huge pressure on her to play from some groups, especially in light of the Augusta flap. If she does play there will be the glare of the media spotlight. There will be the burden to prove she does belong. There will be par 4s over 460 yards, a 570 yard par 5. The reality is she is a qualifier who played a course 699 yards shorter than the other qualifiers, not an excempt member of the PGA tour so in all probability she is not going to be competative. If she plays and is not somewhat competative, does she help or hurt womens golf? Steve
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – PGA events are not restricted by sex unlike the LPGA. PGA events are open to anyone with the skill level to compete, unlike the LPGA. Bottom line is, if there was not a sex restriction for LPGA events, there would be no females cashing a check in an LPGA event. The problem I have is it is my understanding that Suzy Whaley qualified for the GHO from a shorter set of tees. Why is she not required to play from the same set of tees as the men in the qualifier? How does that make sense? Either she is good enough to play (from the same set of tees as all others attempting to qualify) or she is not? She qualified by winning an event (a PGA of America event). That event allowed her to play from a different set of tees. If the GHO is unhappy with her being able to qualify by winning an event run by another organization then the GHO should remove the automatic-qualification for the winner of that event. — http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=hayesd Troll Intolerant: http://rec-sport-golf.com/newsgroup/philosophy.html
Response:
Apparently, "The rules of competition are established by the local section of the PGA of America, and whatever they set up, we accept," Combs said. "As far as we’re concerned, there’s a spot in the GHO with her name on it." I guess they could have had kiddy tees if they wanted and had the first child qualify and it would be OK with the GHO (any age restriction? I know there is to be on the tour). Maybe it was a way of assuring a woman could get a spot in a PGA Tour event. Great marketing in light of the AN/Hootie fiasco. Dar
Since the qualifying criteria have been in place for quite a few years, and TTBOMK, gender has never been one of those criteria, I somehow doubt that the idea of ‘assuring’ a woman could qualify for a PGA Tour event had anything to do with it. — Dan Driscoll Member USGA, NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
Response:
It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner.
And if she wins the GHO does she qualify for Augusta??? :-) Serious question. There probably isn’t any sexual discriminating language in the Masters’ exemptions, is there?
Response:
Winning a single tournament is no longer sufficient to get invited, see http://www.golfweb.com/tournaments/masters/2002/qualifiers/criteria.html Some of the qualifications seem specific to men – US Open but not the US Women’s Open. If she gets past other filters – top forty on the money list – then Hootie has to let her play or face a real shit storm.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner. And if she wins the GHO does she qualify for Augusta??? :-) Serious question. There probably isn’t any sexual discriminating language in the Masters’ exemptions, is there?
Response:
It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner. And if she wins the GHO does she qualify for Augusta??? :-) Serious question. There probably isn’t any sexual discriminating language in the Masters’ exemptions, is there?
A tournament win doesn’t earn a Masters exemption anymore. See: http://www.masters.org/scores/bios/qualifications.html — http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=hayesd Troll Intolerant: http://rec-sport-golf.com/newsgroup/philosophy.html
Response:
I would highly doubt there is any "sexual discriminating" language in the Masters’ invitation since is no "sexual discriminating" language in the Augusta membership. It just so happens that the members of Augusta have either not invited a female to join or if they have, the female declined the invite. Steve
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner. And if she wins the GHO does she qualify for Augusta??? :-) Serious question. There probably isn’t any sexual discriminating language in the Masters’ exemptions, is there?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Apparently, "The rules of competition are established by the local section of the PGA of America, and whatever they set up, we accept," Combs said. "As far as we’re concerned, there’s a spot in the GHO with her name on it." I guess they could have had kiddy tees if they wanted and had the first child qualify and it would be OK with the GHO (any age restriction? I know there is to be on the tour). Maybe it was a way of assuring a woman could get a spot in a PGA Tour event. Great marketing in light of the AN/Hootie fiasco. Dar Since the qualifying criteria have been in place for quite a few years, and TTBOMK, gender has never been one of those criteria, I somehow doubt that the idea of ‘assuring’ a woman could qualify for a PGA Tour event had anything to do with it. — Dan Driscoll
I think the key word is "could" not "assured". Obviously the sectional is set up so that it is possible for the women PGA Pro to be able to compete with the male PGA Pros. Apparently the sectional rules committee doesn’t feel this is possible using the same tees for all PGA Pros. Pardon the sarcasm in the prior post, but I think this is exactly the case. I agree the GHO is just a winner’s bonus. The GHO organizers have allowed the sectional winner regardless of sex (which I agree with) and regardless that a different course was played (which I don’t). If you don’t think tee boxes translate to a difference in course just try playing a few different rounds from the various tees. An extreme analogy is affirmative action, different standards for different groups of people to "level" the playing field. At this level of competitive sports, I don’t think there is a place for it. And to think I’m one of the guys that enjoys golfing with his wife and often loses (full handicaps) with her playing different tees. Dar
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Apparently, "The rules of competition are established by the local section of the PGA of America, and whatever they set up, we accept," Combs said. "As far as we’re concerned, there’s a spot in the GHO with her name on it." I guess they could have had kiddy tees if they wanted and had the first child qualify and it would be OK with the GHO (any age restriction? I know there is to be on the tour). Maybe it was a way of assuring a woman could get a spot in a PGA Tour event. Great marketing in light of the AN/Hootie fiasco. Dar Since the qualifying criteria have been in place for quite a few years, and TTBOMK, gender has never been one of those criteria, I somehow doubt that the idea of ‘assuring’ a woman could qualify for a PGA Tour event had anything to do with it. — Dan Driscoll I think the key word is "could" not "assured". Obviously the sectional is set up so that it is possible for the women PGA Pro to be able to compete with the male PGA Pros. Apparently the sectional rules committee doesn’t feel this is possible using the same tees for all PGA Pros. Pardon the sarcasm in the prior post, but I think this is exactly the case.
