« Playing while pregnant, and other wonders of golfMy top five golf annoyances (besides Chris Baldwin) »


Comment from: dave [Visitor]
I wouldn't call it a dark side but you sure do have a get it on side. What a delightful post to read on a Friday morning.
After THAT British Open finish I would think he would still be hiding from the press not displaying his A__ to them.
10/28/05 @ 04:56
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
I guess I'll go sign up for Little League baseball now. Always wanted to be able to hit like Barry Bonds. I'll be a mega-star!!!!
10/28/05 @ 08:08
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
Sort of like a male corporate executive complaining that he would be at a disadvantage getting a secretarial job. The Women's Open has purses something like 20% of the Open. Maybe one of the women should demand that the purses be the same (like in tennis).
10/28/05 @ 10:25
Comment from: Kenneth [Visitor]

As we say in the South when we come across people like Jean Van de Velde or Chris Baldwin....

" Bless their heart "
10/28/05 @ 13:31
Comment from: patrick [Visitor]
Women claims always about equality and parity, but when they got it, they want always to explain the necessity of change the rules, as they want always to change the men at her image...
Women want to compete with men ? All right, so why di they refuse that men compete with women... Your're afraid by a frog miss ?
so take your clubs and come on the course, instead of blablating and we will see who will laugh...

Last picture of Jean joint, just for you, i will send him your post, of course...

10/28/05 @ 13:40
Comment from: jean-paul II [Visitor]
You are a very serious person. You really worked hard on the Van de Velde reply. You should have smiled instead and waited for the developments to come. It could be entertaining and will provide interesting discussions by the fireside this winter.

By the way, Jean is male, Jeanne is female and Mario is a guy.

10/28/05 @ 14:35
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Right on Jen.

I don't know what is sooo tough about this.

--There are AGE restricted events (senior open, juniors)

-- There are Amatuer restricted events (US AM, Bristish AM, Senior AM, etc.)

--There are gender specific events (Women's Open, Women's AM)

No one has ever complained about qualifying juniors in the Open..or Seniors. For some reason the anger is saved for women.

The US Open (and now Open Championship/British Open) are not restricted events. They are for the best players in the world...and have a level of grassroots to them because they allow everyone to attempt to qualify.

It has always seemed asinine to me this "where do we draw the line...if they can play OUR events we can play THEIR events". It doesn't make any sense.

It also casts suspicion on one of the criticisms of Michelle Wie and Annika Sorenstam, when they play with the men. It is often said, "if they only QUALIFIED, then they will have proved they belong".

Now Van De Velde (and some others) are complaining about Women even Qualifying!!

I understand that the men who finish below the women are unmercifully teased (I have heard the heckling Adam Scott took when he finished below Michell Wie a few years ago at the Sony...was fierce) but GROW Up. You are paid to tee it up against the best and if a woman can qualify her way in, she has proven she belongs...no one wants to mollycoddle you.

I wondered, a few years ago when Van de Velde rolled up his pants and got into the water at the British Open..."what the hell is he thinking". Now I know. The idiot was thinking..."If I only had a skirt on, I wouldn't look like such an effin idiot"!!!

10/28/05 @ 16:11
Comment from: metoo [Visitor]
Jean-PaullII wrote
You are a very serious person. You really worked hard on the Van de Velde reply. You should have smiled instead and waited for the developments to come. It could be entertaining and will provide interesting discussions by the fireside this winter.

By the way, Jean is male, Jeanne is female and Mario is a guy.

Gee, Mario doesn't look like a guy to me. If that's what a guy looks like maybe I should reconsider...
10/28/05 @ 16:14
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Mario you are spot on.

The PGA tour is for everyone. It is for the very best. Anyone good enough should be allowed to play.

The LPGA is women only. That's fine, in the same way the seniors is for over 50's.

If Van De Velde wants to play on the WOMENS tour. He should also apply to play on the SENIORS tour.

