Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Annika Shoots 71 in 1st Round at Colonial

Malthaussen · 05-23-2003, 11:03 AM

Funny that ABC would make such an error... the appearence of Annika has caused a pretty severe tempest in the teacup of professional golf.

A point, MagiK -- another woman (whose name I misremember)has qualified to play at Hartford later this year. Her qualification was controversial because she did, in fact, use the forward tees. I haven't heard one way or another as to whether she will use those tees in that tournament. This subject always comes up when Annika's appearence at Colonial is mentioned. Possibly ABC garbled the stories or you weren't entirely attentive.

Hey, what can I say? I watched her whole round, she was playing from the same tees. As you say, the thing wouldn't be nearly so interesting if she were not.

As for the other topic, of men on the LPGA and women invading the (Implied M) PGA, that one is a pretty hot potato. Show me any three people who could discuss that issue quietly and clearheadedly, and I'd be amazed. The amount of invective the subject has produced reminds me of the nastiest religious debates -- the ones that usually end up with blood on the floor. I doubt many women would want to play regularly on the PGA Tour at this juncture, because they'd do a lot better financially on the LPGA. OTOH, I doubt many men would want to compete on the LPGA because they'd be too embarrassed. It's bad enough being relegated to the Nationwide Tour, or Asia or Canada or some other such barbarous place -- the perceived second-ratedness (or even third-ratedness) of the LPGA would make it anathema to all but the most mercenary of male golfers.

As for women competing against men, why not, after all? "Because they're not as good," is the usual response. So, okay. If they're not as good, they won't compete. Simple. Why is it a problem? It's funny. Most pro athletes are dedicated capitalists -- just look at their paychecks. [img]smile.gif[/img] Most believers in capitalism say that good products will drive out bad, that a commodity will find it's proper level in an unregulated marketplace. Yet when it comes to applying Gresham's Law to gender issues, they become most uncapitalistic indeed. Something wrong, here.

-- Mal

05-23-2003, 11:03 AM	#15
Malthaussen Manshoon Join Date: May 10, 2001 Location: Horsham, PA USA Age: 69 Posts: 151	Funny that ABC would make such an error... the appearence of Annika has caused a pretty severe tempest in the teacup of professional golf. A point, MagiK -- another woman (whose name I misremember)has qualified to play at Hartford later this year. Her qualification was controversial because she did, in fact, use the forward tees. I haven't heard one way or another as to whether she will use those tees in that tournament. This subject always comes up when Annika's appearence at Colonial is mentioned. Possibly ABC garbled the stories or you weren't entirely attentive. Hey, what can I say? I watched her whole round, she was playing from the same tees. As you say, the thing wouldn't be nearly so interesting if she were not. As for the other topic, of men on the LPGA and women invading the (Implied M) PGA, that one is a pretty hot potato. Show me any three people who could discuss that issue quietly and clearheadedly, and I'd be amazed. The amount of invective the subject has produced reminds me of the nastiest religious debates -- the ones that usually end up with blood on the floor. I doubt many women would want to play regularly on the PGA Tour at this juncture, because they'd do a lot better financially on the LPGA. OTOH, I doubt many men would want to compete on the LPGA because they'd be too embarrassed. It's bad enough being relegated to the Nationwide Tour, or Asia or Canada or some other such barbarous place -- the perceived second-ratedness (or even third-ratedness) of the LPGA would make it anathema to all but the most mercenary of male golfers. As for women competing against men, why not, after all? "Because they're not as good," is the usual response. So, okay. If they're not as good, they won't compete. Simple. Why is it a problem? It's funny. Most pro athletes are dedicated capitalists -- just look at their paychecks. [img]smile.gif[/img] Most believers in capitalism say that good products will drive out bad, that a commodity will find it's proper level in an unregulated marketplace. Yet when it comes to applying Gresham's Law to gender issues, they become most uncapitalistic indeed. Something wrong, here. -- Mal __________________ \"Of two choices, I always take the third.\"