Your post might carry more weight if it included some facts regarding the number of times that PGA (of America) female-pros have competed against the male-pros using different tees and what the results were in those events. I agree the GHO is just a winner’s bonus. The GHO organizers have allowed the sectional winner regardless of sex (which I agree with) and regardless that a different course was played (which I don’t). If you don’t think tee boxes translate to a difference in course just try playing a few different rounds from the various tees. An extreme analogy is affirmative action, different standards for different groups of people to "level" the playing field. At this level of competitive sports, I don’t think there is a place for it. And to think I’m one of the guys that enjoys golfing with his wife and often loses (full handicaps) with her playing different tees.
Are you aware that the USGA handicap manual suggests that an adjustment be made when players are competing from different sets of tees ? In any event, I doubt that your matches with your wife are the least bit relevant to the Whaley/GHO case. — http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=hayesd Troll Intolerant: http://rec-sport-golf.com/newsgroup/philosophy.html
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – PGA events are not restricted by sex unlike the LPGA. PGA events are open to anyone with the skill level to compete, unlike the LPGA. Bottom line is, if there was not a sex restriction for LPGA events, there would be no females cashing a check in an LPGA event. The problem I have is it is my understanding that Suzy Whaley qualified for the GHO from a shorter set of tees. Why is she not required to play from the same set of tees as the men in the qualifier? How does that make sense? Either she is good enough to play (from the same set of tees as all others attempting to qualify) or she is not? She qualified by winning an event (a PGA of America event). That event allowed her to play from a different set of tees. If the GHO is unhappy with her being able to qualify by winning an event run by another organization then the GHO should remove the automatic-qualification for the winner of that event. —
Agreed! But I don’t think they are unhappy about it. It comes off as very PC and offsets the black eye golf has gotten as a result of the Burk/Hootie tryst. They are allowing a woman to play under the pretense of fairness. However, now she has to play the same tees/course as the other competitors. I’m sure she could have requested to play from the "men’s" tees in the sectional. Now, unfortunately, her game has yet to prove to be up to it since she qualified at a different standard/course than the other competitors. Likely just going give the male gender bigots more ammunition if she does… women don’t belong etc. Dar
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Apparently, "The rules of competition are established by the local section of the PGA of America, and whatever they set up, we accept," Combs said. "As far as we’re concerned, there’s a spot in the GHO with her name on it." I guess they could have had kiddy tees if they wanted and had the first child qualify and it would be OK with the GHO (any age restriction? I know there is to be on the tour). Maybe it was a way of assuring a woman could get a spot in a PGA Tour event. Great marketing in light of the AN/Hootie fiasco. Dar Since the qualifying criteria have been in place for quite a few years, and TTBOMK, gender has never been one of those criteria, I somehow doubt that the idea of ‘assuring’ a woman could qualify for a PGA Tour event had anything to do with it. — Dan Driscoll I think the key word is "could" not "assured". Obviously the sectional is set up so that it is possible for the women PGA Pro to be able to compete with the male PGA Pros. Apparently the sectional rules committee doesn’t feel this is possible using the same tees for all PGA Pros. Pardon the sarcasm in the prior post, but I think this is exactly the case. Your post might carry more weight if it included some facts regarding the number of times that PGA (of America) female-pros have competed against the male-pros using different tees and what the results were in those events.