I think he is just looking for publicity. Pity he isn't like Annika and just able to let his clubs do the talking.
10/28/05 @ 16:53
Comment from: shrodr [Visitor]
If there are men out there who fear the possibility of competing against women in the future, then all they need do is set up their own tour and name it the MPGA. PGA has no gender specification. I've played with many a good female golfer in a pick up foursome, and have never felt bad as I watched her score lower. Play your own game, and leave the attitude at home. I do see a great made for TV event coming with Jean vs. Annika, in golf's battle of the sexes, a golfing Bobby Riggs vs. Billy Jean King.
10/29/05 @ 10:41
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
shrodr, I think if Van de Velde took his current form into that match, Annika would wip him.
10/29/05 @ 13:07
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
Van de Velde would have trouble against some of the shorter ladies off the tee, playing from the Men's tee boxes, right now. Against Annika, Wie, Creamer, Kerr, the Korean all-stars (JJ, Birdie, Grace Park), even Pressel, he would be hard pressed to win. He's just not playing very well.

Hmm. Maybe they should let him play in a kilt. If only the tournament were at Carnoustie next year, how fitting for him to be shamed at the same course twice in one career.

Even better, let's have Jean and Vijay play alternate shot against Annika and Wie. I'd pay good money to see that Battle at Bighorn style matchup! Team Misogeny against Team Future of Golf. Quality viewing!

As The Sports Guy says, some day, when I am running ESPN 6, I'll make this happen...
10/29/05 @ 16:14
Comment from: Alexander [Visitor]
You are out of line ladie. Anyone should be able to play in any profetional sporting event. If Jean can't play with the ladies why can Annika or Michelle play with the men? Are you Sexist or something.
10/30/05 @ 18:00
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Jean cannot play with the ladies for exactly the same reason that he cannot play with the seniors.

I don't hear you or Jean saying that he should be able to join the OVER 50's tour.

The over 50's are entitled to have their own tour, as are the women.

However the PGA tour is for the best. Over 50's should be allowed to enter and women should be allowed to enter.

If you are calling for the banning of women from the PGA tour, then you should also call for the banning of over 50's, like Tom Watson and Greg Norman.
10/31/05 @ 08:36
Comment from: joey [Visitor]
I recall Jean's response to the question why he did not play the last hole of the Open more conservatively, and he said he did not want to look like a coward. Hmm, let's think about this, I would rather throw away a spot in history as an Open winner than appear to be a coward. What does that say about the man's judgment?

On the other hand, if his goal is to be in the news, I guess that is pretty good judgment in both cases, eh?
11/01/05 @ 13:29
Comment from: Denver Player [Visitor]
If Michelle Wie or Annika wants to play in ANY men's event, that's fine. If she can compete, let her play. She should earn it, however. Sponsor's exemptions into men's events are BS, in my book. They weren't really intended to be a publicity stunt, as they are used now. They were intended as a vehicle to invite proven players who might otherwise not have qualified through normal means (major champions, past champions, etc.). Michelle hasn't hit that mark yet. Annika hasn't, either. We're talking PGA credentials here, not LPGA credentials.

Unfortunately, their participation in men's events undermines the integrity of the LPGA tour. If they believe their place is to compete against the finest, then that is great. I encourage it. But I think it represents a slap in the face to all those who compete week in, week out on the LPGA Tour. It says, "I want to compete against the best, so I am going to play against the men." And when I am done missing the cut, I'll come back and beat all of you again."

If Annika, Michelle and others want to compete on the PGA, let's dissolve the LPGA and make the PGA Tour all-inclusive. Let Natalie, Paula, Christie Kerr and others try their hand at tour school or the Monday qualifiers. If they make it, great. Otherwise, shutup and be happy that sponsors actually put up money so you can play on the LPGA, and leave the men's events alone.

Nobody says there has to be professional women's golf. Have you seen the crummy product otherwise known as the WNBA? What junk that is.
11/01/05 @ 18:47
Comment from: Alexander [Visitor]
Norman If the ladies want their own tour then they should not try to play on the mens tour. Unless we want to have a co-ed tour then there is no reason for Jean to not be alowed to play on the ladies tour while there are women playing on the mens tour.
11/01/05 @ 23:32
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
Alexander, we DO have a co-ed tour - it's called "The Professional Golfer's Association Tour". We also have lesser tours, which are designed for players that are not as good - the Nationwide tour (for players who can't quite reach PGA level), the Champions Tour (for older players who can't quite reach PGA level), the LPGA (for ladies who can't quite reach PGA level), the Amateur tournaments (for people who do not receive money to play the game of golf). These are ALL lesser tours with specific restrictions, designed to create competitive golf at varying levels of ability. The PGA has only one restriction - be good enough to play here, period.

