« Boo Weekley tries to prove he's dumber than John Daly, but failsWright's at Arizona Biltmore stands out as Phoenix's holiday version of Tavern on the Green »

40 comments

Comment from: wendy (uk) [Visitor]
Who were the voters?

Lorena would probably have won the "most successful sportswoman of the year award" Whilst someone who plays golf might be an athlete, I don't consider golfers per se as athletes. Lorena is fantastic but no-one outside the world of golf has probably ever heard of her. Justine Henin & Paula Radcliffe are greater athletes. Candace Parker/Allyson Felix - no - you're right - never heard of them. However, just because you don't watch tennis or running, doesn't make these sports less "watchable" than golf - player and fan though I am. The problem is, Chris, that you are pretty one-dimensional. You should be embarrassed, not Lorena.
2007-12-28 @ 14:08
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Yeah, it's sort of like being voted best writer at TravelGolf.com.
2007-12-29 @ 02:15
Comment from: Pat [Visitor] Email
Sorry to say but I hope you people really are ignorant!!! Her accomplishments as an athelete were phenomenal, to say the least. Going up against the competition she did, coming from behind to win tournaments, leading from wire to wire...JUST PLAIN OUTSTANDING. Anyone with any REAL golf knowledge will KNOW just how good she was this year. She was hands down the best female athelete of the year! Maybe over the last five years but I 'm sure you can make an argument for A. Soranstam. Truly outstanding.....her accomplishments this year would stand tall against any other females accomplishments over the past 10 years!!!
2007-12-30 @ 16:25
Comment from: robjr4 [Visitor] Email
athlete of the year,yes it thats what its called not her fault other female athletes not on her level. Dont try to cater to people who are closeminded and are so in love with nfl baseball and then the rest of the sports world. She finished the year by winning a million dollar tournament with the biggest shot on the 18the hole!!!!!who cares what other people think as long as im captivated.2008, hey can you think for yourself.
2007-12-31 @ 00:48
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Look - I'm a Lorena fan but... athlete - "a contender for victory in feats of strength, speed, endurance or agility". I'd vote for Lorena as "Sportswoman of the Year" not athlete given my interpretation of the word. My point was that Chris appears ignorant of the rest of the world of athletics o/s USA and Judge as usual doesn't recognise anything other than male achievements (although his comment was witty nonetheless).
2007-12-31 @ 14:34
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Wendy,

I simply acknowledge reality. Here's my perspective: In sports in which we can quantify achievement (e.g., measure times with a stopwatch), the best high school boys are usually considerably better than the best women. Thus, why would I take women's sports more seriously than high school varsity sports? It makes no sense.

And, whether you realize it or not, this perspective animates this debate. Men like Baldwin poke fun at Ochoa's achievement because, whether they realize it or not, they're viewing women through the prism of male achievement.

This is something for which you can thank feminism. If our perspective would be that they're just "girls" -- which they are -- we wouldn't judge them by unrealistically high standards.

The problem is that many women today are counterfeit men.
2008-01-04 @ 14:54
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Judge - I'm well aware of your perspective from previous posts. However, I enjoy watching the top performers in most sports, male & female.

I didn't think Chris was deriding Lorena but her competition (for a title that I have issues with as I have said which is why I enjoyed your comment). I particularly admire Justine Henin & the fact that Roger Federer would beat her every time is of no import whatsoever to me. (Wonder if I can suggest they play mixed doubles, however?).

Fortunately the men I play golf with and against are free from your prejudices against women (which extend far beyond the sports arena) but then I don't despise them because of their sex.
2008-01-05 @ 12:16
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Well, Wendy, I will say that you're quite rational and a good sport. You're also quite tolerant, which is very unusual -- especially among the people who preach tolerance most (I'm not implying that you're one of them).

The only thing I'll say is that I don't have prejudices against women; I have observations about them.
2008-01-05 @ 12:30
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Wendy,

Roger Federer isn't the only male tennis player who would thrash Justine in every match.

I am certain, just as you should be, that there are literally thousands of male players worldwide who could easily destroy Justine any day of the week and twice on Sunday. All but a few of these thousands are unknown and will remain unknown for the remainder of their lives.

The fact that you admire Justine and enjoy watching her play is entirely irrelevant. Most parents and relatives thoroughly enjoy watching their daughters play tennis, gymnastics, swimming, etc., but they are virtually the only ones who so enjoy these girlie sports, which can be evidenced by the sparse attendance at these games.

