 |
Updated Daily | |
|
|
||
|
       |
Major newspaper gives big coverage to LPGA
Thursday February 15, 2007 | 11:21:57 112 words, 11685 views
I am impressed. The newspaper USA Today has trumped any and all other coverage for the 2007 season on the LPGA Tour. I had planned to write a little something myself about all the interesting stories that will unfold this year, but I’d feel like I was cheating. These folks have covered it so well that all I can do is point you in their direction this time. What this extra special coverage tells me, however, is that the LPGA is starting to raise its profile. And since I already believe the LPGA has a tremendous product, all I can say is congratulations; it’s about time the general public caught on. 
Comments:
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Have you ever attended as a spectator an LPGA tournament for its entire three or four days? I have. At times it's like watching paint dry. No facet of the women's game remotely approaches that of even the Hooter's tour. The drives seldom exceed 230 yards. If a par five is more than 500 yards by even a small amount, nobody even tries to get on the green in two. The fairway iron shots and sand shots are nothing to write home about, and, of course, the putting is far below the standards of most amateur men. The top 20% of the women in a tournament put on a fair show, but the quality tails off noticeably from there. Therein lies the big difference. I've never seen a man on the PGA tour who didn't have game, a lot of game. 
02/15/07 @ 11:53
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
 · http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Yes, I have Alex, several times at the LPGA Championship when they held it here in Washington DC. I have to admit that I always followed the stars/leaders and not the also-rans. Sorry to hear it's not your cup of tea.
02/15/07 @ 12:19
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Women's golf, even at its highest level, is a secondary sport at best. It is tedious; a round for females takes about an hour longer than it does for men at any level. Since you live in the DC area, give me an honest answer to this question. If an LPGA event was being held in, say, Havre de Grace, and concurrently a PGA tournament was being held at Congressional, which would you be more likely to attend? That is a no-brainer.
02/15/07 @ 14:31
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, I would pick the PGA Tour event MOST of the time, but not all. Of course the men's game is the highest level of any golf. No question. So, since you only like the best, I suppose you wouldn't bother to ever watch anybody but Tiger Woods. What's the point? In comparison, somebody like, say, Stephen Ames must seem tedious to you.
I have a serious question for you. Why do you spend so much time on these blogs denigrating the women's game? If you dislike it so much, why not just ignore it?
02/15/07 @ 14:40
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
You're mistaken. I do not denigrate women's sports or women in general. My three daughters competed in high school and college sports, and I thoroughly enjoyed their participation. But no matter how biased I was when a spectator at their games, I never deluded myself into thinking that their sports were equal to or better than a corresponding men's sport. When my wife and I attend a PGA event, we like to observe as many of the players on as many holes as possible. We do not follow any particular golfer around the course. As concerns Tiger, we enjoy his game, but not to the exclusion of all or any other players. We've seen Woods several times at our annual trip to the Memorial. Last year he wasn't entered, but that didn't affect our enthusiasm in the least. Last year, it seemed as though all of those young Turks who usually follow Tiger around, this time joined up with Phil's group and drank enough of those five dollar beers to float an aircraft carrier. We prefer to observe several groups approaching a green, putting, and driving to the next fairway. It's more relaxing and in our opinion, one gets to see nearly all the pros who make the cut. Even Stephen Ames, who has one hell of a game.
02/15/07 @ 15:14
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
How can you say you don't denigrate women's golf? That's a large portion of what you write around here. Just look at your previous post. And I quote, "Women's golf ... it is tedious." I'm pretty sure that qualifies as denigration or belittlement. Seriously.
02/15/07 @ 15:35
Comment from: Oui Oui Oui [Visitor]
While LPGA might not display the highest level of skills, they certainly provide some excitement over the last few years.
This is like comparing college sports and pro sports. The college players might not have the skills of the pros, but they certainly put on some good shows.
02/15/07 @ 15:36
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Actually, Oui, it's more like comparing high school sports and pro sports.
Shanks, When Alex and I take pains to point out the differences between the two tours, it's only in response to those who seem compelled to say only what is politically correct. We are simply countering nonsense with truth.
02/15/07 @ 16:40
Comment from: Jack [Visitor]
Judge, Aren't you the kind ones? Taking the time to enlighten us about the truth!
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
02/15/07 @ 16:55
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
In your book tedious=denigration? Tedious=belittlement? Not in my dictionary. Not in my usage of the word. In every dictionary I've seen, tedious means tiresome, boring, and irksome. That is LPGA golf in a nutshell. The SBC is going on right now, and my wife and I would rather sit and listen to our suppers digest than watch such a non-descript exhibition. Judge, Another genius, this time named Jack, has thrown into his hat to the Alan Cup competition.
02/15/07 @ 18:56
Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member]
Shanks, be sure to get back to us with a blog on what those TV ratings are after this “extra special coverage.” Care to bet if they even reach a 1.0? A 0.8? A 0.6? Need I keep going? Newspapers make all kinds of coverage decisions that have virtually nothing to do with what sports fans are actually interested in. Especially USA Today.
I’m glad you’re excited about the LPGA season and are interested in it like me. Just don’t mistake that with any kind of fever for women’s golf running through America. You’re starting to give that white beard a bad name. Isn’t that supposed to equal wise wisdom?
02/16/07 @ 01:20
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, it would be interesting to know what dictionary you use. According to Webster, denigrate means to defame or belittle. And most casual observers of the English language used here in the U.S. would say that calling an athletic event or skills competition (whichever you prefer) tiresome, boring or irksome, is definitely belittling it.
Smails, there is no question that the level of talent on the LPGA is lower than the PGA Tour. I would never say otherwise. But I will say it is all relative. It does not mean that the drama of the competition is lessened. I'm pretty sure that, say, Karrie Webb was just as nervous, then elated in winning the Kraft Nabisco as Phil Mickelson was in winning the Masters. And Baldy, you're partially right that those ratings will not be huge, and maybe never. But they will increase. Don't be so sure that once the public catches on, a similar thing that happened in tennis could happen to the popularity of women's golf. Nobody ever said that the Williams sisters could beat the men, but they sure as hell became just as popular.
02/16/07 @ 07:58
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Please explain why you think that the television ratings of women's golf will increase. You've cautioned us skeptics not to be sure that they won't increase, then why are you so sure that they will increase?
02/16/07 @ 08:52
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
I see parallels to what happened in women's tennis: an unusual amount of young talent challenging and overtaking the old guard, with attractive, new rivalries developing. The mainstream press is catching on and giving them more coverage than ever before, as evidenced by USA Today's unprecendented six separate articles. They've given more coverage to the LPGA season starting than the Nissan Open which happens to have the best field of the year on the PGA Tour so far. No matter what that knucklehead Baldwin says, it is a significant change.
