Golfers Wiki » womens golf

Annika's Behaviour on 18th Is Regrettable

admin — Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Tiger and the embedded boulder movers were no better. Since when is taking advantage of the rules bad sportsmanship?

Ever since there was a ruleset that didn’t include a requirement for good sportmanship. There is no other connection between sportmanship and rules other than it is unsportsmanlike to intentionally break them to gain an advantage. (Cheat) Is it against the rules to intentionally step on someones putting line or the extension of it? "Casually" commenting the water on the left? Exuberant celebration every time you win a hole in match play (While watching your opponent in the eye)? — -asbjxrn

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since when is taking advantage of the rules bad sportsmanship? Ever since there was a ruleset that didn’t include a requirement for good sportmanship. There is no other connection between sportmanship and rules other than it is unsportsmanlike to intentionally break them to gain an advantage. (Cheat) Is it against the rules to intentionally step on someones putting line or the extension of it? "Casually" commenting the water on the left? Exuberant celebration every time you win a hole in match play (While watching your opponent in the eye)? — -asbjxrn

I think you’re missing my point, perhaps on purpose. Getting a correct drop is not quite the same insult as the examples you’ve suggested. Perhaps you’d argue with a player who takes relief from a lateral hazard differently than you might, but if it’s within the rules it can hardly be called bad sportsmanhip. You’re suggesting outright unsportsmanship acts. I’m sure you understand the difference.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My impression is that it was not Annika that was the problem. It was the rules official. She did not take charge of the situation and state what needed to happen. The guys in the booth had it figured out in seconds. They knew it would be a 2 drop process and had they been in charge it would been drop, drop and hit it… no more than 5 minutes tops. But the real point is… man… what a lousy shot that put here there in the first place! This is surprising, given that Kendra Graham, the USGA’s rules guru, wa sthe official on the spot. Actually, although the process was slow, it seemed to me to be conducted couteously and professionally.

That much is true… it was not chaos by any means. But the official didn’t step up and say you get relief… drop here. Okay now you get relief again… drop here. Now hit it. There was a lot needless (IMO) walking to and fro and to and fro and to and fro. There was no raising of voices or beratinf of officials. If you are playing for the most important title in womens’ golf, I think it is better to take a little more time and get it right.

Only if you can’t get it right in less time… And I really don’t see why it took so long. As I said the guys in the booth (and Fay I beleive) called it right in an instant. If was several minutes after that before Annakia’s caddie even retrieved the ball. All wasted from my point of view. I think it was a failure to simply focus on one drop at a time that caused the extra delay.

Response:

or the so-called best player to try and cheat for better position is really sad. After her first drop she tried to imply that the board was in her way because she "would normally play to the right of the flag", even though the rule says relief is based on a straight line to the flag. What utter nonsense. She wasn’t trying to cheat, she had a legitimate question as to whether she could drop again because of her intended line. The TV announcers were saying how she was the *ONLY* player to ever attend a rules seminar. It’s hard to believe she wouldn’t have known the correct ruling before she ever opened her mouth.

I’ve seen rules officials have to ask for advice from other officials. Just happened a month or so ago when a PGA tourney was playing in lift clean and place rules. After the player set the ball down (I forget who it was) the ball moved, and he needed a ruling. The official on hand didn’t know what to do, and radioed another official.

Response:

I don’t see anything wrong with stating one’s case. It’s wrong IF you know the correct ruling will give you an unfavorable ball placement. Maybe she didn’t. And if she did not, then she, in the most polite of terms, is a poor student.

So what’s your evidence that she knew the correct ruling? Hell, the official sure didn’t seem to know what to do, as it took 15 minutes to resolve it. It’s not like she had a big hissy fit. But she did. She came across to me like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum. It was disgusting.

More nonsense. The rules can be a bit obscure sometimes, even to a person who attended a rules seminar in 1997. Obscure? You sound like someone who is blinded by loyalty.

Of course some of them are obscure. That’s why there’s an entire section in the rules book devoted to "decisions", because it’s obvious that under certain circumstances, the rules can be interpreted various ways.

Response:

KENDRA GRAHAM: No, it was one drop.

Fair enough. I find the following interesting for those who think Annika should have known EXACTLY what to do. Even the official had to ask for confirmation on the ruling: KENDRA GRAHAM: Well, you know, it’s been a long, busy week, and I just — I just kind of went through it step-by-step and wanted to make sure I had confirmation from Marsha Luigs, who is the walking rules official with the group, just make sure my thought process was correct.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah, I couldn’t believe that Annika would take so much time trying to finagle a second drop. I think part of her strategy was to "ice" her competitors who were waiting behind her. I don’t think golf should be played like that. It was very unbecoming of her. I’m just thankful that her strategy didn’t work. You really don’t know what you’re talking about. She *DID* take, and was entitled to two drops. The first drop was relief from the fence, the second drop was relief from the scoreboard. Just because your hatred for certain players is obvious doesn’t change what happened out there. She entitled to question the ruling as well, and did so in a polite and professional manner. I seem to remember Tiger getting relief from some TV cabling because of his *INTENDED* line of play a year or two ago. He was behind a tree, and the drops that he took gave him a relatively wide open shot.

I was under the impression that she took one drop. http://www.uswomensopen.com/press/interviews/graham_sun.html RHONDA GLENN: The first drop, the first relief from the fence. KENDRA GRAHAM: No, it was all one process, it was just one drop. It was just one drop. RHONDA GLENN: They were saying on television she was going to take two drops. KENDRA GRAHAM: No, it was one drop. — http://rec-sport-golf.com/?rc=hayesd

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – or the so-called best player to try and cheat for better position is really sad. After her first drop she tried to imply that the board was in her way because she "would normally play to the right of the flag", even though the rule says relief is based on a straight line to the flag. What utter nonsense. She wasn’t trying to cheat, she had a legitimate question as to whether she could drop again because of her intended line. The TV announcers were saying how she was the *ONLY* player to ever attend a rules seminar. It’s hard to believe she wouldn’t have known the correct ruling before she ever opened her mouth. Jack I don’t see anything wrong with stating one’s case. It’s wrong IF you know the correct ruling will give you an unfavorable ball placement. Maybe she didn’t. And if she did not, then she, in the most polite of terms, is a poor student. It’s not like she had a big hissy fit. But she did. She came across to me like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum. It was disgusting. The rules can be a bit obscure sometimes, even to a person who attended a rules seminar in 1997. Obscure? You sound like someone who is blinded by loyalty. Jack

I just read an interview with the official who made the call. It’s at: http://www.uswomensopen.com/press/interviews/graham_sun.html and if you read it, you will see that the ruling was complex, that there were a number of factors for the decision taking so long, and that Annika behaved in a professional manner (in the official’s opinion). — Jim Sabatke Hire Me!! – See my resume at http://my.execpc.com/~jsabatke Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Response:

My impression is that it was not Annika that was the problem. It was the rules official. She did not take charge of the situation and state what needed to happen. The guys in the booth had it figured out in seconds. They knew it would be a 2 drop process and had they been in charge it would been drop, drop and hit it… no more than 5 minutes tops. But the real point is… man… what a lousy shot that put here there in the first place!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah, I couldn’t believe that Annika would take so much time trying to finagle a second drop. I think part of her strategy was to "ice" her competitors who were waiting behind her. I don’t think golf should be played like that. It was very unbecoming of her. I’m just thankful that her strategy didn’t work. @newssvr16.news.prodigy.com: Could you see Jack Nicklaus acting the same as Annika..knowing the two leaders were in the fairway behind him? What about Tiger? Ernie? Gary Player…maybe. It was not Annika’s finest hour… or the so-called best player to try and cheat for better position is really sad. After her first drop she tried to imply that the board was in her way because she "would normally play to the right of the flag", even though the rule says relief is based on a straight line to the flag. This is one of the reasons why I can’t support Annika. She is a poor sport, a selfish self-promotor and basically a loser, considering her talents. I really don’t see any thing wrong with trying to ice or intimidate your

opponents. I think its called gamesmanship. All is fair in love, war, and golf. Taz – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

You really don’t know what you’re talking about. She *DID* take, and was entitled to two drops. The first drop was relief from the fence, the second drop was relief from the scoreboard. Just because your hatred for certain players is obvious doesn’t change what happened out there. She entitled to question the ruling as well, and did so in a polite and professional manner. I seem to remember Tiger getting relief from some TV cabling because of his *INTENDED* line of play a year or two ago. He was behind a tree, and the drops that he took gave him a relatively wide open shot.

Response:

This is surprising, given that Kendra Graham, the USGA’s rules guru, wa sthe official on the spot. Actually, although the process was slow, it seemed to me to be conducted couteously and professionally. There was no raising of voices or beratinf of officials. If you are playing for the most important title in womens’ golf, I think it is better to take a little more time and get it right. William Clark

Response:

It was shameful that the best player would try to a) pressure the rules

official b) play the hole in an illegal manner. Tiger and the embedded boulder movers were no better.

Response:

Tiger and the embedded boulder movers were no better.

Since when is taking advantage of the rules bad sportsmanship?

Response:

But she did. She came across to me like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum. It was disgusting.< You obviously were watching something that I didn’t see. IMO she handled it pretty well, along with the post round interview. Chris S.

Then I guess you and I both saw and heard the same thing, Chris. As she said in the post round interview, she hit it in there so she had to take the lumps. I thought she handled it pretty well indeed. Her questioning of the ruling was if it applied only to line of sight to the pin, or intended line of the shot. The US Women’s Open title was on the line, so she had to be sure she had the correct ruling, especially on where to measure her point of relief and where her options were for the drop. That said, it did take a bit long to get it all decided. I think we could all name certain players on both mens and women’s tours who would not have handled the situation or the post round interview as gracefully. — David Hi-Tech Turf – Synthetic Turf Applications RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members?rollcall=sneddond email: dsneddon AT cogeco DOT ca

Response:

Could you see Jack Nicklaus acting the same as Annika..knowing the two leaders were in the fairway behind him? What about Tiger? Ernie? Gary Player…maybe. It was not Annika’s finest hour…

Response:

But she did. She came across to me like a spoiled brat throwing a

tantrum. It was disgusting.< You obviously were watching something that I didn’t see. IMO she handled it pretty well, along with the post round interview. Chris S.

Response:

The ‘Rukr" in question was said to be a local rule given to the players at the start of teh event. It’s easy to see how there may be some confusion, because if there’s a wire or the like (like a cart path) that interefers with your intended line of play (and it need not be towards the hole) you aare intitled to relief. That was probably covered in the course she took. I don’t know of a rule that specifies the interference counts only if it’s in the direction of the hole. Asking for a ruling sure makes sense. We play by the rules when they make things more difficult, there’s no harm in seeing if they can make things easier. An example of interference of the sort I mentioned is if you’re a right handed player, your ball is on the side of the cart path away from the fairway, on a dog leg left, so that the path would not interfer if you were going to the green (so no relief would be available) , but it would be if your intention was to chip to the fairway.