Denver Player, you are off base on two points. First, on the "purpose" of sponsor exemptions. Sponsor exemptions are NOT designed "as a vehicle to invite proven players who might otherwise not have qualified through normal means" at all. Sponsor exemptions are opportunities for the sponsors, who put up the big bucks for these tournaments, to name ANY player of their choosing to the field. The purpose is almost always to drive ticket sales and television ratings. That is why the sponsor exemptions often go to "major champions, past champions, etc." as you note. Those players drive interest. Sponsor exemptions also often go to local pros, as that drives ticket sales. Having a Wie or Sorenstam play drives ticket sales and viewership, which is why they will continue to get sponsor exemptions onto the PGA Tour.

The second point you miss is this concept of the LPGA being insolvent without the (at most) handful of women who might be able to compete in a few PGA events. By that reasoning, dissolve the Champions Tour, as the best of the older players will still play in PGA events instead of Champions Tour events. Dissolve the Junior leagues, dissolve Amateur tournaments, dissolve the Nationwide Tour, as the only good players who would qualify for those tournaments will be playing PGA events when ever they can.

The purpose of the lesser leagues is to create a competitive environment within a reasonable context. Age, gender, professionalism and skill level all are reasonable contexts within which to create a competitive environment. The PGA does not specify a context, because it is the highest level of the sport. It is not bounded by anything other than score and the standard Rules of Golf. If you are good enough to play there, then you can play there.

You should always be allowed to step up to a higher level of competition, but not step down unless you belong to that sub-grouping.

Why is it such an issue to have women competing in the Open Championship (which by it's name tells you ANYONE should be able to qualify and play) or on the PGA Tour? If they can play and make the cut, great. If they can't, no harm done.
11/02/05 @ 03:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alexander said:
Norman If the ladies want their own tour then they should not try to play on the mens tour. Unless we want to have a co-ed tour then there is no reason for Jean to not be alowed to play on the ladies tour while there are women playing on the mens tour.

From what you are saying, it would then follow that the over 50's such as Greg Norman and Tom Watson should no longer be able to play on the PGA tour, because they have their own tour on which most PGA tour players cannot compete.

Jean is not allowed to play on the ladies tour for exactly the same reason as he is not allowed to play on the Seniors tour.

Should the seniors tour be disolved also then. By your logic, it should.

Alexander, please reply, because I'd be very intersted to know if you are swayed by my arguement at all.
11/02/05 @ 11:01
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Denver Player said:
Unfortunately, their participation in men's events undermines the integrity of the LPGA tour. If they believe their place is to compete against the finest, then that is great. I encourage it. But I think it represents a slap in the face to all those who compete week in, week out on the LPGA Tour. It says, "I want to compete against the best, so I am going to play against the men." And when I am done missing the cut, I'll come back and beat all of you again."

Your arguement is really flawed. Competing on a better tour is in NO WAY a slap in the face to the other lpga players. When women compete on the pga tour, it says to people "hold on a minute, woman can play golf and play it well". All this does is to fuel interest in the lpga and will help to increase viewership and sponsorship. The lpga will be the one who will benefit the most.

You then went on to argue for the disbandment of the lpga if their players are allowed to play on the pga. By this arguement, this should mean that if the seniors like Greg Norman are allowed to play on the PGA tour, then the Seniors tour should also be disbanded.
In fact, since players from all different tours can play on the PGA, then all tours bar the PGA should be disbanded. Where would this leave us?

The thing you seem to be failing to understand is this:
- the PGA tour is for the best. That includes anyone, whether man, woman, senior, junior, amatuer etc.
- there are many other tours, such as the lpg tour and the seniors tour, juniors, amatuers. These tours are for specific categories of people, such as WOMEN or OVER 50's, or AMATUERS etc, UNDER 14's etc.
Playing in these lesser tours, does not mean that someone like Greg Norman or Michelle Wie, should not also be able to enter the PGA tour.
11/02/05 @ 11:11
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
Here here, Norman. We are saying the same things. Well put.
11/02/05 @ 16:54
Comment from: Greg Pinelli [Visitor]
Denver Player and all other LPGA lovers.....The LPGA still has about half a generation..a decade...before the reality of the new golf landscape sets in. The LPGA will be much like the Nationwide Tour...a fixed number of the top women will earn PGA cards (or World cards...whatever the equivalent is at that time)...a larger percentage of Nationwide players the same... .
Michelle...and the other young women that follow are merely the tip of the iceberg. There are 3 or 4 reasons this whole sea change is taking place...at the top of the list are one no one can do anything about...the other is manageable. But television and golf club/ball manufacturers want none of it!
The upshot of all this is that the money in golf will be greater and more concentrated...and it may well become..after NCAA and NFL football...the most watched stuff on Saturday and Sunday. This is the NEW GOLF....and it is going to turn traditionalists on their pin heads.
11/02/05 @ 21:04
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Denver Player, in my opinion, you have made a number of flawed points.