02/16/07 @ 09:37
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I didn't think that my opinion of women's golf as tedious would cause you to engage in such a deep discussion of semantics. But since it has, allow me to put it to rest right now. If I were to say that play on the LPGA tour was inane, idiotic, stupid, amateurish, unprofessional, and/or childish, I would be denigrating that sport. I would be belittling that sport. I never said any of those things about women's golf. What I did say was that I find it tedious to watch. I'll give you a few examples. When a five foot one inch teenybopper with either pigtails or a ponytail puts her 185 yard drive in the rough, and then asks for a ruling from an official about some imaginary impediment to her swing, and then, after about five minutes, hits her 120 yard two iron fifty yards short of the green and twenty yards right, I find that tedious to observe. Similarly, when such a golfer lines up a twenty foot putt for what seems an interminally long time, takes a dozen practice strokes, and then leaves it wide and six feet short, I find that tedious also. Shanks, have you ever watched a professional chess match? Now THAT is tedious! How about a grade one cricket match? I had the pleasure(?) of seeing PART of one once. It lasted over four hours and the score was something like 124 to 86. I thought that was the final score until one of the aficionados of the sport informed me that only the first DAY of the match had been completed and that most likely it would continue for at least three more days. That is tedium at its heigth. Or possibly depth, depending how one looks at it. Now, I'm certain that the parents, siblings, friends, relatives, and coaches of all the cute little girls now on the LPGA tour just love the game played by their darlings. For all I know, you and all the politically correct metrosexual males now extant are thrilled to pieces by these juvenile prima donnas and their way of golfing. I, and a significant segment of the public, find it tedious. I hope that this explains my stance, and I further hope that you didn't find it too tedious.
02/16/07 @ 11:09
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Thank you, Alex, for all that entertainment. Honestly, I chuckled more than once. And as you are now saying that calling the LPGA "tiresome, boring & irksome" is in no way belittlement, we can all be thankful that you understand the LPGA is a bonafide professional sport and it's just a matter of you "not getting it."
02/16/07 @ 11:43
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Your quite welcome, Shanks
Among other "bona fide professional sports," one might find Beach volleyball, Surfing, Ultimate Fighting, and Half-pipe snowboarding. Somehow these activities don't appear to stand much chance of supplanting other, more established sports, no matter if USA Today would decide to run a spate of articles about them. The appetite and the budget of the sports viewing community is finite. And no matter how much the feminists of both sexes desire otherwise, women's golf will always be a minor sports as far as the viewing public is concerned. Why? It is an inferior product just as the Nationwide Tour is an inferior product to the PGA. Anyone that would hope for or advocate that the Nationwide tour be put on close to an even footing with the PGA would be rightfully laughed at. Give me a reason why those proposing and longing for LPGA parity with the PGA shouldn't be regarded with similar disdain.
02/16/07 @ 17:36
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Did you watch any of this evening's SBC? Against my better judgment, I forced myself to do about an hour of it. The galleries were virtually non-existent. The pace and quality of play were enough to induce a coma. Get serious, Shanks. If that's the best crowd that can be drawn in perfect weather on a tropical island in the inaugural event with a lot of favorable publicity, even you will have to admit that women's golf will never be more than a minor sport, if indeed it survives at all.
02/16/07 @ 21:13
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
In general, women's sports only exist because of pcness and the illusion that the athletes are better than they are. Take the WNBA, for example. It's my understanding that it hasn't gone the way of the dodo only because the NBA props it up.
Does anyone remember the Colorado Silver Bullets?
02/17/07 @ 12:21
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smaols'
The Cleveland Rockers lasted only a few years in the WNBA. They just couldn't draw enough fans to pay the bills. If SBS is depending upon gate receipts to help defray the costs of their tournament, they're going to take about a one million dollar bath.
02/17/07 @ 15:31
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Shanks, Did you watch any of this evening's SBC? Against my better judgment, I forced myself to do about an hour of it. The galleries were virtually non-existent. "The pace and quality of play were enough to induce a coma. Get serious, Shanks. If that's the best crowd that can be drawn in perfect weather on a tropical island in the inaugural event with a lot of favorable publicity, even you will have to admit that women's golf will never be more than a minor sport, if indeed it survives at all." Alex the galleries in Hawaii for the SBS and Fields Opens will be off 50 percent without their local favorite in the events. Like her or not Miss Wie packs the house in Hawaii.
02/18/07 @ 02:49
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
One-Putt,
When is that joint press conference with Carol Bivens and Bubbles both at the podium going to be called? Was Lard present in the publicity tent with the LPGA brass at the SBS? When do you think Bubbles will graciously accept the year-long LPGA exemption that you say has been offered to her? What are the statuses of her numerous injuries? Isn't her first wrist "injury" about three months old?
02/18/07 @ 09:03
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
One-Putt,
The only thing good that I could say about the televising of the SBS Open was that nobody on the announcing crew once mentioned BUbbles' name. Shanks didn't mention her in his blog, and none of the other posters saw fit to interject any mention of Bubbles in their posts. It took One-Putt, Wie Warrior Numero Uno to taint this blog. Thanks a lot.
02/18/07 @ 11:19
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
One-Putt,
I think you make our point. If the LPGA's fortunes rest on the Bubbles, it indeed has no future. Think about it: Bubbles' cachet rests on the notion that she will be a golfing Amazon, a female golfer for the ages who will transcend the LPGA. But if she will TRANSCEND the LPGA, how can she possibly buttress its cause? Her transcendence would simply serve as evidence that the women's tour is low rent. Now, the other possibility is that she won't transcend it, but if this happens, she will not have realized her alleged potential and the source of her hype will be gone. Either way, it doesn't help the LPGA.
02/18/07 @ 14:08
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex said:
The appetite and the budget of the sports viewing community is finite. And no matter how much the feminists of both sexes desire otherwise, women's golf will always be a minor sports as far as the viewing public is concerned. --------------------- Alex, Shanks used the perfect analogy of womens tennis. The mens tennis players are far better, yet womens tennis is very popular. In fact the gap between the ATP and WTA is far greater than the gap between the PGA and the LPGA. Yet womens tennis does well.
02/19/07 @ 14:35
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex said:
Did you watch any of this evening's SBC? The galleries were virtually non-existent. ---------------------------- Alex, It is obvious that you are obsessed with Michelle Wie, but to mention the lack of galleries is obviously a reference to her. In 2005, at the SBS, the galleries were huge with Wie in attendance. As you incinuated Alex, Wie is the big draw in womens golf and even with 2 so called great young players like Paula and Morgan in the last group, that wasn't enough to attract the crowds. Michelle Wie is the big draw in womens golf and it is nice for Alex to emphasise that.
02/19/07 @ 14:39
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Judge said:
In general, women's sports only exist because of pcness and the illusion that the athletes are better than they are. ------------------------ How about the popularity of womens tennis, and the massive prize money they generate in their events?