Response:

Yeah, I couldn’t believe that Annika would take so much time trying to finagle a second drop. I think part of her strategy was to "ice" her competitors who were waiting behind her. I don’t think golf should be played like that. It was very unbecoming of her. I’m just thankful that her strategy didn’t work. @newssvr16.news.prodigy.com: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could you see Jack Nicklaus acting the same as Annika..knowing the two leaders were in the fairway behind him? What about Tiger? Ernie? Gary Player…maybe. It was not Annika’s finest hour… or the so-called best player to try and cheat for better position is really sad. After her first drop she tried to imply that the board was in her way because she "would normally play to the right of the flag", even though the rule says relief is based on a straight line to the flag. This is one of the reasons why I can’t support Annika. She is a poor sport, a selfish self-promotor and basically a loser, considering her talents.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – or the so-called best player to try and cheat for better position is really sad. After her first drop she tried to imply that the board was in her way because she "would normally play to the right of the flag", even though the rule says relief is based on a straight line to the flag. What utter nonsense. She wasn’t trying to cheat, she had a legitimate question as to whether she could drop again because of her intended line. The TV announcers were saying how she was the *ONLY* player to ever attend a rules seminar. It’s hard to believe she wouldn’t have known the correct ruling before she ever opened her mouth. Jack I don’t see anything wrong with stating one’s case. It’s wrong IF you know the correct ruling will give you an unfavorable ball placement. Maybe she didn’t. And if she did not, then she, in the most polite of terms, is a poor student. It’s not like she had a big hissy fit. But she did. She came across to me like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum. It was disgusting.

Exactly. She and her caddy were actually negotiating with the rules official, trying to get around the rules. Her caddy suggested "what if we’re aiming right of the flag?" This tells me that they knew the rule that offers relief if you do not have a clear shot in a direct line to the flag. It was shameful that the best player would try to a) pressure the rules official b) play the hole in an illegal manner.

Response:

Nah, I just try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Actually, when I met Annika I thought she was rather rude. I have other favorites on the tour. I still admire her game though. — Jim Sabatke Hire Me!! – See my resume at http://my.execpc.com/~jsabatke Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Response:

What utter nonsense. She wasn’t trying to cheat, she had a legitimate question as to whether she could drop again because of her intended line. She didn’t argue with the rules official, she questioned the rules official, and accepted the answer. Get a life.

Response:

I don’t see anything wrong with stating one’s case. It’s not like she had a big hissy fit. The rules can be a bit obscure sometimes, even to a person who attended a rules seminar in 1997. — Jim Sabatke Hire Me!! – See my resume at http://my.execpc.com/~jsabatke Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Response:

Mickelson's statement on Annika —-

admin — Tue, 13 May 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Tiger Woods used sponsor exemptions for his first few tourney when he joined the tour. How else could he have avoided Q-school.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe Vijay’s view is colored by the fact that he had to work for years in all of the minor league tours to get to the big show and now resents it being handed to Annika on a silver platter. Sponsor’s exemptions have been around for a long time. Has he been resentful for that time? How did he start his PGA tour? Did he use sponsors’ exemptions? He might have, having had foreign experience. Anybody know?

Response:

Typo . . .so he would NOT have to go to . . . .

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tiger Woods didn’t qualify either when he started the tour. He used sponsor exemptions for his first few tourneys so he would have to go to Q school. Why shouldn’t she play? She didn’t qualify !!!! Peter H Let her slug it out is Q-School like everyone else.

Response:

Sure is. Wonder what would happen if Annika replied that she wouldn’t play with Singh because he is a cheat.

I bet he’s scared of her making man-tits jokes while they’re waiting to tee off. That’s one more thing Phil isn’t afraid of that Veej is. –Blair "Singh can start the WWMTGA: the World-Wide Man-Tits Golf Association. Phil and Monty would probably rule him, though."

Response:

Annika shouldn’t be playing on the tour. I fully agree with Vijay and I appreciate his candor. Do you like the fact he is a cheat? Memory Man

I caught another hint of this the other day. May have even been in this thread. What is the story if Vijay cheating then? IS it ‘alleged’ cheating or was he caught with ‘his hands in the till’ so to speak?

Response:

He was suspended from the tour – but not by a court of law. Maybe he was falsely convicted. He doesn’t talk about it. He’s not at all popular in Fiji. He was also kicked out of Australia after he borrowed money to pay his fees and failed to pay the money back.

Response:

Maybe Vijay’s view is colored by the fact that he had to work for years in all of the minor league tours to get to the big show and now resents it being handed to Annika on a silver platter.

Sponsor’s exemptions have been around for a long time. Has he been resentful for that time? How did he start his PGA tour? Did he use sponsors’ exemptions? He might have, having had foreign experience. Anybody know?

Response:

Tiger Woods didn’t qualify either when he started the tour. He used sponsor exemptions for his first few tourneys so he would have to go to Q school.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why shouldn’t she play? She didn’t qualify !!!! Peter H Let her slug it out is Q-School like everyone else.

Response:

Annika shouldn’t be playing on the tour. I fully agree with Vijay and I appreciate his candor.

Do you like the fact he is a cheat? Memory Man

Response:

Not all men that enter PGA tournaments play well.

[snip] What happens if Annika doesn’t play well?

[snip]

Response:

not the "Men’s PGA" , not the "Whites Only PGA" , not the "US players only much anyone who meets the requirements…….

Just like the LPGA, and every other organization in the world, for that matter. Nice statement by Phil again IMO and I for one am disappointed in VJ’s of these pros but I’m still surprised by his response to all this and IMO the added "I won’t play if I’m paired with her" is really ridiculous

Vijay said that? Do you have the quote? Yes, that is ridiculously ridiculous.

Response:

Why shouldn’t she play? She didn’t qualify !!!!

You couldn’t be more wrong, or more ignorant.

Response:

What respect is due when she qualified in a rigged game? Granted it is not her fault because she didn’t make the rules, but the bottom line is that she did not qualify under the rules that applied to all of the male players and she *is* taking a spot away from the male player. Her situation is the worst of reverse discrimination. I would have respect for her if she came out and said, "It is a great honor to have been awarded this entry into the Hartford but in all honesty I didn’t play the same course as the men did and I don’t think it would be the right thing to do to accept this entry since I did not earn it on a level playing field." certainly a purely political statement. Also, while I think Vijay’s statement saying he would not play with her is ridiculous at best, his opinion is not in the minority. He just had the guts/lack of brains to state his opinion. I’ll be asking him about this later this summer. He plays a few times every year where I work. It’s one of his favorite courses in the world.

Maybe Vijay’s view is colored by the fact that he had to work for years in all of the minor league tours to get to the big show and now resents it being handed to Annika on a silver platter. Rich

Response:

Hope so. Hope people remind him that he is a cheat.

May every stupid thing you did at age 22 haunt you for the rest of your life. Rich

Response:

I bet it had something to do with the Colonial sponsor extending the invitation to Annika. I heard something about what it means for Whaley on the radio this morning, and I think whoever said it was restaring that she had said, but the gist was that Annika playing Colonial will take a lot of the circus out of Whaley’s turn at Hartford, and will make it that much easier for her to relax and play. –Blair "Meanwhile, Tiger’s running scared."

Response:

snip these pros but I’m still surprised by his response to all this and IMO the added "I won’t play if I’m paired with her" is really ridiculous

Sure is. Wonder what would happen if Annika replied that she wouldn’t play with Singh because he is a cheat. and he’ll probably get some flack during the next few weeks on tour from

Hope so. Hope people remind him that he is a cheat. Memory Man

Response:

I wonder how much of a factor Suzy Whaley had in Annika’s decision to play Colonial before she plays in the Hartford? My thinking is she wanted or was asked to play before Whaley shoots 160+ at Hartford. I have all the respect in the world for Whaley who qualified for Hartford. But should she play? Will it help Womens golf? What happens if Annika doesn’t play well? Will Whaley still play in Hartford? Interesting questions that will be answered soon. FWIW Phil Mickelson saying he thinks Annika will finish top 20 is hilarious and certainly a purely political statement. Also, while I think Vijay’s statement saying he would not play with her is ridiculous at best, his opinion is not in the minority. He just had the guts/lack of brains to state his opinion. I’ll be asking him about this later this summer. He plays a few times every year where I work. It’s one of his favorite courses in the world. Asst. Caddiemaster, SHGC

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I personally like the statement Phil Mickelson made about Annika Sorenstam …… he stated that he had no problem with her playing and that "it is’nt the absolutely correct IMO … the LPGA is definetly a ladies tour and it says so …. not the "Men’s PGA" , not the "Whites Only PGA" , not the "US players only much anyone who meets the requirements……. Nice statement by Phil again IMO and I for one am disappointed in VJ’s of these pros but I’m still surprised by his response to all this and IMO the added "I won’t play if I’m paired with her" is really ridiculous and he’ll probably get some flack during the next few weeks on tour from players and Having a women (any women I don’t care) who plays the game as well as Annika does playing 1 tournament IMO does’nt hurt anybody , adds interest in both tours and sure it’s a publicity stunt in some regards but still I bet alot of people will be watching ……. ron

Response:

<< Vijay is an absolute fool for making his remarks. There are only four possible outcomes here: 1. Both Vijay and Annika make the cut. 2. Both Vijay and Annika miss the cut. 3. Vijay makes the cut and Annika misses the cut. 4. Annika makes the cut and Vijay misses the cut. In 3 out of the 4 outcomes, he’s going to be disappointed. He better pray scenario 4 doesn’t happen. Otherwise, he might as well cut his balls off and play on the LPGA Tour right now. Vijay needs to lighten up and get out of the stone age. -L

Response:

VJ said that if he got paired with A.S., then he would withdraw. Now what if he and Annika are the final pair on Sunday? Would VJ honor his statement?

gawd i hope so….

Response:

Why shouldn’t she play?

Response:

Why shouldn’t she play?

She didn’t qualify !!!! Peter H Let her slug it out is Q-School like everyone else.

Response:

Why shouldn’t she play? She didn’t qualify !!!! Peter H Let her slug it out is Q-School like everyone else.

There’s no qualifying for the Colonial. It’s the Colonial Invitational.