* As regards a sponsors exemption. Whatever it was created for doesn't really matter. What matter is, it is a SPONSORS exemption. Therefore, it is for the SPONSOR to decide. Obviously the sponsor will want to generate as much hype as possible into the tournament. I personally don't care if they invite Pete Samprus or anyone else.

* When Wie makes a cut I think it will not cheapen the experience. It will be every bit valid.

* Then you go on to talk about the champions tour. You say that the sparadic play of the top players, who also want to play the PGA weakens the senior tour.
Well I have news for you, even if they all played on the champions tour all the time, I wouldn't have any interest in watching it, and I don't think many people would.

* Then you say about it weakening the Lpga if Wie or others play on the PGA tour as well. Do you know why many people have started watching the lpga? It is because of their limited participation on the pga tour. I believe what you said is exactly 100% wrong in that the opposite is true. LPGA players, playing on the PGA will actually increase the lpga viewership and prize money, not decrease them.

* I don't think the lpga will ever be dissolved. It may become a stepping stone to the pga, but what is wrong with that.

* Look on it this way. If women were banned from the pga. Then if Michelle Wie became the best woman. TONNES OF PEOPLE would say, if she was allowed to play with the men, she would win lots of events. Some people would even claim that she would have won a major. It might be completely false, but if you discriminate, then people will be able to make any claims they wish. Let women play with men, and nobody will be able to argue of where their standard really is. I think it is way behind (except for a few), but I think the gap will close in time. There isn't any major physical advantage for men in golf, like in tennis or boxing etc.
11/03/05 @ 07:04
Comment from: Denver Player [Visitor]

You are completely missing my intent. This isn't a question of discrimination. I have no problem of women competing vs. men on a level playing field. But what impact will these publicity stunts have on the LPGA Tour, in the longrun?

I agree with Greg. On current course, in the longrun, I think the LPGA and the PGA will merge. In the longrun, I think that will take away the opportunity for as many women to compete on the professional level for the kind of money they are playing for now. The LPGA, even if it doesn't go away, will turn into the WNBA, which is a terrible product. You'll have a few superstars competig on the PGA and a bunch of also-rans competing on the LPGA, if it still exists. Inevitable? Most likely. Good for the game, and the LPGA? Time will tell.

11/03/05 @ 10:21
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
The sky is falling!

I suspect your claims of the demise of the LPGA over the issue of Wie and a (very) few others playing on the PGA are exaggerated, Denver.

Even should there be some "merge", it won't invalidate the LPGA any more than the Nationwide Tour is invalidated. But the reality is that Wie is not a harbinger of massive numbers of women playing on the PGA. She is an exceptional outlier, and in the next twenty years I doubt you will see more than two or three women capable of competing on the PGA circuit in any meaningful way - if that many. Wie herself has not yet shown the ability to compete at a high enough level to maintain a PGA career. What's interesting about her is that she is only 16 and shows signs of ability equal to the best men/boys at her level.

Just as there are two or three amateurs who play The Masters each year, and a few players of Champions Tour age that compete regularly on the PGA Tour, there will be a few women who compete on the PGA regularly. That will NOT gut the LPGA - and those players will almost certainly play the LPGA majors, and will also almost certainly not win them any more frequently than Tiger wins majors in the PGA. Just because Tiger takes $3 million to go play in Dubai, the PGA events he leaves behind aren't folding for lack of his interest. The same will hold true on the LPGA.

You are drawing conclusions that are incredibly far reaching and exceedingly unlikely, at least in any reasonable timeframe.
11/03/05 @ 10:43
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
I think Candace Polski is totally right.
I just don't see large steams of women going to the pga in the near OR distant future.
There may be one or two, but just look at the top women at moment:
* Wie is a sure bet to try.
* Sorrenstam says she has no interest in trying the pga again.
* Creamer says she has no interest at the present time.
* Kerr says she would need about 20 pounds more muscle.
* Grace Park played a little exhibition with 3 men last summer and didn't fair too well, due to length.
* Morgan Pressel hasn't much a chance cause she can only hit it about 20 yards.