02/19/07 @ 14:40
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Stanley,
Women's tennis is the BEST example of the phenomenon in question (I'm a tennis pro, by the way, so I know whereof I speak). And I'll cut to the chase. You mentioned women's tennis precisely because you've bought into the illusion that they can hold a candle to the men, an idea that has been cultivated by the feminist enablers in the media. Now for a dose of reality. The truth is that the gap between men and women in tennis is huge, perhaps greater than in most any other sport. Of course, as I said, the average uninformed person wouldn't know this, what with the media's bending of the truth. Let's start the famed "Battle of the Sexes" between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. Most people know that she won but are woefully ignorant of the rest of the story. King was 29 years old and ranked two in the world on the women's tour; Riggs was a 55-year-old man who was between 20 and 25 pounds overweight at the time of the match. He hadn't competed on the men's tour in decades and only drummed up interest in the match because he desperately wanted to get back in the limelight, make money, and partake of the tennis boom that was occurring in the 1970s. Moreover, the year before he pulverized Margaret Court, the number ONE female player in the world, 6-2, 6-1, in a match dubbed the "Mother's Day Massacre." Truth be known, Riggs wasn't even that much of a male chauvinist. When he first decided that playing the women would be a great vehicle through which to get publicity, he approached many of them and simply asked for a match, saying things like, "C'mon, you could probably beat an old man like me with one hand tied behind your back." But they wouldn't bite, finding him intimidating and not wanting to get involved. It was then that he started using the chauvinism ploy to evoke interest, realizing that with the feminist movement reaching a crescendo, he could play the public like a fiddle. And he did. What you didn't hear about was that after the Riggs/King match, King played 35-and-over player Eugene Scott and was destroyed, despite having been given a huge lead. More recently, Kaarsten Brasch (sp?), a German player, played one set against each of the Williams sisters down in Australia, annihilating both while playing at 50 percent. Then we had the handicapped match where Jimmy Connors played Martina Navratilova. He gave her half the doubles alleys and was allowed only one serve, and he still beat her in straight sets, despite choking badly (he really did). Of course, people like myself, who are in the know, understand that female pros lose to male college players and highly ranked teenage boys all the time. Who do you think they practice with, my friend? Not with each other, I can tell you that. I myself used to be a sparring partner for a women ranked between 20 and 25 in the world when I was a teaching pro (many moons ago). I had a bad back at the time, and, still, she never took a set off me. By the way, she was a gal who had wins over women like Pam Shriver and Gabriela Sabatini. There are probably 10,000 guys who could beat the best female player, and that, folks, is no exaggeration.
02/19/07 @ 17:38
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Oh, after that long exposition I forgot to mention the main point. There's no question in my mind that if the average tennis fan understood what I just explained, women's tennis wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is. It trades on illusion.
02/19/07 @ 17:48
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
Comparing women's tennis to women's golf and the prize money paid is a fallacy. All the Grand Slam tennis tournaments for women are played in conjunction with and concurrent with the corresponding men's tournament. The women's golf tournaments ARE NOT played in that manner. How large would the prize money for the Women's US Open Tennis Championship be if they were played at a different time and at a different venue than the men's tournament? The fact is that the men's tennis tournaments bring in the fans. Women's concurrent events are the beneficiaries of this drawing power. They are merely satellites of the men's events.
02/19/07 @ 18:41
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
Your explanation of the hype and PCness that fuels women's tennis was a clear as any ever could be. It made complete sense, even to a total neophyte. Nobody with an ounce of brains could argue with your treatise. It is for all these reasons that a character like Stanley will never agree with you.
02/19/07 @ 18:57
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Judge Smails comment:
And I'll cut to the chase. You mentioned women's tennis precisely because you've bought into the illusion that they can hold a candle to the men, an idea that has been cultivated by the feminist enablers in the media. Now for a dose of reality. ------------------------ Actually Judge, you are wrong. I completely agree with you in the massive gap between mens and womens tennis skill levels. I also agree with you with respect to your other comments about the top women tennis players being no match for any male player over a reasonable level. All that is agreed, there is no argument there. What I said was that even with a far inferior product, the women still generate very large prize money. Alex, who has only very small knowledge on the issue used the example of grand slams where women get huge money and are at the same event as the male grand slam version. What Alex obviously isn't aware of is the many many top womens tennis events that are not grand slams and run on their own also generate huge prize money and garner huge public interest. Judge, be under no illusions. People know that top women tennis players are nowhere near as good as their male counterparts. Even someone who didn't know anything about tennis could just watch a little bit of a match and they would know that there is no comparison. However, even knowing that, womens tennis has brought the fans in. There is huge interest and they have no problem packing stadiums and in getting huge prize money. The lpga tour is also far inferior to the pga tour, although it isn't as far behind as the wta tour is to the atp tour. There is no doubt that if the lpga tour could get the marketability that the WTA tour has, then the lpga tour could raise it's profile a long way. That's not to say it will catch the PGA tour or even get anyways close to it, but it can certainly close the gap quite a bit.
02/19/07 @ 19:03
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Alex,
Your licking up to Judge Smails is sickening but is nothing new.
02/19/07 @ 19:06
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
Yes, I'm glad you mentioned that. I forgot to, but I also have often remarked about how the women ride the men's coattails in the majors. Johnny, Alex and I usually agree with each other; it's a two-way street. However, it's the the result of having two people who are in touch with reality and can, therefore, recognize truth; it has nothing to do with "licking up." Of course, there is the feeling of camaraderie that develops when you recognize the other person as one who also possesses common sense, something that is very uncommon. Stanley, I'm glad you recognize the stark difference between the sexes. Know, however, that such an acknowledgement will lose you points in the Alan Cup competition. As for the grasp the average person has of the relative abilities of male and female players, though, you are wrong. I cannot tell you how many times I've encountered the misconception in question, and I won't try because I'm not inclined to write another long post. Suffice it to say, however, that the following is indicative of what I've found to be common. When reading man-on-the-street interviews on this subject in a newspaper quite a number of years ago, one respondent said, amongst other remarks, "In a sport like tennis, where a woman can beat a man . . . ." Well, if that man is Stephen Hawking, I certainly do agree.
02/19/07 @ 19:36
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Judge, it is obvious why you have no trouble in being nice to Alex. After all he is just like a lap dog. It's no wonder that you are willing to have him by your side backing up all of your comments and commenting on how great he thinks you are. It is probably very flattering for you.
But Alex should learn to spread his wings, fend for himself and develop some of his own opinions.
02/19/07 @ 19:47
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Johnny N
The Judge is one of my clients. I have to coddle him. He helps pay the bills. What's your excuse?
02/19/07 @ 20:18
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Johnny N
The Judge is one of my clients. I have to coddle him. He helps pay the bills. What's your excuse?
02/19/07 @ 20:20
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Well, Alex, we don't have to be afraid to once again reveal the truth. Since we're both operatives for Astroturf Central, it would make sense that we have the same agenda and work in concert.
And these Bubbles sycophants are the last people who should be talking about brown-nosing.
02/19/07 @ 21:20
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge,
I know that Bubbles has that one marvelous triumph that she scored about five years ago in the Women's Public Links Amateur. That was, I'm fairly sure, a match play event. My question to the Wie-wee's is this: When was the last time that Bubbles won a stroke play event on any level?That would be junior, amateur, or professional? Has she EVER won a stroke play tournament? Remember guys, that's WON, not seond, third, or top ten.
02/19/07 @ 21:34
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Alex,
Her US Open local qualifier was stroke play as such and she won that. Of course you will say they are a weak field, but Tadd was in that field. She also won the strokeplay in her US Amatuer Publinx qualifier against all men. By the way you have your dates wrong on her amatuer womens publinx title. It wasn't 5 years ago. It was 3.5 years ago. If you wanted to go back 5 years, she won several Hawaii stroke play events at that stage, including some of them by record margins.