Response:

VJ said that if he got paired with A.S., then he would withdraw. Now what if he and Annika are the final pair on Sunday? Would VJ honor his statement?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Vijay is an absolute fool for making his remarks. There are only four possible outcomes here: 1. Both Vijay and Annika make the cut. 2. Both Vijay and Annika miss the cut. 3. Vijay makes the cut and Annika misses the cut. 4. Annika makes the cut and Vijay misses the cut. In 3 out of the 4 outcomes, he’s going to be disappointed. He better pray scenario 4 doesn’t happen. Otherwise, he might as well cut his balls off and play on the LPGA Tour right now. I personally like the statement Phil Mickelson made about Annika Sorenstam …… he stated that he had no problem with her playing and that "it is’nt the absolutely correct IMO … the LPGA is definetly a ladies tour and it says so …. not the "Men’s PGA" , not the "Whites Only PGA" , not the "US players only race, much anyone who meets the requirements……. Nice statement by Phil again IMO and I for one am disappointed in VJ’s any of these pros but I’m still surprised by his response to all this and IMO the added "I won’t play if I’m paired with her" is really ridiculous and he’ll probably get some flack during the next few weeks on tour from players and Having a women (any women I don’t care) who plays the game as well as Annika does playing 1 tournament IMO does’nt hurt anybody , adds interest in both tours and sure it’s a publicity stunt in some regards but still I bet alot of people will be watching ……. ron

Response:

Annika shouldn’t be playing on the tour. I fully agree with Vijay and I appreciate his candor.

Response:

I personally like the statement Phil Mickelson made about Annika Sorenstam …… he stated that he had no problem with her playing and that "it is’nt the absolutely correct IMO … the LPGA is definetly a ladies tour and it says so …. not the "Men’s PGA" , not the "Whites Only PGA" , not the "US players only anyone who meets the requirements……. Nice statement by Phil again IMO and I for one am disappointed in VJ’s these pros but I’m still surprised by his response to all this and IMO the added "I won’t play if I’m paired with her" is really ridiculous and he’ll probably get some flack during the next few weeks on tour from players and Having a women (any women I don’t care) who plays the game as well as Annika does playing 1 tournament IMO does’nt hurt anybody , adds interest in both tours and sure it’s a publicity stunt in some regards but still I bet alot of people will be watching ……. ron

Response:

Vijay is an absolute fool for making his remarks. There are only four possible outcomes here: 1. Both Vijay and Annika make the cut. 2. Both Vijay and Annika miss the cut. 3. Vijay makes the cut and Annika misses the cut. 4. Annika makes the cut and Vijay misses the cut. In 3 out of the 4 outcomes, he’s going to be disappointed. He better pray scenario 4 doesn’t happen. Otherwise, he might as well cut his balls off and play on the LPGA Tour right now.

Response:

Annika to make cut

admin — Tue, 13 May 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

anyone here think she will??? and if so would u put money on it.

Response:

anyone here think she will??? and if so would u put money on it.

I think she has a fair chance of making the cut, but I wouldnt want to put money on it. Mr Rossi

Response:

anyone here think she will??? and if so would u put money on it.

Probably. The only reason I ever bet is if I am with a foursome that wants to bet and I want to keep them happy.

Response:

anyone here think she will??? and if so would u put money on it. Unlike Vijay, I support her playing. I think she’s earned the right to try, and wants to measure herself against the best players. However, I think she will be quite disappointed when she finds out where she fits in. I’m thinking 75, 75 at best, missing the cut by 8-10 strokes. — Doug Main "It’s never too late to have a happy childhood."

Response:

I disagree. If she shoots better than any other tour player (i.e. male player), regardless of whether she makes the cut or not, I think it should be enough to prove the critics wrong. Some of the people here are saying she doesn’t deserve to be there because she’s not good enough to be a PGA player. If she even finishes better than the worst placing tour player, it proves that she is good enough to play with at least one PGA Tour player. Does this mean that the tour player who finishes behind her should give up his tour card and give it to Annika? Of course not. If it’s not an issue of whether she’s good enough, then the only issue with these complainers must be because she has a vagina. I don’t know what the problem is. I love having women around.

Response:

If it’s not an issue of whether she’s good enough, then the only issue with these complainers must be because she has a vagina. I don’t know what the problem is. I love having women around.

But you know people who don’t like playing golf with women, who complain that women aren’t good enough – but who would be even more unhappy to lose to women.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – anyone here think she will??? and if so would u put money on it. Unlike Vijay, I support her playing. I think she’s earned the right to try, and wants to measure herself against the best players. However, I think she will be quite disappointed when she finds out where she fits in. I’m thinking 75, 75 at best, missing the cut by 8-10 strokes. I disagree. If she shoots better than any other tour player (i.e. male player), regardless of whether she makes the cut or not, I think it should be enough to prove the critics wrong. Some of the people here are saying she doesn’t deserve to be there because she’s not good enough to be a PGA player. If she even finishes better than the worst placing tour player, it proves that she is good enough to play with at least one PGA Tour player. Does this mean that the tour player who finishes behind her should give up his tour card and give it to Annika? Of course not. If it’s not an issue of whether she’s good enough, then the only issue with these complainers must be because she has a vagina. I don’t know what the problem is. I love having women around.

Right said Fred! tim

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – anyone here think she will??? and if so would u put money on it. Unlike Vijay, I support her playing. I think she’s earned the right to try, and wants to measure herself against the best players. However, I think she will be quite disappointed when she finds out where she fits in. I’m thinking 75, 75 at best, missing the cut by 8-10 strokes. I disagree. If she shoots better than any other tour player (i.e. male player), regardless of whether she makes the cut or not, I think it should be enough to prove the critics wrong. Some of the people here are saying she doesn’t deserve to be there because she’s not good enough to be a PGA player. If she even finishes better than the worst placing tour player, it proves that she is good enough to play with at least one PGA Tour player.

I disagree. She should have had to qualify…..She had sponsor exemptions from a number of tournaments offered and picked the course that best sets up for her game strengths. To say that she can compete at the PGA level if she finishes ahead of just one player is premature until she has played against that/those players that she finishes ahead of at The Colonial on a number of different types of course that the PGA tour players face week in and week out and not just a course that plays to her game strengths. Does this mean that the tour player who finishes behind her should give up his tour card and give it to Annika? Of course not. If it’s not an issue of whether she’s good enough, then the only issue with these complainers must be because she has a vagina. I don’t know what the problem is. I love having women around.

Thanks in advance!!! Regards, Steve B.

Response:

huh? How could she shoot better that any tour player and miss the cut. unless you are talking about a single days score?

disagree. If she shoots better than any other tour player (i.e. male – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – player), regardless of whether she makes the cut or not, I think it should be enough to prove the critics wrong.

Response:

What is a "fair chance"? I’d say odds are 5:1…don’t know what the official oddsmakers say. But if the over/under is 76, and she shoots 76+76=152, she’ll miss the cut by over 10 strokes.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – anyone here think she will??? and if so would u put money on it. I think she has a fair chance of making the cut, but I wouldnt want to put money on it. Mr Rossi

Response:

If she shoots better than any other tour player (i.e. male player), regardless of whether she makes the cut or not, I think it should be enough to prove the critics wrong.

Agree 100%. Puttster

Response:

anyone here think she will??? and if so would u put money on it.

She will probably not. But keep in mind – most other pros will probably not make the cut either. That is to say, less than half the field typically makes the cut. And Annika is a less than average player in PGA Tour terms.

Response:

That’s what I thought. He meant if she beats any single player….

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – huh? How could she shoot better that any tour player and miss the cut. unless you are talking about a single days score? disagree. If she shoots better than any other tour player (i.e. male player), regardless of whether she makes the cut or not, I think it should be enough to prove the critics wrong.

Response:

I disagree. She should have had to qualify…..She had sponsor exemptions from a number of tournaments offered and picked the course that best sets up for her game strengths.

In other words, she qualified. When you put up millions of dollars in sponsorhip money, then you can decide who gets to play and who doesn’t.

Response:

After almost getting beaten by my wife on her first (and so far, only) foray onto the golf course, I think anything is possible. Damn woman just wouldn’t will have to teach her the special "over the top" move that is making me such a fine golfer at the moment Annika may struggle playing with the guys, but it sure would make womens golf more interesting if she made the cut. If I could hit it as straight as her, I would be happy to sacrifice some distance and "hit it like a girl". While many seem intent on bagging her (and I am no Annika fan), you need to admire her desire to see if she can match it with the guys. Even if she comes last, I bet she would still hit more fairways than the guys that are watching from the sidelines. Good luck to her. Troy P.S If my wife could play like that, I would be happy to carry her of my playing partners!

Response:

I don’t understand what you are saying here. She did not qualify nor did she put up any money if that’s what you are saying. I disagree. She should have had to qualify…..She had sponsor exemptions from a number of tournaments offered and picked the course that best sets up for her game strengths. In other words, she qualified. When you put up millions of dollars in sponsorhip money, then you can decide who gets to play and who doesn’t.

Thanks in advance!!! Regards, Steve B.

Response:

What is a "fair chance"? I’d say odds are 5:1…don’t know what the official oddsmakers say. But if the over/under is 76, and she shoots 76+76=152, she’ll miss the cut by over 10 strokes.

Well the bookies aren’t showing much faith in her 1000/1 to win and 6/1 to make the cut are what I’ve seen recently. Fair Chance? Well IMHO i believe that she will be in or around the cut mark, in other words I don’t think she’s going to be blazing a trail to the top of the leader board, but neither do I believe she is going to get left at the back end of the pack (If this makes any sense someone please tell me what I’m trying to say…..today is turning into a long day) Mr Rossi

Response:

Well the bookies aren’t showing much faith in her 1000/1 to win and 6/1 to make the cut are what I’ve seen recently.

Bookies don’t bet on her, they bet on us.

Response:

I don’t understand what you are saying here. She did not qualify nor did she put up any money if that’s what you are saying.

They have established criteria for qualifying at tournaments. One way is to persuade the people with the money that they will make more money for the tournament than someone else who they put in one of the 8 sponsor’s exemption spots. She will easily earn that money for them. She qualified as much as Tiger or Phil qualified on their rookie seasons. Why didn’t you complain then?

Response:

That’s what I thought. He meant if she beats any single player….

How many players out there are single?

Response:

That’s what I thought. He meant if she beats any single player…. How many players out there are single?

I don’t know, but I heard if she beats any of them, they have to marry her!

Response:

Please do not top post. It puts all replies out of order. She qualified via a sponsor’s exemption. At PGA Tour events with a paying sponsor, one way of qualifying for the tournament is through a sponsor’s exemption. I believe there are 8 available at the Bank of America Colonial. The Bank of America can give these spots to anyone they deem worthy, since they are paying money to put on this tournament. You would have to ask them what their qualification criteria are, but you can bet it has something to do with payback on investment. Clearly, they think Annika will give that to them. Based on the fact that there is more publicity over this sponsor’s exemption than any I can ever remember in history, I’d have to say they are succeeding, brilliantly.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t understand what you are saying here. She did not qualify nor did she put up any money if that’s what you are saying. I disagree. She should have had to qualify…..She had sponsor exemptions from a number of tournaments offered and picked the course that best sets up for her game strengths. In other words, she qualified. When you put up millions of dollars in sponsorhip money, then you can decide who gets to play and who doesn’t. Thanks in advance!!! Regards, Steve B.