Therefore I think the lpga will have all it's main stars for years to come. At this moment only Wie will vacate and maybe some girls who look up to her and see that it is possible to break down those barriers may follow her in future, but we are talking a long way off here.

I certainly don't believe the lpga and pga will merge within the next 100 years.
The lpga will get stronger in the short term for sure. Maybe Denver is right that it could weaken in the long term, but it's difficult to predict that far.
11/03/05 @ 15:32
Comment from: Denver Player [Visitor]

You make my point. Certainly, I don't believe there will be a large throng of women who will be competitive on the PGA. The very fact that a few try, and may succeed, will weaken the existence of the LPGA. Sponsorship dollars will focus on a "Mega Tour", as Greg describes above. This, in my mind, will take away the opportunity for more women to compete at the professional level, because the LPGA will be unsustainable from a financial perspective. Sponsors will align with the viewers/patrons, who will gravitate to the PGA. Whether it is 10 years from now or 25 years from now, the process has started.

And again, you can't compare the Nationwide to the LPGA. The Nationwide is only in existence because the PGA Tour heavily subsidizes it. It does not, and could not, succeed on its own, because patrons would rather spend $$ to see players on the PGA. The LPGA must be self-sustainable to exist. The PGA wouldn't likely bail out the LPGA if it hit significant financial straights. So if the sponsorship dollars go, so will go the existence,or at least the viability, of the LPGA.

Tough choice for Wie and Sorenstam. Try to compete at the highest level, or look out for the greater good of the LPGA? I don't know the answer, but it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

11/03/05 @ 17:50
Comment from: Alexander [Visitor]
Candace Polski ************************************** ***The PGA has only one restriction - be good enough to play here, period.**** ************************************** And no women that has played it has ever qualified!!!!!!!! They have all got sponsors invites. If Jean wants to play let him play it's not like he will win.
11/03/05 @ 21:07
Comment from: Alexander [Visitor]
Norman said ******************** From what you are saying, it would then follow that the over 50's such as Greg Norman and Tom Watson should no longer be able to play on the PGA tour, because they have their own tour on which most PGA tour players cannot compete. ********************** Why do the over 50's matter they are older and cannot compete at the level of the normal PGA tour because they don't have the physical strenth anymore because they are older and their body's have changed.
11/03/05 @ 21:12
Comment from: Mark Nessmith [Visitor]
Alexander wrote:
>>"And no women that has played it has ever qualified!!!!!!!! They have all got sponsors invites."


Not true. PGA club pro Suzy Whaley qualified for the 2003 Greater Hartford Open by winning the PGA Connecticut Section Championship. Granted, she was playing from the short tees in the Connecticut Section event, but she did qualify for the GHO - it was NOT a sponsor invite.
11/04/05 @ 06:29
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alexander, I agree that Jean wouldn't win. I would like to have him play with the women just to see what would happen, but it ain't going to happen.

* Put in a rule, to let Jean play in a one off tournament. He is only applying to play to make a point. If he got accepted, he would probably wet his pants.
* If he did play, there would be MASSIVE publicity, which would be good for the lpga.
* He wouldn't win and would probably bottle it and finish well down, which would make the lpga players look better than they really are, which is good for the lpga.
11/04/05 @ 09:52
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Denver Player, I don't think Annika or Michelle will look at it as a simple desision of:
"Try to compete at the highest level, or look out for the greater good of the LPGA?".
I think competing at the highest level will bring more publicity, support and sponsorship back to the lpga.

Michelle is already helping the lpga in my opinion. I think her mind is made up. She is going to compete at the highest level she can. She will try and try against the men.
Annika's mind is also made up. She is going to continue with the lpga and forget about the men. However I have a feeling Annika's mind will change when she sees Michelle do better and better.
11/04/05 @ 10:01
Comment from: Rudy [Visitor]
Why be angry at him? Does it mean that women are more equal than men? It's ok when it's one-way only?
11/04/05 @ 10:40
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
You are completely missing the point, or else you are just not reading any of the comments posted above.

* If Van de Velde want to enter the womens, he should also try to enter the seniors. If the over 50's are entitled to a tour, so are the women.

* The PGA on the other hand is for the best. You cannot exclude anyone. If you exclude a certain section from the PGA, you are possibly denying the best getting through.