02/20/07 @ 09:54
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Johnny N,
I wasn't clear enough in my request, for which I apologize. What I wanted to know is when was the last time Bubbles won a stroke play tournament, NOT an 18 or 36 hole qualifier for a match play event. Also, getting back to the subject of her multitude of injuries, have you got any specifics on the nature of those "injuries?" You know, are they fractures, sprains, psychosomatic, what? You have all the rest of the information and the stats, we skeptics would like to know what's up.
02/20/07 @ 10:47
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Johnny N,
Maybe you don't realize it, but you came up with the most delicious bit of irony posted on these threads on a long time. Now, you and the other Wie-wee's are forever rationalizing Bubbles' failures with the excuse that "she is only 15, 16, 0r 17 years old." She is only still a child, BUT, she is far better at her age than any golfer has ever been irrespective of sex. Then, when asked about Bubbles' lack of wins in stroke play events, you cite her "win" in the pathetically weak Open qualifier in Hawaii. And who do you specify as the first rate opposition that she defeated? Tadd Fujikawa! That's right, Bubbles outscored a five foot one inch 15 year old high school freshman on her way to her stupendous victory. Of course, you conveniently fail to mention that the aforementioned Tadd did qualify for the Open at Winged Foot, and has since finished T20th in a PGA event as an amateur, and has won a local pro tournament as an amateur. I tell you, Johnny N, with those kind of contortions, you should get a job with Cirque du Soleil. Too funny!
02/20/07 @ 11:17
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
The difference between Bubbles and Fujikawa is potential and learning curve. The latter's potential is far greater and, being a normal person in the mid-teens, he is improving markedly.
Bubbles, on the other hand, reached her ultimate level a few years ago already. This is not to say that she can't improve a bit on THAT level, but she will not jump to the next. I said this years ago, by the way, and Wiemen scoffed at this pearl of wisdom. I mention this because it has a bearing on why the Bubbles outscored the wee lad in the qualifier, but then couldn't hold a candle to him a year later. There's no doubt in my mind that Fujikawa is a lot better than he was even eight months ago; most kids, especially boys, improve tremendously during this stage. And that, Wiemen, is a lesson in Reality 101. Oh, on an unrelated note, I wanted to mention (but forgot) that the German tennis player, Karsten Braasch, was approximately 203 in the world when he played the Williams sisters.
02/20/07 @ 12:24
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Comment by Alex:
Also, getting back to the subject of her multitude of injuries, have you got any specifics on the nature of those "injuries?" You know, are they fractures, sprains, psychosomatic, what? -------------------------- Her main injury is a fracture, that's the one that takes 4 to 6 weeks to heal. I'm surprised you haven't heard, I heard that a number of places.
02/20/07 @ 16:48
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Alex said:
Now, you and the other Wie-wee's are forever rationalizing Bubbles' failures with the excuse that "she is only 15, 16, 0r 17 years old." She is only still a child, BUT, she is far better at her age than any golfer has ever been irrespective of sex. -------------------------- Who claimed that Alex, I only claimed that she was the best female, not the best of either sex. Tadd is clearly the best 16 year old in golf. ------------------------------ Alex said: Then, when asked about Bubbles' lack of wins in stroke play events, you cite her "win" in the pathetically weak Open qualifier in Hawaii. And who do you specify as the first rate opposition that she defeated? Tadd Fujikawa! That's right, Bubbles outscored a five foot one inch 15 year old high school freshman on her way to her stupendous victory. ------------------------ I listed Tadd, because he went on to qualify for the US Open in the Sectional local qualifier, something she may well have done from the Hawaii sectional event. His great performance at the Sony also indicated how good she was to beat him in that qualifier for the US Open. ------------------------ Alex said: Of course, you conveniently fail to mention that the aforementioned Tadd did qualify for the Open at Winged Foot, and has since finished T20th in a PGA event as an amateur, and has won a local pro tournament as an amateur. ------------------------- Actually that's the point Alex. He is an excellent player. Therefore the US Open Local Qualifier field was not as weak as you might otherwise claim it.
02/20/07 @ 16:53
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Johnny,
You should have read what I said; your assessment of Fujikawa is incorrect. Oh, you also have no basis on which to say that he is the "best 16 year old in golf."
02/20/07 @ 18:10
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
Johnny N obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word logic or that of non sequitur. Tadd has shown a lot of promise, but for Johnny N, the Bumbling Brit, to bestow that title of the best 16 year old in golf on Tadd is a clear indication that he is becoming unhinged. He doesn't have any reason to believe that Bubbles is the best 17 year old in golf, either, but that doesn't stop him from trumpeting that nonsense.
02/20/07 @ 22:23
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
Here is a link that I provide as a service to the Wiemen: http://www.njgs.com/rankings.asp. If one looks at the boys' rankings section, he shall see that Master Fujikawa is ranked 46 on the list. Of course, most of those ahead of him are a year or two older; however, about seven are his age or younger. And, of course, this doesn't include golfers in the rest of the world. So, where does he fit in when that competition is factored in? It's hard to say, but you can bet he isn't in the top twenty.
02/21/07 @ 00:22
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
There you go again, presenting facts and logic to buttress your stance. As I said before, it is exactly for these reasons, your presentation of facts and logic, that Stanley, Johnny N, Vale, and the rest of the Wie-wee newbies will scoff at your conclusions. They are undoubtedly consulting their ouija boards, crystal balls, and dreambooks in order to countermand common sense. I eagerly await their rebuttals.
02/21/07 @ 08:40
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
The question was asked quite a few times.
Why is it that Paula Creamer hasn't contended for a major? So far, Alex and his cronies have failed to come up with an answer.
02/21/07 @ 11:53
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Here's my answer to your question. Just as Bubbles hasn't won an LPGA event because she is ONLY 17 years old, Paula hasn't won an LPGA majorenemt since she was ONLY 19 years old during last year's majors. Now THAT should make a lot of sense to you, Stanley.
02/21/07 @ 12:55
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
Thanks for the kind words. And I notice that the Wiemen's silence in this matter is deafening.
02/22/07 @ 05:50
Comment from: Johnny N [Visitor]
Alex,
In Creamer's case, she ahsn't been good enough, she hasn't even competed for a major. In Wie's case, she has been really competitive in some events in 2006 and if she got luck on a putt like Creamer did at the SBS, Michelle would have won a couple of title in 2006 on the lpga tour. That's the big difference between the two comparisons you made. - In the case of Wie, she has competed. - Paula Creamer has not competed for those titles. When it has come to crunch time, major time, she just hasn't been up to the task.
02/22/07 @ 12:09
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Johnny N,
After reading and re-reading some of the "logic" that you came up with in your last post, I am thoroughly convinced that you're trying to be facetious. Nobody, not even an unrepentant Limey, could be that out of touch with reality. Nice try, Johnny N, but you've been outed. Tell the truth now, all along you've been trying to be cute, but you didn't fool me for a minute.