Response:

The Bank of America can give these spots to anyone they deem worthy, since they are paying money to put on this tournament. You would have to ask them what their qualification criteria are, but you can bet it has something to do with payback on investment.

Wouldn’t the stockholders object about such crass criteria?

Response:

Please do not top post. It puts all replies out of order.

It just makes more work to edit it into a good order. I have done so today already. Occasionally a top post is acceptable, if there is a valid reason for a simple reply and a long quote. The important thing is to sit back and read your message as if you were someone else who might not care for paging down, and who might want to reply. Actually the important thing is the same as in golf: "Be considerate".

Response:

Well the bookies aren’t showing much faith in her 1000/1 to win and 6/1 to make the cut are what I’ve seen recently. Bookies don’t bet on her, they bet on us.

Good Point well made! Mr Rossi

Response:

4BBB stroke with an associate

admin — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Where’s Martha Burk when you need her? Note that "around here" is not the barbaric, uncouth, louts from the United States who oppress women golfers as the USAGE Handicap Manual, Section 9.3 (http://www.usga.org/handicap/manual/2002_Manual/index.html ) says "In mixed competitions where each player plays his own ball and where allocations are different for men and women, the players receive strokes based on their respective stroke allocations."

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Around here we play many courses where par differes for gender tees – at the start of the play you must establish whose card you play off = usually off the men’s card regardless of associate’s card.

Response:

The assigned par has nothing to do with it. Whoever score the lower has the better ball score. In your case, one scored a 5 and the other scored 4. How would the scores be different if it had been done on another hole?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Howdy Quick question. If you are playing in a 4BBB stroke comp with an associate, what happens on a hole where it is par 5 for associates and par 4 for men? If the associate has a 6 a 5 which is a net par how is that taken into account when comparing to 2 men where one has a net par 4? Both pairs have had a net par but one gets to record 4 while the other gets to record 5. Or is that just tough luck? Tony

Response:

Around here we play many courses where par differes for gender tees – at the start of the play you must establish whose card you play off = usually off the men’s card regardless of associate’s card.

Response:

I don’t know whether there really was a ‘ban’.

I seem to remember when I was on the Trentham Committee, a formal letter appearing from the AGU and WGA advising clubs against running such events. Maybe at the time it was more like the Rules version of "shouldn’t", but it did seem to point towards a future governing body ban. It caused a great deal of consternation, because heaps of clubs like Trentham run mixed fields, especially mid-week. Our entire summer competition is mixed. I just don’t think they realised the extent of mixed competition in rural areas. I don’t know that any club actually stopped running their mixed competitions, but the reaction was one of bewilderment tinged with a degree of anger that their competitions might be eliminated in favour of the integrity of the Rules and Handicap system. Of course, maybe a lot of the problem would be solved by having one handicapping system off the various coloured tees? — Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

You guys need a Martha Burk as the USGA has documented mixed handicap allocations in Section 9.3 of the Handicap System Manual at http://www.usga.org/handicap/manual/2002_Manual/index.html Stableford is just a way of keeping score so it doesn’t change the problem.

Our problem is that our tees are divided into Men’s (White) and Women’s (Red), and the two are rated by different governing bodies! For instance my course’s red tees are rated for women by WGA at 71 (par 71), while the whites are rated for men by the AGU at 68 (par 70). The mixed competitions *are* somewhat adjusted for fairness because the women’s handicaps are determined off their red tees, while the men’s are determined off their white tees. However the women’s handicapping system is different to the men’s system to begin with, so there will never be total "comparativeness". A woman’s 20 handicap is neither directly comparable to a men’s 20 handicap when both are playing off the reds (which they never do in competition anyway) nor when the women play off the reds and the men play off the whites. I like the USGA idea of rating the course according to the tees on a "unisex" basis, and being able to add or subtract strokes from your handicap according to whether you are playing the forward or back tees. That would give total equity in mixed competitions, something that our divided system sadly lacks. — Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or is that just tough luck? Tough luck I guess. Colin has reported elsewhere a governing body ‘ban’ on these type of events, but I don’t know whether there really was a ‘ban’. The current Victorian Golf Association view on mixed 4bbb events is ‘try to avoid them’, or stick to stableford format. I know the VGA and WGV will refuse to consider any ‘ruling’ requests on this form of play! cheers david

Response:

Or is that just tough luck?

Tough luck I guess. Colin has reported elsewhere a governing body ‘ban’ on these type of events, but I don’t know whether there really was a ‘ban’. The current Victorian Golf Association view on mixed 4bbb events is ‘try to avoid them’, or stick to stableford format. I know the VGA and WGV will refuse to consider any ‘ruling’ requests on this form of play! cheers david

Response:

thanks Colin. Crikey!! I’m trying to work out the implications of some females (including my wife) who have joined our work social golf club. So far we have worked out we need to avoid putting the eagle’s nest approach on a hole with different pars for men/ladies to avoid confusion as to whether they have to hit it in 2 or 3 strokes. I was thinking that single stroke events would be a no brainer – we would just use how many under your gender’s par your net score is rather than the raw net score to adjudicate the winner. But now based on what you are saying I’m not sure whether to even suggest that. We like to have a mixture of types of events that get played so just using stableford all the time isn’t an option. It all gets very complicated! Bloody women The only up side of having my wife join is that I get to have a few beers after and she can drive home Thanks for info. Tony

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So are you suggesting that in a single stroke event with both men and associates playing that I would win with a net 66 over a ladie with a net 67 even if the par is 72 (men) vs 74 (ladies) i.e I’m -6 and she is -7 Unfortunately yes.

Response:

Crikey!! I’m trying to work out the implications of some females (including my wife) who have joined our work social golf club.

I don’t see a problem with deciding a pure singles stroke result however you like. If you want to institute a system where the winner is the most under par, thus adjusting for women, then do so. Just put it in the "Conditions of Competition" as to how a winner is determined. The problem comes when you have the 4BBB Stroke format. That’s why Par or Stableford solve the problem, but like you said, it can be a bit boring playing them all the time. One of the other minor problems is how to calculate CCRs and suchlike where there’s a mixed field (the AGU answer I believe is that the women must be left out of the men’s calculations). I think the last discussion we had on this was complicated further by the idea of *mixed match play* … who wins a hole when the par is 5 for women and 4 for men? That was another that the Rules of Golf doesn’t seem to contemplate. The answer is that scratch match play is always off the stick regardless of par, and handicap matchplay is still best net, again regardless of par. — Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

So are you suggesting that in a single stroke event with both men and associates playing that I would win with a net 66 over a ladie with a net 67 even if the par is 72 (men) vs 74 (ladies) i.e I’m -6 and she is -7

Unfortunately yes. My club plays mixed events every Thursday, and the net score always wins, *regardless of par* (the men’s par is 70, the women’s 71). As an aside, a couple of years ago there was a ruckus here because the AGU (Australian Golf Union) and WGA (Womens Golf Australia) put out a directive prohibiting such mixed events for the very reason you are raising, plus the differences in the systems by which men’s and women’s handicaps were calculated. Plenty of rural clubs, where there were regular small mixed fields mid-week, railed against the "ban", and bluntly told the AGU/WGV that their decision would ruin country golf. Some of them saw the threat of intra-club splits between men and women, and it would most likely have meant that the women would not get to play at all because two or three was not enough for their own competition. So the clubs kept playing mixed events regardless. The AGU/WGA relented, mainly because the WGA saw the negative effect it would have on women golfers in small rural communities. There are few enough of them as it is without their own organising body turning them away from the game. — Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

Howdy Quick question. If you are playing in a 4BBB stroke comp with an associate, what happens on a hole where it is par 5 for associates and par 4 for men? If the associate has a 6 a 5 which is a net par how is that taken into account when comparing to 2 men where one has a net par 4? Both pairs have had a net par but one gets to record 4 while the other gets to record 5. Or is that just tough luck? Tony

Response:

Both pairs have had a net par but one gets to record 4 while the other gets to record 5. Or is that just tough luck?

It’s tough luck. I think this was discussed here some time ago. The concept is that the Rules of Golf don’t contemplate the *gross* par being different for different players in the *same* event. It’s off the stick, minus strokes given, that matters. Probably that’s why most events I’ve ever come across, where men and women are mixed, are 4BBB Stableford or similar. — Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

thanks Colin. So are you suggesting that in a single stroke event with both men and associates playing that I would win with a net 66 over a ladie with a net 67 even if the par is 72 (men) vs 74 (ladies) i.e I’m -6 and she is -7 Tony

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Both pairs have had a net par but one gets to record 4 while the other gets to record 5. Or is that just tough luck? It’s tough luck. I think this was discussed here some time ago. The concept is that the Rules of Golf don’t contemplate the *gross* par being different for different players in the *same* event. It’s off the stick, minus strokes given, that matters. Probably that’s why most events I’ve ever come across, where men and women are mixed, are 4BBB Stableford or similar. — Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

Ernie, tiger et al

admin — Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Anyone know what development programs South Africa has? They seem to produce more than their fair share of excellent golfers. Some of the current group like Goosen and Sabbatini are apparently self taught. Perhaps it takes a natural golfer who is largely self-taught or at least has their "own" style to be really good – like Palmer, Trevino et al? Many of the new flock of Harmon/Leadbetter/?? students play very well, but I suspect that some of them may not have the individuality to break out from the pack. GM

Response:

And just what did YOU do today that was so spectacular GM? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Hey, it’s Sunday. Isnt this the day you brush your teeth?

Response:

I thought that Ernie was playing poorly, but Tiger was just terrible today and has not looked good for some time …. And then there is Phil.

Missing the cut isn’t good – but Phil does have a quality win out of his 3? starts. Ernie also won. And Tiger will win.

Response:

It isn’t race by any means. It’s good instruction. Someone in AUS must have put together a national program or something, like Sweeden has. Brad – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Robert Allenby is a fine player. Gow is a bit of a streatch, Colin. One thing about Aussie players though–the swing technique is fantastic. I don’t know where it comes from, maybe you can share, but the fundamentals of Aussie players is a joy to watch. Allenby, Appelby, Scott, Bads, Norman, Webb, etc.. are sound! Brad Must be in the genes, Brad. I’ve noticed that too: GREAT technique coming from all parts of the world, not only from AUS but from countries you wouldn’t expect it – Indonesia, etc… But political correctness will not permit us to ascribe it to race. What race are the Aussies? I heard they were dumped there by the British when the gaols got full. George

Response:

Must be in the genes, Brad. I’ve noticed that too: GREAT technique coming from all parts of the world, not only from AUS but from countries you wouldn’t expect it – Indonesia, etc… But political correctness will not permit us to ascribe it to race. What race are the Aussies? I heard they were dumped there by the British when the gaols got full. George

Response:

Ya know what? I think the field is catching up with Tiger, in terms of training and what not. I think his dominance in this sport is over.

