Lorena Ochoa should be embarrassed by pathetic competition for Female Athlete of the Year
The stories all make it sound like this is some great accomplishment. Which is a bunch of bull and, if you really look at it, makes about as much sense as one of increasingly loony actor Will Smith’s poetic waxings on Hitler.
Don’t get me wrong. Lorena Ochoa is the kind of player golf should be celebrating. She’s the anti-Wie, all substance and no hype. It’s refreshing to see her recognized as the No. 1 force in women’s golf, heck to finally get a club deal after being wrongly ignored for dominating while Mexican.
It’s just that The Female Athlete of the Year isn’t a real honor.
Winning that award is akin to being named the Hippest Person In Iowa or The Best Dressed Man In Kentucky. There’s virtually no competition. A third-grade class spelling champion faces a much stiffer field every Friday morning. Especially if the teacher throws in one of those mystery words like CAT.
Has anyone bothered to check out who Ochoa beat out for the 2007 Female Athlete of the Year award?
Finishing second through fifth were Justin Henin, Paula Radcliffe, Candace Parker and Allyson Felix. Have you heard of any one of these folks? Has anyone?
As a helpful guide, that’s a tennis player who only wins because the Williams Sisters cannot be bothered with it, a marathon runner (enough said already), a basketball player at Tennessee who is preparing herself for WNBA obscurity and a track and field athlete in a non-Olympic year who’s most interesting feature is that she talks about God almost as much as Masters Champion Zach Johnson.
Ochoa lapped his motley crew for the AP award, receiving as many votes as the next seven finisher combined. Which only begs the question: Who was dumb enough to vote for anyone else besides a female golfer?
None of this is Ochoa’s fault of course. But she should turn down the award on principle, declaring that she’s embarrassed by how little women in other sports have done to make their games interesting (or watchable).
Women’s sports have sunk to such a low level these days that athletes like Ochoa are only competing against their golfing peers to win the entire gender honors.
You can have that Female Athlete of the Year award. Anyone with sense would take one of those tacky bowling league trophies stuck together with the weakest, cheapest glue available instead.
|« Boo Weekley tries to prove he's dumber than John Daly, but fails||Wright's at Arizona Biltmore stands out as Phoenix's holiday version of Tavern on the Green »|
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.
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.
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.
The only thing I'll say is that I don't have prejudices against women; I have observations about them.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Something just occurred to me. Isn't "female athlete" an oxymoron?
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.
BTW The etymon of the word "punk" is as archaic and obsolete as your views.
How about "combative"?
And what happened to your sense of humor?
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?
Then that explains it.
I wasn't aware that the Napolean complex extended to the female sex.
Remember, dolly, tweaking goes both ways.
"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.
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
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
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!
"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"
"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!
Are you on some American Indian kick?
Actually Wendy, it's pretty good.
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.
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.
Ooops - think I smell the chicken soup burning!
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.
No double entendre was meant, although now I can see how some staid Brit might gather as much.
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?)
Comments are closed for this post.