02/22/07 @ 12:42
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Before you guys got onto this Wie/Creamer vein, Alex mentioned the attendance at the SBC. Attendance is not very good at any event in Hawaii unless Wie or Woods is playing. Don't know if you saw any of the Senior event - also at Turtle Bay - but attendance was similar to the LPGA event.
02/23/07 @ 12:53
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks, Your last post serves to buttress my contention that women's golf will never be more than a minor sport with relatively small galleries.
If the LPGA has to depend on a part time non-member to draw any size crowd, what does that say about its viewer appeal? Hawaii isn't the only place where the LPGA galleries are sparse. I went to all four days of an LPGA major twice. Once here at Long Grove in 2000 and in Wilmington, De in 2003 At both events,with all the best female pros competing, the crowds were spotty at best.
02/23/07 @ 22:06
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Yes, also, comparing the LPGA to the Senior tour buttresses the point further. While I like the seniors, the fact is that they've been leaking oil ever since Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Floyd and Rodriguez lost their ability to compete.
02/24/07 @ 06:44
Comment from: Billy Dawg [Visitor]
No chance the LPGA has galleries the size of the PGA Tour. But earlier in this string Shanks said that they would only be improving, not equalling. I'd have to agree with him.
02/24/07 @ 12:22
Comment from: Johnny N [Visitor]
Alex,
The pga does suffer when Tiger doesn't compete. There are two kinds of tournaments on the pga tour. Tiger tournaments and tournaments without Tiger. There is a huge difference in attendance and viewers for each of those kinds of events. It's similar with Wie on the lpga tour. There are events with Wie and events without Wie. The events without Wie suffer lesser attendance and less viewers. So both the pga tour and the lpga tour suffer when a big name isn't in the field at particular events.
02/24/07 @ 19:02
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Johnny N,
Have you ever attended a PGA tournament? I have attended several, notably the Memorial, which my wife and I have attended for the last six years. We've also been spectators at the Buick in Michigan and the Western near Chicago. Sometimes Woods has been entered and sometimes he hasn't. At last year's Memorial, Tiger wasn't there, but I would venture that the gate was similar or slightly larger than in 2005. But Johnny N, the galleries at PGA events are not the subject of this blog. What is being discussed here is whether or not the LPGA attendance and viewership will increase. Pay attention, son.
02/24/07 @ 20:59
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
Of course the lpga attendances will increase, they could hardly get much lower anyway.
02/25/07 @ 12:48
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Matthew,
Hey, that's a good point. I guess you could chalk it up to deviation toward the mean.
02/25/07 @ 14:13
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Matthew,
Hey, that's a good point. I guess you could chalk it up to deviation toward the mean.
02/25/07 @ 14:16
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Let's call a spade a spade...
Women's tennis was "popular" for two reasons: Anna and Serena. Anna for her sex appeal, and Serena b/c of her dominance. Now that her dominance has waned, and Anna is out of the picture, women's tennis has sunken again into mediocrity. Without a substantial story line, it can't sustain itself. The level of play is not good enough to sustain significant viewership. Women's golf is, and has been, the same. With Ms. Natalie, there will be viewership. Sex sells, like it or not. There was some interest because of Annika's dominance, but now that things are more "competitive" (and I use that word loosely), women's golf isn't quite as popular. Now that the playing field is a little more "equitable", it has lost its appeal to much of the audience, because the level of play is not enough to sustain viewership. Wie is popular b/c of the thought that she could compete against the men. Now that we see that she can't, the hype is subsiding. Her performance is not enough to sustain her earlier, high levels of viewership. That despite the writings of one Ms. Mario... Until the women, in any sport, show they can compete and win against the men, women's sports will always play second fiddle. The attraction becomes the default to sex appeal and hype. And some of you forgot about soccer as being one of the most boring sports to watch... Let's not jump on people for exposing the truth.
02/26/07 @ 20:38
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
2under,
I cannot disagree with a word you said. As I have often stated myself, women's sports are an inferior product, and no amount of pcness or wishful thinking will change that fact. When viewed in light of this reality, one realizes how idiotic it is to stand around scratching your head and asking credulously, "Hmm, why aren't women's sports more popular?" Hey, why isn't junior golf more popular? Golly gee, I just can't figure it out . . . .
02/27/07 @ 02:13
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
I'm no tennis geek, but from the information I have gleaned, women tennis pros are playing for similar money as the men at the top levels of the game. However, the assertion that women don't actually play at the level of the men is unassailable. That still doesn't mean their competition itself is boring, etc. (present company excluded). For instance, I don't know if you guys happened to catch the stretch run of the Fields Open but it was a good fight to the end.
02/27/07 @ 12:52
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
Fields Open...? Man, you must have some time on your hands... If memory serves, I believe that Wimbledon has finally equated the individual mens and women's prizes. That being said, financial parity is not necessarily a direct reflection of popularity OR relative competitiveness. PC has crept into sports and gathered a pretty strong foothold... Women's tennis may be the most popular amongst mainstream sports in comparison to mens events. Women's golf still lags well behind. There has been ONE occasion I can remember where my viewership was based on the true performance of the event: when Hillary Lunke won the Women's US Open. She putted the eyes off the ball. But I haven't seen a US Women's Open since. I'll flip through the channels on Sat and Sun, and if I catch a glimpse of Natalie, then I'll watch for a little while. But it just doesn't captivate me from a competitive standpoint. Some women on this site would be quick to jump on and say "that's sexist." However, I would say the same about "Champions" Tour events. I prefer PGA to CT events. That being said, the new blood every year on the CT at least stimulates some interest. I just get tired of all the PC BS. Why do we feel so compelled to be apologetic when it comes to expressing our preferences for entertainment?
02/28/07 @ 06:59
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
You can feel free to express your opinions here, within the bounds of decency of course. I'm not into the PC scene. I just happen to enjoy the LPGA competition. Are they as good as the men? Nope. But let me tell you what. They are better than me, you and 99% of all who might read this article. Way better. In fact, their game relates much better to most male golfers than do the PGA Tour pros. But if that's not your bag, so be it.
02/28/07 @ 07:45
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Whether or not the play on the LPGA tour is better than that of millions of amateurs is irrelevant. The ladies on the LPGA tour are professionals. They SHOULD be better than me and millions like me, and they are. However, they are not better or anywhere near as good as those men playing on the PGA tour, the Nationwide tour , the European tour, the Asian tour, the Hooters' tour, the Champions' tour, or the Sunshine tour. Their game is basically pitty-pat golf, played on courses geared for amateurs, and almost in slow motion. For those reasons and others, its following by live and television spectators will never even approach those of the PGA tour.
02/28/07 @ 09:16
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
You seem to be having an argument with yourself, Alex. I have never said their attendance will equal that of the PGA Tour.
But their attendance IS similar to the Champions Tour. Now, as we all know, they are not as good in playing ability as the Nationwide, Hooters or Sunshine Tours yet the LPGA event ATTENDANCE far exceeds those secondary men's tours. What do you have to say about that?