Response:

Robert Allenby is a fine player. Gow is a bit of a streatch, Colin. One thing about Aussie players though–the swing technique is fantastic. I don’t know where it comes from, maybe you can share, but the fundamentals of Aussie players is a joy to watch. Allenby, Appelby, Scott, Bads, Norman, Webb, etc.. are sound! Brad – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – True that Ernie won the Heineken, but so he should against the weak field Weak field bull. Send the whole USPGA Tour over here and no-one would’ve scored what Ernie did. The greens wouldn’t be soft enough for a start. I suppose the "strength" of the USPGA tour is why non-descript players like John Senden, who has never won an Australasian Tour event, and whose only pro win is the 1993 Indonesian Open, manage to get a top-5 at USPGA Tour School and contend well in the events he’s played so far. I suppose also that the USPGA Tour players in the Heineken field, like 4-time USPGA Tour winner Robert Allenby (shot an 80 on the last day), and Paul Gow (third last, missed cut) amply demonstrate that the field was "weak". Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Colin wrote a piece on the Australian national golf programs last year, IIRC. If he reads this he might wish to repost his article. A nutshell summary: We don’t have a comprehensive college/university scholarship program like the United States. Instead Australia has a national golf coaching program run by the Australian Institute of Sport, in conjunction with the Australian Golf Union, Womens Golf Australia and the Australian PGA. Golf is one of 35 sports supported by the AIS. The golf program has been running for 10 years, is full-time and residential, and offers places annually to 20 amateurs and two PGA trainees. Until late 2000, the golf program was run at Albert Park in Melbourne by Ross Herbert, Steve Bann and Dale Lynch. Sadly Ross Herbert died around Christmas 2000. Lynch and Bann have moved to their own teaching facility at the Melbourne Golf Academy in Cheltenham, where they still coach players like Allenby, Appleby, Ogilvy, Allan and until recently Baddeley. The AIS program is currently operated out of the Sandringham Driving Range in Melbourne, under the direction of Mark Holland and head coach Gareth Jones. The program utilises the famed sand-belt courses nearby. Sometime in the next few years the AIS golf program will move to Moonah Links on the Mornington Peninsula, at the courses and teaching facility purposely built by the AGU. Cheers Colin Wilson

Thanks for the summary, Colin. I knew that the Australian program was quite involved, but had forgotten that it had a residential component. The RCGA started a youth program here in Canada some years ago. It reaches out to junior golfers of all levels, but does have certain programs aimed at the top junior golfers. http://www.rcga.org/futurelinks/ David RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=sneddond email: dsneddon AT attcanada DOT ca Signatory & Supporter of the UIP http://home.globalfrontiers.com/rorider/

Response:

It isn’t race by any means. It’s good instruction. Someone in AUS must have put together a national program or something, like Sweeden has. Brad

Colin wrote a piece on the Australian national golf programs last year, IIRC. If he reads this he might wish to repost his article. — David RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=sneddond email: dsneddon AT attcanada DOT ca Signatory & Supporter of the UIP http://home.globalfrontiers.com/rorider/

Response:

Colin wrote a piece on the Australian national golf programs last year, IIRC. If he reads this he might wish to repost his article.

A nutshell summary: We don’t have a comprehensive college/university scholarship program like the United States. Instead Australia has a national golf coaching program run by the Australian Institute of Sport, in conjunction with the Australian Golf Union, Womens Golf Australia and the Australian PGA. Golf is one of 35 sports supported by the AIS. The golf program has been running for 10 years, is full-time and residential, and offers places annually to 20 amateurs and two PGA trainees. Until late 2000, the golf program was run at Albert Park in Melbourne by Ross Herbert, Steve Bann and Dale Lynch. Sadly Ross Herbert died around Christmas 2000. Lynch and Bann have moved to their own teaching facility at the Melbourne Golf Academy in Cheltenham, where they still coach players like Allenby, Appleby, Ogilvy, Allan and until recently Baddeley. The AIS program is currently operated out of the Sandringham Driving Range in Melbourne, under the direction of Mark Holland and head coach Gareth Jones. The program utilises the famed sand-belt courses nearby. Sometime in the next few years the AIS golf program will move to Moonah Links on the Mornington Peninsula, at the courses and teaching facility purposely built by the AGU. Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

Gow is a bit of a stretch, Colin.

I don’t know. He did enough last year to win US$600,000 and come 83rd on the USPGA Money List. That’s not exactly scraping in. He has come near last in three events here so far this season. This "weak field" argument gets trotted out regularly (to the point of boredom), and implies that any one of the world’s top 20 or so players should be able to come out here and find the fields a pushover. It is as specious as it is historically innacurate. The main reason is that courses here are different in style to the USA, and Australians are generally good in their own backyard. So visitors don’t have it all easy. The other reason is that while few US players come here these days, those that do don’t generally do very well anymore (unlike Nicklaus decades ago). For instance, Bob Estes came here last season for a few events and struggled to make cuts. He promptly went back to the US and finished 9th on the 2001 Money List. Charles Howell III was a similar story before Christmas. Tiger is 0-5 in Australia. The US Presidents Cup team, cream of the crop, got absolutely trounced in 1998. So to just say that the field is "weak" ignores local reality, and is just an easy out in terms of explanation. There were also a number of players in the World Top 50, many more in the world Top 100. So wins by Goosen and Els are quite meritorious … neither doddles or flukes. Remember they *were* in European Tour events, and the Europeans seem to play much better here than all those top Americans. There are also 21 ANZ players playing on the USPGA Tour, some of whom are not exactly "top echelon" here, like Allan, Pampling and Senden. That at least says that the USPGA Tour is not radically better in terms of quality. It might be in strength against world rankings, intensity of competition and prizemoney. The obverse is that you can play consistently average golf, like Craig Parry, and make an excellent living without winning at all. One thing about Aussie players though–the swing technique is fantastic. I don’t know where it comes from, maybe you can share, but the fundamentals of Aussie players is a joy to watch. Allenby, Appelby, Scott, Bads, Norman, Webb, etc.. are sound!

Yeah, then some of them drop the coaches that gave them those swings and go to Leadbetter and Harmon. Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

I thought that Ernie was playing poorly, but Tiger was just terrible today and has not looked good for some time …. And then there is Phil. Unless these guys do something soon, who should we looked to for a amazing things in 2002? GM

Response:

I thought that Ernie was playing poorly

Huh? Ernie won the European Tour Heineken Classic at Royal Melbourne last weekend by 5 shots. Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

True that Ernie won the Heineken, but so he should against the weak field – Previous week he was no match for Retief and in SA before that he did nothing in tournaments won by non superstars Tim Clark and Justine Rose – Before the Heineken win, he had not won anything for more than a year although showed well in $2Mil vs Sergio. Tiger will likely win again soon, but at the moment shows no sign of this! Graham – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I thought that Ernie was playing poorly Huh? Ernie won the European Tour Heineken Classic at Royal Melbourne last weekend by 5 shots. Cheers Colin Wilson

Response:

True that Ernie won the Heineken, but so he should against the weak field

Weak field bull. Send the whole USPGA Tour over here and no-one would’ve scored what Ernie did. The greens wouldn’t be soft enough for a start. I suppose the "strength" of the USPGA tour is why non-descript players like John Senden, who has never won an Australasian Tour event, and whose only pro win is the 1993 Indonesian Open, manage to get a top-5 at USPGA Tour School and contend well in the events he’s played so far. I suppose also that the USPGA Tour players in the Heineken field, like 4-time USPGA Tour winner Robert Allenby (shot an 80 on the last day), and Paul Gow (third last, missed cut) amply demonstrate that the field was "weak". Cheers Colin Wilson RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com

Response:

Colin, I don’t want to argue the point about the strength of the Heineken field, and considering you are in Aus, must give you credit for supporting Ernie, even after having South Africans come over and win two of your main events (and another threatening to do the same this week). And then there was 1-day VB cricket ….. Great sportsmanship on your part , unless you are an ex-pat. By the way, your course looks great compared with our snow covered tracks Graham (An avid Ernie/Retief/Rory/etc fan!) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – True that Ernie won the Heineken, but so he should against the weak field Weak field bull. Send the whole USPGA Tour over here and no-one would’ve scored what Ernie did. The greens wouldn’t be soft enough for a start.

Response:

Tiger vs. Karrie

admin — Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

With dueling 61s today, I’m still lobbying for Tiger vs. Karrie in the made for TV showdown. I think the ratings would be better than Woods vs. Garcia. You’d draw in the non-golf fans who don’t already watch golf just to see Tiger. It would be better than Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs. The only problem is that Webb isn’t much of a personality.

This match will never happen, both are managed by the same managment company and neither outcome would help anyone. If Tiger wins it hurts Karrie and womens golf, If Karrie wins it shatters the tiger myth.

Response:

I think she is dour, dour, dour. The latest thing with the drop in the British is typical. I’m surprised that apparently all of the good advice given her about dealing with the media has gone right out the window. If Karrie’s planning on a public career of some sort after golf, she has a long, long road to rehabilitation.

I think Karri is more concerned about playing golf, and winning tournaments, which I somehow find refreshing. I think Tiger has had some trouble with, or at least disregard for, the media as well. Hogan didn’t do well with the press either. I think it has something to do with concentration. Before you buy.

Response:

Here’s an idea. Make Tiger play with only irons. That might even things a bit. Or with garden tools, as in "Tin Cup". Maybe if he plays left-handed with garden tools.

I though golf clubs *were* garden tools. Rob

Response:

Imagine if Tiger and Karrie mated and produced golf offspring who inherited their parents’ aptitude for the sport…that would be scary for their competition!…:)

Black skinned, blonde-haired golfers with Aussie accents that could hit their 2-irons 275 yards! Rob

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here’s an idea. Make Tiger play with only irons. That might even things a bit. Or with garden tools, as in "Tin Cup". Maybe if he plays left-handed with garden tools. I though golf clubs *were* garden tools.

Nah! Golf clubs are used to help jack up you car to replace a flat! Hit ‘em Good!!! JB – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rob

Response:

Here’s an idea. Make Tiger play with only irons. That might even things a bit. Or with garden tools, as in "Tin Cup". Maybe if he plays left-handed with garden tools.

I think it was Lee Trevino who used a Dr. Pepper bottle to drive, back in his hustling days. Still won a lot of money.