* If anyone wants to ban women from the PGA, then why not ban gays too?
PGA = for everone.
lpga = for women.
seniors = for over 50's.
11/04/05 @ 12:02
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
No Denver, I am not making your point for you. As I said, those few players who do compete on the PGA as women will still play LPGA events - and they will not win everything they play. They will be the best, and will win a lot, much like Tiger wins a lot on the PGA. But they will bring cross-tour appeal. If anything, they will enhance the LPGA's sponsor dollars and recognition. Sponsors are always interested in the next-best-thing (which is why Wie gets $10m in endorsement money before winning a tournament at the professional level). They are also interested in marketing segments. Women buy more than men, per golfer, in terms of items and dollars. Women make up the largest growth segment of new golfers. Women will want to see women play. And I believe golfers and golf fans will be attracted FROM the PGA ranks to watch the best women competing on the LPGA majors and other key events by seeing the best women play on the PGA.

As far as the LPGA folding due to the Mega Tour or what ever, if somehow this happened the PGA would support an LPGA version of the Natiowide Tour to promote top women into the PGA. It's critical to keep the segment motivated. Golf has what every other sport wants - cross-gender support. Sponsors and marketers LOVE this. David Stern is spending millions on a really crappy product to try to get this kind of cross-gender support in basketball. Golf's female product is not nearly as weak in comparison to the male product as basketball's is, yet they spend this cash. Baseball and football have even less chance of achieving the cross-gender support, but they sure would love to draw in more women.

People and businesses talk about the Far East markets as untapped potential, they talk about underserved markets in South America, Africa and Eastern Europe. The whole point is to find new customers, new consumers, new dollars to generate revenue. In sports, we have half the population as untapped, and finding a way to dig in and get women spending would generate massive returns on investment, because they are RIGHT HERE. It's easier to market and sell in the U.S. than China. Golf has it, the other want it. Unless the powers-that-be in golf are asleep at the switch, the move to include MORE women throughout the sport will continue.

Sorry for the business school answers on this one, but when we get into marketing old habits kick in. In any case, the point is the dollars are not going to go away on the LPGA because of a few players leaving the lesser tournaments behind. The economics do not support that theory.
11/04/05 @ 18:32
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Denver Player said:
Nobody is trying to "ban" women from the tour. This isn't a question of excluding based on sex/age.

You are SO wrong. That is exactly what Van de Velde wants to do. He is not in any way interested in the interest of the LPGA. He says, women should not be allowed to play with men, simple as that.

He does not want women to be able to even qualify for a mens tournament. He wants them completely banned. FULL STOP.

In the case of many men, they want women to have to qualify for tournaments. They have an argument. I don't agree with them, because I think anything we can do to promote women in golf is a good thing. But at least they have a point, in saying that everyone should qualify.

It is people like Van de Velde who are sexist who I have a serious problem with. Women have the right to their own tour, like the seniors do, but women also have a right to qualify for the PGA tour, like the seniors do.
11/05/05 @ 08:49
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Here is the real point:
Women have the right to their own tour, the lpga.

The best on that tour have the right to try moving to the next level and compete against the very best.

Anyone who thinks that they should not be allowed to try to qualify for pga and european pga tournaments is just sexist.
11/05/05 @ 08:53
Comment from: Alexander [Visitor]
Norman Said-
"The best on that tour have the right to try moving to the next level and compete against the very best."


I agree but they need to **qualify** by playing from the back tee's in a monday qualifier or through a lesser tour such as the nationwide tour canadian tour or qualifying school.
If they are going to move up a tour they should qualify like everyone else. I belive that even if you are the best at your level you should not get a "free pass" to the nest level that right to compete must be earned.


Norman Said-
"Women have the right to their own tour, the lpga."

The why can't the pga tour be only for men until someone of another gender actually qualifies.

11/05/05 @ 20:43
Comment from: Candace Polski [Visitor]
Alexander, you are missing the entire point. The R&A did not say "women can qualify on easier tees." They said women will be admitted to the tournament qualification rosters without regard to their gender. Any woman who wants to play in the Open Championship needs to qualify same as a man. There was NOT a ruling by the R&A that women can qualify in any easier manner than men.

So apparently you are actually OK with the R&A ruling - unlike Van de Velde.
11/05/05 @ 23:31
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alexander, you raise very valid points on the arguments of needing to qualify.

At least you are making sense. You say, they should have to qualify like all of the men have to qualify. This is a sound argument.