02/28/07 @ 09:37
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
The LPGA is the ONLY tour for women that I know of. There is no striving to get on that tour by virtually thousands of golfers. Also, some companies like SBS will sponsor an LPGA event even though it's a big loser. One could hardly expect the men's secondary tours to attract really large galleries when the big show is in town or even on television. You have said that you believe that attendance will increase in LPGA events. I don't agree, since the appetite and monies of the sports viewing public are finite. Something as dull as women's golf will always be relegated to secondary status, as will the Champios' tour, etc.
02/28/07 @ 12:18
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Your point doesn't hold water, Alex. Whenever the LPGA is in town, the PGA Tour is always on tv. Yet, there is a significant appetite to watch the best female golfers play.
02/28/07 @ 12:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Of course, women's golf will always have a sizable cadre of hard-core devotees. Many, if not most of this cadre will be feminists of both sexes. Even my wife and I, neither of us feminists, have attended two LPGA majors. But that is not what is being argued here. Your contention is that viewership at LPGA events, both live and by television will definitely increase. I simply do not agree. Time will tell.
02/28/07 @ 13:49
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Interesting how you labeled most everybody else in attendance at those 2 LPGA majors - besides you and the missus - as feminists. Perhaps the majority of them are just fans of golf. Perhaps.
You know, by all measurable stats, Fred Funk and Corey Pavin play in your terms "basically pitty-pat golf". I'd still pay to watch 100 golfers just like them play in a competition. That's just me.
02/28/07 @ 14:02
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I'd pay to watch 100 guys like Fred and Corey, I've done it many times. Where did I label almost-- note that I wrote ALMOST-all of the other spectators at the LPGA majors as feminists? Look, Shanks, I have no trouble with the fact that you are an unreconstructed feminist, most metrosexuals are. But you really shouldn't compare real men golfers like Fred and Corey with girls.
02/28/07 @ 15:22
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Shanks,
You are correct. The lpga product is getting better and that product will obvious sell more. There are plenty of exciting stories on the lpga tour. The lpga majors in 2006 were far better viewing than the pga majors.
02/28/07 @ 15:41
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
No need to resort to name-calling, Alex. Let's just discuss the facts. I concede that Pavin & Funk would be amongst the longer hitters on the LPGA Tour, but definitely not the longest.
02/28/07 @ 16:12
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Hey pal, if you are referring to the term "metrosexual", please do not be offended. None was intended. Metrosexual is NOT a pejorative term. Its meaning can be best described as a male who is not only merely tolerant of militant feminism, but one who finds it superior to any other. A Metro is sensitive to ALL feminine desires and wiles. A Metro believes that women are capable of doing all things as good as, if not better than men. And that would include the jobs of construction tradesmen, policemen, firemen, and combat soldiers. Playing golf, of course, would be a piece of cake to these neo-Amazons. No, Shanks, take pride in your classification as a metrosexual because everything you've said on this thread is the embodiment of genre.
02/28/07 @ 17:49
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Just what I thought, Alex. You can't defend your assertions so you resort to names, labels and outright lies. That's really sad.
03/01/07 @ 07:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I'm sorry that despite my explanation, you still see fit to take offense. Too bad. I think that I've defended my stance to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. The fact that my conclusion is diametrically opposed to yours does not in the least lessen its credibility. Time alone will tell if the viewership of women's golf will increase substantially, if at all. It hasn't done that to this point, and in my opinion it won't. I'm old-fashioned enough that I give a lot of credence to the axiom that the best indication of something happening, is if that something has happened before. When women's golf starts attracting and retaining those larger audiences that you and Stanley anticipate, feel free to remind me of it, feel free to crow about it. Until such time, a wise move would be to wait and see. But that's just me. You see, I'm realist, not a feminist, and definitely not a metrosexual.
03/01/07 @ 09:04
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
Are you really that clueless, or are you just joking? Having read through the thread, there was no mention by Shanks that he thought that women could do those list of jobs you classified as well as men could or even better. In fact, he didn't even say that the womens golf tour would be as good as the mens golf tour. He only said that it could gain viewers and get more popular and close the gap a bit on the pga tour. Why you started making false accusations Alex is anyone's guess. The best guess is that you knew you lost the argument, so you decided making things up to discredit the other person was your only chance of saving some face. Sorry Alex, it didn't work.
03/01/07 @ 09:11
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Couldn't have said it better myself, Stanley.
03/01/07 @ 09:42
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
There is no winning or losing arguments on these threads, only the expression of opinions. Your opinion is that women's golf will soon draw more live and television viewership, at least I think that is your stance. My opinion is that it will not. Another thing, Stanley, hoping for your dreams to come true does not mean that they will come true. When and if the LPGA tour starts pulling in much larger galleries, as I said to Shanks, crow as much as you want, rub it in, tell me "I told you so!" But it hasn't happened yet, and as far as I can tell there are no signs that it will happen. In my opinion it won't.
03/01/07 @ 09:44
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I have long suspected that posting on internet blogs, like politics, breeds strange bedfellows. But if you haven't read most of Stanley's posts, I'd advise you to do so. After you've read them, I'll then ask you these questions: Do you really want to go there? Do you really need Stanley to buttress your position?
03/01/07 @ 12:08
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, I don't care to keep posting scorecards, as apparently you do. I take every post one at a time, on it's own merits. Stanley took the time to read everything and correctly pointed out that you have not followed the thread in this instance. I have agreed with you on a few points, but all you have done is ignore that, make some ridiculous statements that do not summarize the point I made and totally ignore some questions I propose. I have to presume you have no answer for those and are just being evasive, which is typical of those who resort to labelling and name-calling.
03/01/07 @ 12:49
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I beg to differ with you. You have not agreed with me on any salient points, nor should you. Your position is that for various reasons, the attendance at LPGA tournaments and television viewership will increase dramatically in the foreseeable future. I disagree. My position is that viewership on television and live attendance at LPGA events has already reached its peak and will decline slightly if not precipituosly. And you disagree with my assessment. Who is correct? Who knows? Time alone will tell. End of story.
03/01/07 @ 13:02
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
You can beg all you want. I agree we differ on that lone point you mention here but you have conveniently not mentioned many others through out because they don't support you theories and statements. And THAT is the end of this story.
03/01/07 @ 13:07
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Agreed, Requiescat in pace.
03/01/07 @ 18:36
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Not buying it, Shanks. I've expressed some opinions, for sure. But I've also vocalized some observations as well.
I have competed against a number of Nationwide Tour player, and some mini-tour players in my day. Though I have not directly competed against any LPGA player, I can definitively say my game does NOT closely resemble theirs. Notice the announcers don't club the ladies nearly as often as the men? Hmmm...I wonder why. So because I am a better player, is that the reason I don't watch the LPGA with the regularity or the fervor that you apparently do? Not at all. I disagree with your assertion completely that the "average golfer"" and the relative merits of their game to the ladies on Tour impact viewership whatsoever. I would venture a guess that most men that watch golf watch the PGA for the same reason they watch Barry Bonds or Ryan Howard...they like to see the game played at its highest level. Men's sports, in general, achieve that aim. And as Alex points out, there are a finite amount of dollars chasing entertainment. And there are only so many advertising dollars out there. Those dollars chase viewership...and the proof is in the pudding. Men's events dominate the airwaves for a reason. And Stanley, what are all of these exciting storylines out there about the LPGA? I think they pale in comparison to the PGA. You can like the LPGA. I certainly like to catch a glimpse of it every now and then, admittedly for less-than altruistic reasons. But to assert the LPGA is "closing the gap" is an erroneous one. The argument is largely an economic one - and the demand for LPGA golf isn't meeting supply. And I have seen no evidence it will in the near future...