Response:

Do you really want to see him defeat a woman by 10 strokes? Truthfully, Karrie vs. Tiger would probably be a closer match. The thing about golf is that they can set it up to make it relatively even. Karrie off the pro women’s tees is better than Sergio.

A closer match than 10 strokes? I don’t think so. Consider for a moment that Woods played 4 rounds at Royal Birkdale, set up to 7000 yards par 70, at 1 under (and in atrocious conditions) and Webb has just played the same course (to 6 under) but at 6200 yards par 73. If both courses had been set as par 70’s Woods would have won by 7 shots and he is playing a little better now than he was 3 years ago. Crispin Roche

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – With dueling 61s today, I’m still lobbying for Tiger vs. Karrie in the made for TV showdown. I think the ratings would be better than Woods vs. Garcia. You’d draw in the non-golf fans who don’t already watch golf just to see Tiger. It would be better than Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs. The only problem is that Webb isn’t much of a personality. Maybe they’ll wise up next year. It won’t be competitive. Tiger will blow away Karrie. Here’s an idea. Make Tiger play with only irons. That might even things a bit.

Well, they’d have to give her about 1000 yards to make it competitive. Her scoring average really isn’t that close to Tiger’s, though. She probably hits her driver in the 240 range. I’m not sure if she’s one of the longer ones on the tour, but the top 10 average over 250.

Response:

Here’s an idea. Make Tiger play with only irons. That might even things a bit.

Or with garden tools, as in "Tin Cup". — Jim Gillogly 4 Halimath S.R. 2000, 20:15 12.19.7.8.18, 13 Edznab 1 Mol, Seventh Lord of Night

Response:

Here’s an idea. Make Tiger play with only irons. That might even things a bit. Or with garden tools, as in "Tin Cup".

Maybe if he plays left-handed with garden tools. -joseph

Response:

Imagine if Tiger and Karrie mated and produced golf offspring who inherited their parents’ aptitude for the sport…that would be scary for their competition!…:) * Sent from Novell Discussion Forums http://novell.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Do you really want to see him defeat a woman by 10 strokes?

Response:

I think she is dour, dour, dour. The latest thing with the drop in the British is typical. I’d switch off for that match. Tiger v Sergio however will be fun. They have great personalities and in that type of event will have fun and make it fun to watch. Sergio will also give it *everything*.

Response:

Do you really want to see him defeat a woman by 10 strokes?

Truthfully, Karrie vs. Tiger would probably be a closer match. The thing about golf is that they can set it up to make it relatively even. Karrie off the pro women’s tees is better than Sergio. Tiger will kill Sergio, if Webb gets hot she may even win. Of course it’s a no-win situation for Tiger. If anything, they could have already approached Tiger to do it but he won’t because he doesn’t want to take the chance of losing to a woman. If he wins, so what, if he loses, he’s embarrassed.

Response:

I think she is dour, dour, dour. The latest thing with the drop in the British is typical.

I’m surprised that apparently all of the good advice given her about dealing with the media has gone right out the window. If Karrie’s planning on a public career of some sort after golf, she has a long, long road to rehabilitation. -joseph

Response:

[...] The only problem is that Webb isn’t much of a personality.

It would be tough for the BBC deciding whether to carry the match or not, eh? -joseph

Response:

Women outrate men on Australian television

admin — Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Fella, you don’t kow what you’re talking about. Women’s golf is just as interesting and enjoyable to watch as the mens. Some of the women are as GOOd as the men too,. You talk as tho the men pros neve shank a shot, or scull out of a trap, or go deep in the woods etc., etc., etc.

lol …. another informed opinion. for you the womens golf may provide entertainment but don’t for a second delude yourself into thinking any of the women are as good as the men. put them on the same courses under the same conditions and i’ll guarantee on the pga tour or even the buy.com tour even the best women would not make a cut all year. and of course your right the men also have the same mishits. it’s only that in watching one day of womens golf i saw the equivalent number as i’ve seen watching say the last 10 years or so of mens golf. brett

Response:

And Laura Davies shanked her way to 19-under!

but laura was the exception. watching the field play up the 289m first. you got to see the spectrum of mishits. some of those girls were not shanking their way to 19 under, in fact most weren’t breaking par on a 5500m par 73 colf course. it was my first ever impression of womens golf and in my opinion i found the quality of golf exhibited to be quite poor with the obvious exception of webb and a couple of others. though even their scores in retrospect were nothing special. there were 5 par 5’s out on the course and the longest one was only just over 400m. the shortest at 369m or so. hell thats not even a particualrly long par 4 which webb confirmed by hitting wedge into it, after a 270m drive. which again on the surface sounds impressive but after watching webb hit two drives on that length on 7&8 the run on the fairway there probably accounted for about 150m or so of the total distance, so obviously the fairways were substantially tricked up. and just a side note from the other post on this which i forgot to reply to before shutting down. peter thompson *is* saying that webb is the best golfer male or female on the planet including tiger woods. i was a little shocked to see such rubbish attributed to him in mondays paper but the actual interview was relayed on sports tonight and the quote in the media was nearly word for word what was relayed in the print media including the direct reference to tiger. he was also babbling about her swing being the best in the world. just look at a few from the pga tour including elk, els, woods, norman et al and webb isn’t even mechanically in the same league or even some of the lesser players like brian watts there is no comparison. if you want to look at near mechanical perfection baddely is about the best athletic swing i’ve seen in a very long time. brett

Response:

and then you saw allenby sink the next chip so effectively he got down in two anyway.

And Laura Davies shanked her way to 19-under! BTW, Peter Senior holed his second bunker shot too! Cheers Colin Wilson Current Australian handicap: 9.6 RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham

Response:

Golf Channel in the U.S. televised the Women’s OZ Open and to tell you the truth, I really enjoyed watching Karrie Webb, Rachel and Luara play golf. It turned out to be a good tournament and after Karrie won the tournament, I was really impressed how well she can play and how mentally tough she is. Peeps

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Interesting figures from last weekend, where two golf events were held and televised to live-to-air on Australian TV. These were the Australian Women’s Open (main drawcards Karrie Webb, Laura Davies, Rachel Hetherington) and the Australasian Tour’s Canon Challenge (no real main drawcard … just the usual Aussie pros minus the big names who have all returned to the USA). The Women’s Open was broadcast on Channel 7 (with Jack Newton and Ian Baker-Finch commentating, both ironically Australian PGA board members) and rated a maximum of 16 on the Sunday afternoon. The Canon Challenge was broadcast on Channel 10, and rated about 8. The crowd figures contradicted the TV, where the Sunday crowd for the Canon Challenge in Sydney was twice that of the Women’s Masters in Melbourne, most of whom were following one player. Says something about drawcards. I can see why US television features Tiger so prominently. Interestingly, the boot might be on the other foot next weekend. Channel 10 has the rights to the Australian Ladies Masters where Webb, Davies and Hetherington, plus about 30 US female pros (the event is joint USPGA co-sanctioned), will battle it out for a quite decent US$830,000 in prize money. If Webb repeats her 26-under record breaking win of last year (she is odds-on favourite again), she has further claim to usurping Tiger Woods as the "world’s most dominant golfer". Cheers Colin Wilson Current Australian handicap: 9.5 RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham

Response:

but thompson is saying she is the best player on the planet male or female.

I don’t think Thomson said that. He said she was "Australia’s best-ever golfer". And I’m pretty sure he meant that in the relative sense … in terms of how dominant she is, including the future, and how much she’s achieved compared to the all others. Personally I think she’s still got a way to go to match Norman *comparatively* (fewer international victories by far), but she’s achieved more at 25 on the USLPGA than Norman had on the USPGA at the same age, and is pretty close to Woods (again *comparatively*). Of course if you put her in the World Matchplay against Woods on the same length course, she’d probably lose 10 & 8. Again, that’s not the issue. Thomson also said Webb had the "best swing", which I think he meant in terms of mechanics. While that’s partly subjective, he’s not far off the mark IMHO. Cheers Colin Wilson Current Australian handicap: 9.6 RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham

Response:

yes but thats the point it is relative. i totally agree that webb is far and away the most dominant female golfer at the moment. but thompson is saying she is the best player on the planet male or female. is this is simply rubbish. her record is approximately on par with woods but woods is playing in a vastly deeper talent pool. hence all comments that compare the two are relatively meaningless. Just as, comparatively, in women’s golf Webb’s the best. Her price for the Aus. Masters (with half the USLPGA field in it) is 5/4. That’s a lower price than you could ever get on Woods.

not really. you drop him into your local pro am which has about the same depth of talent as the lpga and you’ll get about the same odds. it kind of makes my point though. webb gets short odds because the competition is so bad at the moment as opposed to webb being so much better than them. At the moment she’s as dominant in women’s golf as Tiger Woods is in men’s golf. That’s the only comparison that needs to be made. Any argument about actual skill level, or equal pay, no matter the justification, doesn’t need to come into it.

no but thats not the point which is being made by thompson in both the print media and on the television. he is making these absurd comparisons. I also don’t think, despite her attractive looks, Cherie Byrnes was the real drawcard when ratings came into account.

no but you got the point. to a lot of people watching the actual golf was probably a secondary consideration. BTW, in the last two men’s tournaments I’ve seen Robert Allenby stub a chip and Peter Senior skull a bunker shot from one side of the green to the other.

and then you saw allenby sink the next chip so effectively he got down in two anyway. brett

Response:

c’mon colin. you don’t really believe this tripe that peter thompson is serving up do you??