True, but considering women PGA pros are hardly a rare commodity, I assume it’s not rare they take the opportunity to play in the tournaments. Not sure what outcome has to do with it, although if they could compete from the same tees the PGA would have them do it and I would wager it is common practice. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree the GHO is just a winner’s bonus. The GHO organizers have allowed the sectional winner regardless of sex (which I agree with) and regardless that a different course was played (which I don’t). If you don’t think tee boxes translate to a difference in course just try playing a few different rounds from the various tees. An extreme analogy is affirmative action, different standards for different groups of people to "level" the playing field. At this level of competitive sports, I don’t think there is a place for it. And to think I’m one of the guys that enjoys golfing with his wife and often loses (full handicaps) with her playing different tees. Are you aware that the USGA handicap manual suggests that an adjustment be made when players are competing from different sets of tees ?
Really? Never knew that. Did you know that slope varies with the tees used? Maybe the two are connected. That just supports the point that the competitors in this case played different courses. In any event, I doubt that your matches with your wife are the least bit relevant to the Whaley/GHO case.
No, but it does show that I’m not averse to playing golf and competeing with women despite the obvious differences. I’m not objecting to the gender just the way the "first women" to play in a pga tournament got there. Just an opinion, (footnotes and bib to follow) Dar
Response:
Hootie’s argument which has not been challenged is that the tournament and the club membership are two different things so your linkage of them is weak at best. The qualifications do descrimiante on the basis of sex. The winners of the US Open are invited, but not the Winners of the US Women’s Open.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would highly doubt there is any "sexual discriminating" language in the Masters’ invitation since is no "sexual discriminating" language in the Augusta membership. It just so happens that the members of Augusta have either not invited a female to join or if they have, the female declined the invite. Steve It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner. And if she wins the GHO does she qualify for Augusta??? :-) Serious question. There probably isn’t any sexual discriminating language in the Masters’ exemptions, is there?
Response:
I think the key word is "could" not "assured". Obviously the sectional is set up so that it is possible for the women PGA Pro to be able to compete with the male PGA Pros. Apparently the sectional rules committee doesn’t feel this is possible using the same tees for all PGA Pros. Pardon the sarcasm in the prior post, but I think this is exactly the case. Your post might carry more weight if it included some facts regarding the number of times that PGA (of America) female-pros have competed against the male-pros using different tees and what the results were in those events.
Actually, your post would carry more weight if women would have ever shown they can compete with men. Like JeffC has pointed out many times, no woman has ever qualified for the US Open. If they could, they would have by now. Whether women pros have success or not from forward tees is irrelevant. When you "move up" so to speak, you have to be able to compete on those terms, not on terms that might "make it fair for you". Actually I hope she plays. I don’t think they can get away with her playing a different set of tees. And then we can see once and for all…
Response:
It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner. And if she wins the GHO does she qualify for Augusta??? :-) Serious question. There probably isn’t any sexual discriminating language in the Masters’ exemptions, is there?
The Master’s is totally discriminating….its by invitation only. There’s no qualifying. ___, o | / . "Someone likes every shot" bk
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner. And if she wins the GHO does she qualify for Augusta??? :-) Serious question. There probably isn’t any sexual discriminating language in the Masters’ exemptions, is there? The Master’s is totally discriminating….its by invitation only. There’s no qualifying.
Not really true. It is an Invitational, which gives the Masters committee some latitude to get the right guys in. But, there is certainly qualifing criteria for automatic Top finishers in Majors. Top 50 on $ list Previous Master’s Champs Winner and runner-up of USGA AM Winner British AM Brad – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ___, o | / . "Someone likes every shot" bk
Response:
No longer a true invitational. Currently, if you accomplish certain things, you will be invited. See http://www.golfweb.com/tournaments/masters/2002/qualifiers/criteria.html for the 2002 criteria. I assume they reserve the right to invite additional players. If a women meets one of the published qualifications and doesn’t get an invite she and her lawyers will probably be the new owners of a certain golf course in Georgia.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a sectional PGA of America Tournament and the GHO gives an exemption to the winner. And if she wins the GHO does she qualify for Augusta??? :-) Serious question. There probably isn’t any sexual discriminating language in the Masters’ exemptions, is there? The Master’s is totally discriminating….its by invitation only. There’s no qualifying. ___, o | / . "Someone likes every shot" bk
Response:
The Master’s is totally discriminating….its by invitation only. There’s no qualifying. Not really true. It is an Invitational, which gives the Masters committee some latitude to get the right guys in. But, there is certainly qualifing criteria for automatic
You’re right… ___, o | / . "Someone likes every shot" bk