03/01/07 @ 23:33
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
2under, I totally agree that men are better. i don't know why you and Alex keep chewing that same food. So we can disagree about the LPGA becoming more popular. I happen to think that this unprecedented influx of youth at the highest level of the game - including Michelle Wie - is providing higher and more desirable visibility. The argument you make about there only being so much entertainment dollar doesn't really hold water because the same could have been said about womens tennis. But I would be interested to hear your explanation as to why you don't like to watch the LPGA other than to ogle the players. I suspect it is because of the level of your own game.
I would also like to point out that "fervor" is not an apt description of my LPGA-watching habits. I prefer the PGA Tour most of the time because, as you correctly point out, it is the best golf played anywhere. But I do keep track of the LPGA and watch a little when I can. As you are a self-described much-better-than-average golfer, you can at least appreciate how good the top echelon of the LPGA is. How many of us can play a 6,300 yard course 3-4 times a week for 25 weeks - rain or shine - and have a scoring average under par? Last year approximately 35-40 LPGA members did. Those wouldn't result in vanity handicaps as they turn in every score. According to statistics, the average man shoots around 100 and that is despite having somehwat of a strength advantage. The average golfer can very much benefit from watching these women play.
03/02/07 @ 07:52
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
2under,
Your post mirrors my sentiments exactly. You said nothing scurrilous or inflammatory about women's golf, just the truth as you see it. One reason for the real lack of interest on the LPGA tour is the dreadfully slow pace of play. In the two events that I've seen in person, both LPGA majors, the snail's pace of the game was constantly being mentioned in hushed tones by the spectators. Another dead spot in the competition was the lack of imagination by the golfers. One particular instance comes readily to mind. At the McDonalds' event in Wilmington in 2003, one hole was a par five, 485 yards straightaway. On any PGA course, that hole would have been a routine par four. We watched a lot of golfers on that hole during the four days of the tournament, and NOT ONE hit the green in two. None. After the cut was made, we never saw one even try to get on in two, not even Annika, the eventual winner. On several occasions, a try for an eagle might have produced a two or three shot swing, but no, the ladies preferred to play it safe even when their position could have improved dramatically if they had taken the gamble. They just wouldn't put any stock in the saying "no guts, no glory." At a PGA event, spectators can see quite a few spectacular shots from those guys at the rear of the field. They have the ability to light it up even when not in contention. At the LPGA events that I've seen, those on the bottom of the board provided little or no interest. They seemed to want to get it over with, however, they still took their good old time, a lot of time.
03/02/07 @ 08:12
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
See, Alex, that's why I address each post on it's own merits. I knew you were capable of legitmate criticism. It wasn't necessary to point out that a par 5 on the LPGA can be a LONG par 4 (not exactly routine) on the PGA Tour. That was a bit of a slap. We all know that the women don't hit it as far as the men.
I was not there so I can't say for sure, but if nobody went for that green in 2, I presume there was a significant water hazard. Once again I say that the average male can learn from this. How many times has any one of us ruined a round with that no-guts-no-glory shot selection? If annika Sorenstam didn't try it I would be more than satisfied to assume that the risk was not justified by the potential reward. One more thing, the LPGA does not have a monopoly on slow play. I presume you've been to many men's tournaments, especially the 1st 2 days, where play is ridiculously slow. This is especially true in Majors. And how many times does a PGA Tour broadcast finish "in the allotted amount of time"?
03/02/07 @ 09:24
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
You've mentioned several times that you believe the LPGA attendance and viewership will definitely increase,and you use as a corollary the increase in those facets in women's professional tennis. Now, I have never personally attrended a professional tennis tournament of any kind. The only tennis to which I have exposed myself has been on television and not much of that. But in the spring of 2005, my wife and I were in Eastern Europe for almost a month. On Eurosport, their version of ESPN, there were four sports being endlessly televised: A table tennis tournament from Beijing, cycling through the Italian Alps, snooker competition from Nottingham, and women's tennis EVERY day from Rome, Zurich, Hamburg, Berlin, etc., etc. Sharapova, Mauresmo, and Henin were featured daily. The finals matches were fairly-well attended, although by no means sellouts. However, most of the prelims were played in a virtual vacuum; one could have easily counted the house. The prize money in the big events was always over 800,000 Euros, about $1,000,000USD. We couldn't help but wonder where that much prize money could come from. Unless the price of admission is exorbitant or the sponsors are doing it merely for the advertising, those are the only ways that these ladies could get paid. Most of the crowds were sparse at best. Women's golf would do well not to hope for a similar degree of popularity. I'm referring to paid attendance, not prize money.
03/02/07 @ 10:49
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Perhaps Judge Smails could chime in on the female tennis viewership situation. We are both certainly no authority there. But i would think that like in all other professional sports, prize money would have some relevance to popularity. Not entirely, mind you, but significant relevance.
03/02/07 @ 11:06
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex mentioned a particular 485 yard hole at the lpga championships and said that was a routine par 4 on the pga tour. That is simply not the case. The average par 4 on the pga tour is much shorter than that. There are some holes longer, but they are not average or routine par 4 holes.
That is also a short distance for a par 5 in an lpga event. It is likely that it was an uphill hole, when it was that short. Also, just giving the distance of a hole can be misleading. For example there is a 596 yard hole at Bulle Rock, and Michelle Wie can hit it in 2, and that's over a 100 yards longer. It's downhill most the way though, that's why just the distance of the hole, doesn't necessarily give a clear picture of if it's downwind, upwind, or what sort of elevation is on the hole.
03/02/07 @ 12:51
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Shanks,
As I have said before, women's tennis benefits from the illusion that the women are far better than they are. Allow me to put this in perspective. How many times have we heard various people say something to the effect of, "So-and-so sucks," merely because the object of derision paled in comparison to the best and despite the fact that he was a master relative to those leveling the criticism? Well, on the part of many, the same attitude would manifest itself with regard to women's tennis if people knew their true level. As for the LPGA, it strikes me as a silly mimic. For instance, the PGA adopted the slogan, "These guys are good." So what did the LPGA do? They adopted the slogan, "These girls rock"! It's actually funny in a way. Their relative lack of marketing ability reflects their relative lack of skill on the course.
03/02/07 @ 13:13
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Smails, you didn't answer the question, about viewership and/or attendance, not really. We already know that you look down your nose at these golfers so there's no need for us to go down that wormhole again.