But it’s all relative isn’t it? So women’s golf might not match the actual standard of men’s golf (I don’t need a Bobby Rigg-type challenge to have it proven to me), but that doesn’t mean Webb isn’t very dominant. Next you’ll be telling me Dawn Fraser was a crap swimmer because she was five seconds behind Wenden. That’s about as good an argument as saying a pacer is inferior because it runs slower than a racehorse ( … they’re both horses). So the 400th-ranked men’s tennis player could whip Martina Hingis or Lindsay Davenport. That’s not the point. Comparatively (with other women) they’re the best. Just as, comparatively, in women’s golf Webb’s the best. Her price for the Aus. Masters (with half the USLPGA field in it) is 5/4. That’s a lower price than you could ever get on Woods. At the moment she’s as dominant in women’s golf as Tiger Woods is in men’s golf. That’s the only comparison that needs to be made. Any argument about actual skill level, or equal pay, no matter the justification, doesn’t need to come into it. I also don’t think, despite her attractive looks, Cherie Byrnes was the real drawcard when ratings came into account. BTW, in the last two men’s tournaments I’ve seen Robert Allenby stub a chip and Peter Senior skull a bunker shot from one side of the green to the other. Cheers Colin Wilson Current Australian handicap: 9.6 RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham

Response:

If Webb repeats her 26-under record breaking win of last year (she is odds-on favourite again), she has further claim to usurping Tiger Woods as the "world’s most dominant golfer".

c’mon colin. you don’t really believe this tripe that peter thompson is serving up do you?? last weekend with the australian womens open was the first time i’d ever really sat down and watched womens golf, and only then because i was waiting around until 2 for the telecast of the canon to begin. it’s easy to see why webb wins week in and week out. the competition is on the whole limited to 3 or maybe 4 other women who on any given week are capable of winning. the lack of depth of talent shocked the hell out of me. i got to see it all. duffed chips, short putts that didn’t come close to catching any part of the cup, duffed drives. laura davies hitting a couple of straight right shanks …. pretty pathetic standard really. scoring was limited to birdies on 370-80m par 5’s which with the roll on the fairways players were hitting wedges into. hardly riveting stuff. and then the interest on the group was in cherie brynes who finished what 20 shots off the pace?? it’s easy to see why rating were higher than the mens event. probably the same reason baywatch is ‘the most popular show in the world’ i think the thing which really suprises me was the fact that the women are complaining they aren’t paid as much as the men. if every event was like the last i’m actually suprised they get paid anything at all. compare webbs feats to those of woods where in any given week you’d have to assume that at least half the field is capable of winning. and well there really is no comparison. though thompson also says webbs swing is the best in golf, it seems he loses credibility every time he opens his mouth. brett

Response:

Interesting figures from last weekend, where two golf events were held and televised to live-to-air on Australian TV. These were the Australian Women’s Open (main drawcards Karrie Webb, Laura Davies, Rachel Hetherington) and the Australasian Tour’s Canon Challenge (no real main drawcard … just the usual Aussie pros minus the big names who have all returned to the USA). The Women’s Open was broadcast on Channel 7 (with Jack Newton and Ian Baker-Finch commentating, both ironically Australian PGA board members) and rated a maximum of 16 on the Sunday afternoon. The Canon Challenge was broadcast on Channel 10, and rated about 8. The crowd figures contradicted the TV, where the Sunday crowd for the Canon Challenge in Sydney was twice that of the Women’s Masters in Melbourne, most of whom were following one player. Says something about drawcards. I can see why US television features Tiger so prominently. Interestingly, the boot might be on the other foot next weekend. Channel 10 has the rights to the Australian Ladies Masters where Webb, Davies and Hetherington, plus about 30 US female pros (the event is joint USPGA co-sanctioned), will battle it out for a quite decent US$830,000 in prize money. If Webb repeats her 26-under record breaking win of last year (she is odds-on favourite again), she has further claim to usurping Tiger Woods as the "world’s most dominant golfer". Cheers Colin Wilson Current Australian handicap: 9.5 RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm Trentham Golf Club: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham

Response:

Is It Just

admin — Sat, 06 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

All professional sports are kinda’ worthless. Boring? Some people don’t think so. as long as there are enough fans to support it, these sports will go on. Sounds like a gender issue hidden in your queston. This whole ‘gender wars’ thing has been exploited for marketing purposes. I’m quite bored with basketball and golf, but quite interested to watch how this issue is playing itself out in pro sports today.

Response:

Both are almost as worthless as you. — trevor "ratgirl" pratt "Nobody told me there’d be days like these." John Lennon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – me, or is womens professional basketball as worthless and boring as womens golf.

Response:

me, or is womens professional basketball as worthless and boring as womens golf.

I don’t really know, but it is probably just you. Maybe one or two others, but mostly probably just you. :-) Sincerely Stewart — The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self Please e-mail me a copy of your response if you can so I don’t miss it.

Response:

Annika vs. Tiger

admin — Fri, 18 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Annika achieved something NO man or woman has ever achieved, she lead the money list on TWO different tours in the SAME year!! Where was the Sports Ilustrated cover on her?

Sorry to disappoint you but Annika was not the first. The one you all love to hate has also won on two tours in the one year. Greg Norman won the US & the Australian money lists in 1986. Not a bad effort for a choker. Mark Blake "remove ‘zap’ to obtain my real email address !!"

Response:

Annika achieved something NO man or woman has ever achieved, she lead the money list on TWO different tours in the SAME year!! Where was the Sports Ilustrated cover on her? Sorry to disappoint you but Annika was not the first. The one you all love to hate has also won on two tours in the one year. Greg Norman won the US & the Australian money lists in 1986. Not a bad effort for a choker. Mark Blake

O.k Mark I’ll see your TWO and raise you ONE. In 1995 Annika also lead the Australian money list by virtue of winning the Masters and coming second (in a playoff) in the Open. This makes THREE tour leads in the one year. (OK I know there were only two events for the Aus. list). PS The statistic referred to above is usually stated as the only golfer to have won the US and European tours in the same year. Cheers Nick Csiro Australia

Response:

Rob, I understand what you are saying and agree with most of it. I am a HUGE fan of Annika as well as Tiger and feel that both are great at what they do. Annika had been around longer than Tiger so she has had more opportunites to prove herself. I feel Tiger will do the same and think winning the masters right out of the box is a pretty good start! As far as him winning on courses that are "set up" for him, I think that is a little absurd. Yes, his length is a big factor, but if we were to carry your analogy to other sports, you could nullify all of the greats. Take Michael jordan, he’s really not a great player because he can jump so high. With the "low" basket height of 10′, NBA courts "set up" to his game in an unfair way. Larry Bird wasnt great because he could shoot 3 pointers so well. The seemingly easy 3 point line "set up" to his game in an unfair way. Finally, take Ben Crenshaw. He won two masters on the merit of his superhuman like putting. You could say Augusta’s greens set up to his game. The point is, is that the truly great players WILL have a seemingly unfair advantage in ANY sport. So it IS true that whatever the arena these atheletes play in, it WILL set up to their talents. That’s how why they’re great! Believe the hype Russ

Response:

<< << When Annika is prepared to play against Tiger week after week for the same prize, then the "double standard" will vanish. Appearently you haven’t heard of Laura Davies. Annika Sorenstam is NOT a long hitter. Laura Davies is longer than a lot of men on the PGA! There is a very real comparison there. At her latest victory, 12 Bridges, Annika played alot of the time against Julie Inkster whose driving average is a mere 2yrds less than the very long hitting Davies. If you look at the victories of Annika vs.Tiger this year (or last lear for that matter), you will see a big diference. Annika won the Tournament of Champions. Tiger won early, with most of the field of less than stellar quality. He won the Masters which is not only an over-hyped(TPC at Swagrass should be a major, not the Masters which is just a final kiss to Bobby Jones’ ass, ala the Tradition to Jack Nicklaus) event but set up perfectly for long hitters that can put(that describes Tiger to a tee). Annika achieved something NO man or woman has ever achieved, she lead the money list on TWO different tours in the SAME year!! Where was the Sports Ilustrated cover on her? Tiger will probably win two million in prize money and everyone will proclaim him the best, Annika will probably break a million and very few will notice, that is sad. Annika has not only won the same major two years in a row, but its the hardest of the majors (U.S.Open). If Tiger can win the Open in the same dominating fashion that Annika did last year, then he deserves to be included in her class of golfers. Until then, when Tiger wins with less than top quality fields 3 of his 4 PGA victories, or on courses that set up for his style (the Masters) I will not be impressed. As the rapper Chuck D. said, "Don’t believe the hype" Rob

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << << When Annika is prepared to play against Tiger week after week for the same prize, then the "double standard" will vanish. Appearently you haven’t heard of Laura Davies. Annika Sorenstam is NOT a long hitter. Laura Davies is longer than a lot of men on the PGA! There is a very real comparison there. At her latest victory, 12 Bridges, Annika played alot of the time against Julie Inkster whose driving average is a mere 2yrds less than the very long hitting Davies. If you look at the victories of Annika vs.Tiger this year (or last lear for that matter), you will see a big diference. Annika won the Tournament of Champions. Tiger won early, with most of the field of less than stellar quality. He won the Masters which is not only an over-hyped(TPC at Swagrass should be a major, not the Masters which is just a final kiss to Bobby Jones’ ass, ala the Tradition to Jack Nicklaus) event but set up perfectly for long hitters that can put(that describes Tiger to a tee). Annika achieved something NO man or woman has ever achieved, she lead the money list on TWO different tours in the SAME year!! Where was the Sports Ilustrated cover on her? Tiger will probably win two million in prize money and everyone will proclaim him the best, Annika will probably break a million and very few will notice, that is sad. Annika has not only won the same major two years in a row, but its the hardest of the majors (U.S.Open). If Tiger can win the Open in the same dominating fashion that Annika did last year, then he deserves to be included in her class of golfers. Until then, when Tiger wins with less

than top quality fields 3 of his 4 PGA victories, or on courses that set up for his style (the Masters) I will not be impressed. Rob

First of all let me say that I am a very big fan of Annika S. and women’s golf as a whole. It is a crying shame that womens golf is not on an equal footing with mens golf in the ways that have been stated before. However Rob, I think that you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing the two tours’ players in this way. First of all Tiger Woods is younger than Annika and has had a shorter career on tour. If you were to compare their accomplishments at the same age you would find a considerable advantage to Tiger. In fact, no one has accomplished more than Tiger Woods at 21 years of age in golf. A lot of pros on the tours consider the USGA amateur championships as equal to majors in stature, and look at what Tiger has done there. The man is obviously an incredible talent. So is Annika, Laura Davies, Juli Inkster, and a lot of others. I also must disagree with your statements about Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Augusta National and the Masters. I would be willing to bet that most pro golfers and a huge number of others including myself feel that golf’s long history and traditions really make the sport special. As for Augusta, the course has made mince meat out of many of the best golfers in the world for as long as I can remember, whether they were long hitters or not. If you look at past champions, many were some of the tours shortest hitters. How about Larry Mize, Nick Faldo, Bernhard Langer, and Ben Crenshaw (short and inaccurate sometimes) to name a few. These champions played their butts off to win, but they often came back another year and missed the cut (ie Faldo this year). What it boils down to is during a given tournament, whoever has the ability to put it all together and execute the best is going to win. Some have this ability more than others. This means that on a given day, most any player on the tours can rise from the pack and win if they put it all together. What I believe should be compared between Tiger and Annika is their mental toughness. This commonality between them is what more so than anything helps them win the big ones. I say hurray for Tiger, Annika,and all other great champions of the two tours. But what is the real point of comparing the two? How about any other thoughts on this subject? Tim L.