Judge is correct, as usual. But many women and even some men who should know better continue to ignore the irrefutable differences in physique, strength and coordination between the sexes.

There are even thousands of feminists of both sexes who would just love to have a flaky woman as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, the best and most powerful the world has ever seen.

I'm certain that you have read on these boards the rantings of a few of your own countrymen who, until a few months ago, continued to trumpet that Michelle Wie had the arm and wrist strength, and the golf game, to compete with success on the PGA tour. Two who come readily to mind are Norman and Stanley. Are you another?

Girls' and women's sports are an inferior product, and will remain inferior to perpetuity. Judge knows as much, I know as much,the paying public knows as much, and you should know as much.
2008-01-05 @ 13:15
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Alex,

Now that you mentioned the Wiebots, just where have Norman, Stanley et al. gone? It's as if they joined a foreign legion somewhere and are never to be heard from again. Well, heck, who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth?

As for tennis, I'm sure you remember the long exposition I presented on the subject quite a while ago. Since I used to be a tennis pro, I think it would disabuse many misguided souls (those who are open-minded, I mean) of any feminist-inspired notions they might have regarding the matter.
2008-01-05 @ 15:43
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Thank you Judge, although I now feel slightly unnerved, of course. However, my most praise-worthy quality is the ability not to raise to the majority of your baits.

On that topic, I was most disappointed to see your post on the Russell Crowe blog. The comments from women (for the most part) were indeed infantile, so I thought it beneath you to participate, other than in RonMon mode. I do agree that the exchange of emotion by trading insults is more of a male than female trait. (Just an observation). I find these exchanges amusing to read but know and accept that I cannot join in. However, I thought it very tongue-in-cheek of you to suggest that you had never read any male drivel of equal direness.

I may have to test you
2008-01-06 @ 08:13
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Oh Alex - you're repeating yourself. I suspect it's short-term memory loss. Michelle Who? I think I said I enjoyed watching TOP sports performers of either sex. I am no more responsible for the rantings of my fellow countrymen than I am for yours (rantings that is). Nice to have you back of course.
2008-01-06 @ 08:24
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Wendy,

Thank you. But I don't believe I ever left.

It is great that you have not been so inculcated by pervasive feminism that you would adamantly eschew disabusal.

What? Me rant? Never! I merely calmly discuss.
2008-01-06 @ 10:19
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Back on your male versus female soapbox that is, where your views are as irrelevant to me as my enjoyment of Justine's tennis is to you.
2008-01-06 @ 13:45
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Wendy,

Please don't adopt an air of pugnacity.

I have no complaint with the status of male-female relationship as they exist in the civilized world.

I am quite satisfied with women out-living men by more than five years on average.

Also, I see nothing wrong with women possessing and controlling at least 75% of the wealth in the US and Europe.

We men will be more than content with possessing and utilizing the vast majority of the brainpower and inventiveness on the planet Earth.

After all, money isn't everything.
2008-01-06 @ 16:23
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Alex,

Something just occurred to me. Isn't "female athlete" an oxymoron?
2008-01-06 @ 19:45
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails,

The only females that I ever saw who could be called athletes were all those broads from Eastern Europe and a few US home growns who were pumped full of steroids, and substances like HGH and EPO. The late FloJo and the recent Maid Marion Jones come readily to mind.

Some of those creatures could have gone bear-hunting with a switch.

Or played linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers.
2008-01-07 @ 08:17
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
I've always been pugnacious, Alex, and have never sought nor will ever seek permission to be so.

BTW The etymon of the word "punk" is as archaic and obsolete as your views.
2008-01-07 @ 10:31
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Wendy,

How about "combative"?

And what happened to your sense of humor?
2008-01-07 @ 10:39
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Yup, that too. In fact "Stroppy" is my middle name. I am somewhat vertically challenged, however, which may or may not have something to do with the fact that I bridle at being told what I can or cannot do.
Just watch your ankles in future.

My sense of humour is still intact, thank you - but I must be allowed to tweak you occasionally, surely?
2008-01-07 @ 11:58
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Wendy,

Then that explains it.

I wasn't aware that the Napolean complex extended to the female sex.

Remember, dolly, tweaking goes both ways.
2008-01-07 @ 12:21
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
It's more a case of:

"When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons & Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws -
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale -
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male."