Van de Velde basically thinks that they should not be allowed to qualify. They will have to qualify for the (mens) Open Championship on the mens tees. They are getting no unfair advantage whatsoever and the chances of any woman actually qualifying are very small indeed.
But Van de Velde believes that even if a woman was 10 times better than any man, she should still not be able to go through qualification and qualify.

As regards getting free passes, that is a completely different manner and nothing to do with the Van de Velde issue. For what it's worth, my own opinion on the matter is that the sponsors pay the wages of the players, so if the sponsors wish to invite Michelle Wie or if they wish to invite Jay Leno, that is there business. They are providing the money for the game, so they are entitled to give a limited couple of exemptions to anyone they want.
11/06/05 @ 09:18
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alexander said:
Then why can't the pga tour be only for men until someone of another gender actually qualifies.

I just want to reiterate that Van de Velde is saying that women should be BANNED FROM QUALIFYING. They should have no opportunity to qualify. He wants them banned, period.
11/06/05 @ 09:20
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
As a fan, I love to watch the top women try to beat the men, but if I was a professional woman golfer, I'd gladly give up the right to play in the Open for a women's open with an equivalent purse. It's beyond me how any man can whine about being treated unfairly when they are paid something like 5 times as much!

Clearly given the current structure it would be hard to increase the Women's open purses to be the same. Maybe they should structure it more like tennis with combined events where, I believe, the women's purses are the same as the men's.
11/07/05 @ 00:18
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
Here's an example of a combined event. Wonder if he'lll invite Van de Velde ;)

11/07/05 @ 11:47
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
A combined event yes, but unfortunately they won't be mixed, it will be like a mens grand slam tennis tournament with seperate events for the men and women.

As regards Van de Velde, the organiser wants big stars, so that rules Van de Velde out.
11/09/05 @ 12:03
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
I was kidding about Van de Velde.

The fact that it is like a tennis tournament is what I think should appeal to women players since the purses are the same for men and women.
11/09/05 @ 18:20
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
That's true, hopefully it will bring the very best women. A pity the women are going off easier tees. It's strange that nobody has come up with an idea of bringing in a heap of top female and male pros, putting them on a very difficult course with shorter holes, but severe penalties for lack of accuracy. Put up a big purse, you'll get the top players and you'll get the fans watching too.
11/10/05 @ 13:37
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
I agree. Something like that would probably be a big commercial success. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this fellow in Australia. My sense is he's got some creative ideas but is overplaying the sex appeal part. He'll probably have the women play in cheerleader outfits.
11/10/05 @ 22:19
Comment from: Visitor [Visitor]
If men were allowed to play in the LPGA or any other female dominated sport they would take it over, The feminist know this quite well so they come up with every idiotic reason to justify keeping men away from women sports.
12/20/05 @ 19:29
Comment from: The number one enemy to women; a male with an opinion [Visitor]
The women certainly enjoy the supposed "right" they feel they have to assassinate the character of a man that stands up for himself. Jean Van de Velde took a stand against reverse discrimination and his whole life has become fair game for slander to every feminist on the planet. He is simply making the point that the women have the LPGA and they are very talented, have endorsements and make a great living. Now they want to play on the PGA tour and take money off the table for men who have worked for a lifetime to feed a family and support themselves. What would happen if women soon dominated the PGA tour and no men could qualify for the events? Two things. One, women would laugh, jeer and taunt the men they beat. Two, someone then may finally try to create a men's only PGA tour. Of course, this would be deemed sexist and a horrific offense agains women. When will the world realize we live in a feminist socitey and that men have become the last targets of political incoreectness? No men can speak up for fear of character assassination. Look at Vijay. He expressed a simple opinion on the situation and was utterly destroyed by the press and has become hated by every female golfer and feminist (see the "woman" who wrote this article) alive.
01/10/06 @ 15:28
Comment from: Alexander [Visitor]
OH man you are brilliant guy above me thats exactly what I was thinking.
01/13/06 @ 18:41
Comment from: Mario Bandera [Visitor] Email
Quisiera conocer cual es la actividad de Jean Van de Velde, actualmente.
03/15/08 @ 19:35

This post has 3 feedbacks awaiting moderation...

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
Charlotte Golf Packages
Dates: February 18, 2018 - October 7, 2018
Our Core Program ? Three Days of Total Golf Immersion!
Price range: $875