Response:

ANY ANNIKA FANS HERE???

admin — Mon, 14 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I’m sure there are a few. While my 5 yr old son Clayton is partial to the Tiger (daddy no longer ranks as the world’s best golfer), my 21 month old daughter jumps up and down shouting "AUNKA! AUNKA!" whenever Ms. Soremstam is on television. And my daughter’s name? Annika, of course. :-) Regards, Mark

Response:

Money, shmoney! I know who I’d rather kiss! Kevin

Response:

| Is there a male golfer on the PGA tour who has reached the level of | success that Annika Sorenstam has displayed in the LPGA ? | | Eldrick Woods, however great he may be [and he is], still has a distance | to go to parallel her recent achievements. | | I’m no feminist (in its modern, political form) – far from it – but even | I can see the blatant double standard that separates the men’s tour from | the women’s tour. Did Annika get a $50M endorsement contract ? | | She’s probably doing quite well financially, but she’d be doing a lot | better were it not for the double standard. It’s not a double standard, it is simply a matter of companies putting their advertising dollars where they think it will do the most good. The fact is that women’s golf does not have the drawing power that the PGA does, let alone the PGA when Tiger is playing. Typical ratings for the LPGA majors usually ranks up there with a "normal" PGA tour event and are about half (or less) the ratings of the PGA majors. Tiger Woods has also shown (at least in his short stint so far on the PGA tour) that he can have a dramatic impact on TV ratings. Corporations know this and they invest their dollars accordingly. When the LPGA draws the same interest that the PGA Tour does, the corporate dollars will follow. Regards, Terry

Response:

| I’m no feminist (in its modern, political form) – far from it – but even | I can see the blatant double standard that separates the men’s tour from | the women’s tour. Did Annika get a $50M endorsement contract ? No. But neither did anyone else in the PGA. Nick

Response:

yes.. I agree she is the VERYTHING about womens golf. A lot of class… and what golf should be… A lot of men should consider watching her to learn and learn on how golf is played… (Not just physically). Annika rules…she is the best and will always be the best….

Response:

Can she shoot a 59 at Augusta and consistently drive 300+ yards with accuracy? No? Then maybe there’s no double standard

Ah…but Tiger DIDN’T shoot a 59 at Augusta!! He shot a 59 at his home course in Orlando the week PRIOR to the Masters. Get your facts straight. Susan — | Susan Hanson | | "Hell, I don’t need to know where the green is; | | where’s the golf course?" | | –Babe Ruth, playing Pine Valley |

Response:

Is there a male golfer on the PGA tour who has reached the level of success that Annika Sorenstam has displayed in the LPGA ? … She’s probably doing quite well financially, but she’d be doing a lot better were it not for the double standard.

I’ve seen two arguments in the replies to you that justify the "double standard" eminently well: 1. The logical/sports argument. 2. The money/value argument. THE LOGICAL/SPORTS ARGUMENT: It was decided (at least in the USA) decades ago that "separate but equal" is not equal. I think that applies here. As long as the men and women are playing separately, rather than competing against one another for the same prize, they are not playing the same game. If they are not playing the same game, then there’s no logic that says the prize money should be similar. When Annika is prepared to play against Tiger week after week for the same prize, then the "double standard" will vanish. Until then, the fact that she doesn’t suggests that it isn’t interesting to talk about a "double standard." THE MONEY/VALUE ARGUMENT: The money (both prizes and endorsements) in pro sports — ANY pro sports — is put up by sponsors. Those sponsors aren’t being charitable; they expect value in return. They are buying an audience to whom they can present their advertising message. They measure the value of their sponsorship in terms of exposure to the message and increased sales. If the TV audience for womens golf is smaller than that for men’s golf, then the purses and endorsements will be smaller because there isn’t as much audience to sell to the sponsor. If putting Nike shoes visibly on Tiger will sell 10 million pair of Nike shoes, and putting Nike shoes visibly on Annika will sell 1 million pair of Nike shoes, then there’s a good commercial reason Tiger gets ten times as much in endorsements. Personally, if we are really interested in eliminating the double standard, I think we should be looking harder at high school and college sports. Put much more emphasis on intramurals (make minimums required, and for both genders), and take away emphasis on varsity sports. This might raise interest and awareness (1) OF women’s sports, and (2) BY women about sports. The result might be a bigger audience and more competitive female athletes. But, at least in the US, this isn’t likely to happen. I recently saw an election ad for a local school budget; it threatened which programs were going to be cut if the budget wasn’t passed. There were lots of academic and school maintenance programs on the block, but absolutely nothing connected with the varsity team. Apalling! Just the way I see it. Dave

Response:

Is there a male golfer on the PGA tour who has reached the level of success that Annika Sorenstam has displayed in the LPGA ? Eldrick Woods, however great he may be [and he is], still has a distance to go to parallel her recent achievements. I’m no feminist (in its modern, political form) – far from it – but even I can see the blatant double standard that separates the men’s tour from the women’s tour. Did Annika get a $50M endorsement contract ? She’s probably doing quite well financially, but she’d be doing a lot better were it not for the double standard.

The reason why Annika Sorenstam doesn’t have a $50 million dollar endorsement is because she’s not someone who stands out. Sure she’s a great golfer and all but most of the women on the LPGA all play at the same level of skill. There’s not one golfer on the LPGA that can blow away the field in an event let alone a Grand Slam. That’s what people want to see. Also as someone already mentioned, Woods is a minority of two races so that makes it even more interesting. One other reason is that he is the type of person that can make thousands of people who have never even thought twice about the sport of golf to start playing it. That’s why Tiger Woods has such a contract. People are willing to buy things the Woods uses or wears just because they want to be like him. Does anybody want to be like Annika? I don’t think so. Besides, women’s golf is very boring to watch. If it wasn’t, then don’t you think it would be televised more often? L8R SapSucker! Andy Hua / Carleton University / "Go to Heaven, Biochemistry / ski like Hell!"

Response:

I mostly watch the PGA ,but some of those women can sure swing theclubs

Response:

She’s probably doing quite well financially, but she’d be doing a lot better were it not for the double standard. Hjalmar

In every sport the viewership speaks volumes. Though there may be a double standard, that standard is set by the masses, not by sponsors or tournament organisers, which I felt you might have gently implied in your post. It just the reality of the sporting world in the 20th Century, and it’ll be hard to forsee changes in it until perhaps women and men compete in the same events, which could start in event like uhm… darts, curling, snooker and bowling (ie. quasi-sports, where physical strength isn’t an overwhelming requirement, and the playing field is, in effect, level. I’m not being sexist here, its just the way physical sports are going to be. But I guess its not for me to judge… local junior girls are outdriving me…

Response:

Can she shoot a 59 at Augusta and consistently drive 300+ yards with accuracy? No? Then maybe there’s no double standard – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hjalmar

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is there a male golfer on the PGA tour who has reached the level of success that Annika Sorenstam has displayed in the LPGA ? Eldrick Woods, however great he may be [and he is], still has a distance to go to parallel her recent achievements. I’m no feminist (in its modern, political form) – far from it – but even I can see the blatant double standard that separates the men’s tour from the women’s tour. Did Annika get a $50M endorsement contract ? She’s probably doing quite well financially, but she’d be doing a lot better were it not for the double standard. Hjalmar

Hjalmer: If we are going to talk about double standards between male and female golfers, I think we should also looke at the doube standard between Tiger and other PGA players. Why should Tiger make more money from endorsements than Norman, Faldo, Price, and etc? They should sit out in protest from all tournies until they make what Tiger makes, right? Of course we would not want that, and PGA players know that Tiger isn’t taking a larger piece of the pie, but making the pie bigger for everyone. I’ve heard every pro-golfer say this about Tiger: he is bringing more interest into golf not only from new golfers, but from corporations as well and the PGA Tour and its players will benefit from it. On the issue of female golfers making less than male counterparts, I believe Tiger and his presence will benefit the LPGA as well. Tiger isn’t just inspiring the future stars of PGA Tour, but LPGA Tour as well. A niece of mine admires Tiger Woods and actually wants to go out to the range and practice with her father. There is inequality between PGA and LPGA Tour, but we can’t fault Tiger Woods because he received a fat check from Nike. If we truly want to remove the double standard between female and male golfers, we need to teach our children the same. Frank

Response:

Annika didn’t get a $50m dollar contract because no one watches womens golf. Is to boring, slow moving, and there is no one who really dominates. Tiger got the money because he is an ethnic minority, and because in mens golf, it was always the select few who won tournaments, they wanted and needed someone who was outside of the inner circle, someone who wasn’t born with a silver sppon in his mouth. plus Annika is foreign. I’m not saying that its right, its just the way it is. brian "I’m not stupid, I just have command over thoroughly useless information." Clavin and Hobbes

Response:

Womens golf may not be as big a draw as the PGA but I still love to watch her play! She has a great game. Your thoughts?

I absolutely agree! I could watch her all day!

Response:

Womens golf may not be as big a draw as the PGA but I still love to watch her play! She has a great game. Your thoughts? I absolutely agree! I could watch her all day!

Annika rules! Actually, I do like watching the LPGA tourneys a lot. The ladies swing so smoooothly! Fernando Ma Materials science & engineering University of Arizona http://bigdog.engr.arizona.edu/~ma "A team of individuals does not win, but a team of teams, uh, of a group, uh, a team of players is a winning team. Oh, you know what I mean." -Bennett Davison, UA Basketball player

Response:

I’d carry her bag anywhere! Kevin

Response:

<< Womens golf may not be as big a draw as the PGA but I still love to watch her play! She has a great game. Your thoughts? I absolutely agree! I could watch her all day! Annika Sorenstam is a better golfer than Tiger Woods. For those who disagree, length isnt the only measure of a good golfer. Rob

Response:

: Womens golf may not be as big a draw as the PGA but I still love to : watch her play! She has a great game. : : Your thoughts? : I am a huge Annika fan… I love her game. Her swing is so beautiful. I am constantly impressed with the top womens golfers, with the exception of Davies, most are not as strong as your average top mens golfer. Not being able to muscle the club on the correct swing path forces the women to have PERFECT swings. And they do. They squeeze every last bit out of their game and swing, the tempo and rythm is so good on most of them its almost hypnotic. I wish my swing was even close to how good Annika’s is. chopper

Response:

: : Womens golf may not be as big a draw as the PGA but I still love to : watch her play! She has a great game. : : Your thoughts? : : I absolutely agree! I could watch her all day! : : Annika rules! Actually, I do like watching the LPGA tourneys a lot. The : ladies swing so smoooothly! i love annika! she broke my heart when she got married!

Response:

Womens golf may not be as big a draw as the PGA but I still love to watch her play! She has a great game. Your thoughts?

Response:

Womens golf may not be as big a draw as the PGA but I still love to watch her play! She has a great game. Your thoughts?

Response:

the only times that i will watch womens golf is when i know that they will be showing her playing. she is the most dominant female golfer that i have seen play. i am a huge fan and wish her the best in the future.