Your nerve at suggesting that you haven't been tweaking ad infinitum is breathtaking (but typical).

Call me "dolly" again, and I may have to use the "punk" word in return.
2008-01-07 @ 12:34
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Alex - just in case you don't see the other post.

I assure you that 3c is not in my Chambers Dictionary, and I apologise unreservedly for not being familiar with American slang.

I had in mind calling you a Strumpet (nice old-fashioned word) which I hoped would irritate you as much as calling me a dolly. Wendy
2008-01-07 @ 14:06
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Wendy,

Sorry about that, sweets.

Since you fancy yourself as a 21st century broad, I didn't think you would be so easily offended.

Alex USMC 1969-73
2008-01-07 @ 14:43
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Damn you! How about if I said you were "cute" (yeuck!).
2008-01-07 @ 15:01
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
I'd say you were correct. I am cute. And witty!
2008-01-07 @ 15:06
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
AND vain.
2008-01-07 @ 15:54
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
If the Jesuits were worried about the squaws, it was because a woman can nag you to death.
2008-01-07 @ 16:36
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails,

Yes, women like Wendy give me an urge to sever their vocal cords.

It looks like dear Wendy is suggesting that we men should adopt a tone of subservience and humility.

She even says that I am vain.

My reply is, what's wrong with a little vanity?

If you've got it, flaunt it!
2008-01-08 @ 08:25
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Alex: Scaredy-Cat

"So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow braves in council, dare not leave a place for her"

-----------------------------------

Judge Smails:Confirmation

"Unprovoked and awful charges - even so the she-bear fights;
Speech that drips, corrodes and poisons, even so the cobra bites;
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw,
And the victim writhes with anguish - like the Jesuit with the squaw!

2008-01-08 @ 10:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
What's with all the palaver about braves and squaws and she-bears?

Are you on some American Indian kick?
2008-01-08 @ 10:51
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Prevaricator!
2008-01-08 @ 12:02
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
It looks as though Wendy is using this thread to advertise her poetry.

Actually Wendy, it's pretty good.
2008-01-08 @ 12:43
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Wendy,

I'm concerned about you. You obviously spend an awful lot of time on the computer, so one has to suspect that it might be negatively impacting upon the performance of your womanly duties. I hope you manage to properly tend to hearth and home in the midst of indulging all this frivolity.

Remember, the most important hole-in-one for a woman is when she has to put an egg in a pot.
2008-01-08 @ 13:00
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Careful there, Judge!

Wendy has said that she is verically challenged, and therefore with her attitude she is a virtual mini-hellcat.

If we rile her up too much, she might take her significant other to the wood shed and horizontalize his perpendicularity.

2008-01-08 @ 15:11
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Thank you for your concern, Judge, but I'm used to multi-tasking. I'm an absolute whizz at ALL my womanly duties, and would never neglect them for this frivolity. You're right about the time on the computer, I'm afraid, as I'm currently transcribing archaic records which is somewhat boring. Meddling in your misogynist conversations with Alex provides a little amusement. However do be assured that this is in lieu of playing golf as I have torn a shoulder muscle and am confined to home and hearth where you believe I belong.

Ooops - think I smell the chicken soup burning!
2008-01-09 @ 06:26
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Thank you Alex - Rudyard & I like to use his poetry where appropriate.

I'm sure neither of you would ever intentionally try to rile me (and succeed). On the other hand, by the smile on my husband's face, I think he has misinterpreted your woodshed scenario.
2008-01-09 @ 06:53
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
I may heed your words, Alex. I remember the last time I got a vertically-challenged woman mad at me. She was Mexican. She stood on her tippy-toes and bit my ankle.
2008-01-09 @ 07:45
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
How does one burn chicken soup?

No double entendre was meant, although now I can see how some staid Brit might gather as much.
2008-01-09 @ 07:55
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
I have already warned Alex to watch his ankles.

You're right - it wasn't the chicken soup - it was the oatmeal cookies.

He's neither staid nor Brit (or were you referring to me?)
2008-01-09 @ 08:54

Comments are closed for this post.

Simply select where you want to play, find a tee time deal, and golf now!

Dates: January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
Golf & Gaming Package includes 1 night stay, play 18 holes with cart, complimentary practice balls prior to play, $15 in dining, $15 FREE PLAY, free drink, gift shop and pro shop discounts.
Price range: $143