03/02/07 @ 13:19
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Bubbles never hit a 596 yard hole in two in her life and she never will. That BS should be put into the same category as her fictitious 300 yard drives. Incidentally, this blog was supposed to concern the potential of the LPGA to draw more spectators. But Shanks, both you and your buddy Stanley have seen fit to interject the "Wie" word into the mix, and totally out of context. I guess you Wie Warriors just can't control yourselves.
03/02/07 @ 13:40
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Contrary to your statement, 485 yds. is not at all uncommon for a par five hole on an LPGA course. In fact, it just about represents the norm. As examples, two LPGA events have been played thus far in 2007. Here are the numbers of the par five holes that the women played and their lengths in yards: Ko Olina: 1st--487 5th--506 13th--500 14th--498 Average--496 Turtle Bay: 3rd--452 9th--478 12th--493 18th--539 Average--490 Composite average for all eight par five's---493, only eight yards PER HOLE more than than 485. And Stanley, I seriously doubt that all those holes were uphill.
03/02/07 @ 14:49
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Those yardages are correct, but the holes play longer at sea level. Once the LPGA gets inland the average will increase - more like 500+. Stanley's bigger point (& mine) was that 485 is not a routine par 4 on the PGA Tour. The average length of the par 4s this week, for instance, is 440 yds. The 3 longest of those are 479, 488 & 525. And this is one of the longer courses on Tour (7,240 yards but only a par of 70). The pros are averaging 4.3, 4.3 & 4.4 strokes, respectively, on those supposedly "routine" holes.
03/02/07 @ 15:12
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
You asked: "I would be interested to hear your explanation as to why you don't like to watch the LPGA other than to ogle the players. I suspect it is because of the level of your own game." I will recite two previous points I made: 1. So because I am a better player, is that the reason I don't watch the LPGA with the regularity or the fervor that you apparently do? Not at all. I disagree with your assertion completely that the "average golfer"" and the relative merits of their game to the ladies on Tour impact viewership whatsoever. I would venture a guess that most men that watch golf watch the PGA for the same reason they watch Barry Bonds or Ryan Howard...they like to see the game played at its highest level. The question, Shanks, isn't how a 25 hdcp would benefit from watching the LPGA, the question is whether or not the 25 WANTS to watch the LPGA. Evidence suggest an overwhelming balance in favor of the PGA. People want to see the best, no matter how good or how poor their game is. I'll take a sport that I don't play...ice hockey...for instance. I like to catch a hockey game once in a while, and I could choose minor league games or an NHL game. I choose the NHL hands down, for the same reason I choose the PGA over the LPGA...it's a better product. And by the way, Shanks, "ogle" is a little strong. I prefer the term "healthy sexual interest", if you don't mind... 2. Regarding the econmic argument, I would use the media as proof positive that economics play just as strong, if not a stronger force, in professional sports than in any other industry. How many PGA events are televised vs LPGA events in a year? Prime Time? Heck, when the match play championships were going on, we had TWO PGA events going on TV. And look at the Golf Channel. Where did they invest their money? The PGA...and to the detriment of LPGA coverage. No doubt, Ms. Wie has been good for attracting viewership to women's golf. But with her struggles have come less media coverage of the LPGA. Interesting... It's not an indictment of women's sports, its just the truth. Women's professional sports are just not as engaging to the public as men's professional sports, therefore they do not attract the same viewership. Please don't take this personally, because it is not intended as such. But why is it so hard to admit this fact? Men's professional athletics, in general, are a better product and attract a significantly greater audience, particularly in golf. And it's not just you, Shanks, it's alot of people. To me, this is indicative of a larger issue in our society, and that is we, as Americans, are afraid to take a stance on anything that could be considered taboo or unpopular, despite evidence, even OVERWHELMING evidence, to the contrary. I just don't get it. And I don't want to be considered a pariah for merely being observant. Okay, I step off my soapbox...
03/02/07 @ 19:49
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
2under,
Well said, and well undersood. What you have put forth could not possibly be contended by any sensible person. But never think that it won't be . The women's liberrs and all their friends will NEVER agree no matte how obvious you make it. They have too much emotionally invested to see the obvious.
03/02/07 @ 20:38
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Excuse me, but the bone of contention is not the relative length of par four's on the PGA tour. What is being discussed is the length of par five's on the LPGA tour. Now it's sea level. Give me a break! What's next? Atmospheric pressure?
03/02/07 @ 21:09
Comment from: Billy Dawg [Visitor]
Alex, you make a statement about 485 yd routine par 4s on the PGA Tour, it gets challenged with facts & figures, and you don't even have the nerve to address it. You were wrong. Be a man and at least admit that much.
03/03/07 @ 09:36
Comment from: Billy Dawg [Visitor]
2under, if you bothered to read through the thread, you would see where Shanks has emphatically said that the men are the best. So I don't know why you go on & on about that. His opinion, quite clearly, is that the LPGA will improve much like women's tennis did.
03/03/07 @ 09:56
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex, 2Under and Judge discuss how they like to watch a game played at its best only.
Then perhaps if they are watching tennis, they refuse to watch any match that Roger Federer isn't playing in, because it is plainly obvious that any match he is not involved in does not have tennis at its highest level, because he is the only player who plays tennis at its highest level. Therefore, is any tennis match without Roger Federer, without merit.
03/03/07 @ 12:08
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
Your point is taken. 485 yards isn't overly short for a par 5 on the lpga tour, although there are many par 5 holes which are much longer than that. However you are still very wrong when calling a 485 yard par 4 on the pga tour as routine. By the way, there is a 488 yard par 4 at the Sony Open, it is hole 1. Michelle shot par on it in round 1 & birdie in round 2 of the 2007 Sony Open. Interesting how you call her such a short hitter and yet she does well on the longest par 4 on the course, despite playing very poorly at the event.
03/03/07 @ 12:17
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Bubbles has never been on in two on a 596 yard hole, and the only way she could ever hit a 300 yard drive is if it were down the side of Pike's Peak. I know it and you know it. If you don't, at least you should. Now, as has been previously mentioned, the topic of this blog is not how long a hitter Bubbles is in the minds of her fans, it's will the LPGA tour gain substantially in attendance and viewership. Wie Warriors, pay attention! Bubbles isn't even an LPGA member, and doesn't seem to have a desire to be one.
03/03/07 @ 14:34
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Stanley,
Your logic is, well . . . not logic. I'm interested in watching the best CATEGORY in existence. Moreover, sport is a characteristically male endeavor; thus, I find women's sports to be quite incongruent.
03/03/07 @ 15:57
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
At the 2006 Sony Open, Michelle Wie hit 7 drives over 300 yards. Were they all down the side of Pike's Peak?
03/03/07 @ 18:06
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Judge,
It's pretty obvious you don't like womens sport. However since most people disagree with you about most things, would you concede that many people might disagree with you about the incongruent nature of womens sport and actually enjoy watching it. By the way, viewing sport comes down to one important thing. That is caring about the outcome, it's as simple as that. Whether that is a father watching his child and simply caring because it is someone who he loves is playing, or whether it's someone watching Tiger, it still comes down to them caring about the outcome. It is rare that someone just watches and says to themselves, oh isn't that a nice high standard of play, isn't that nice! People watch because they want Phil to beat Tiger down the stretch or whatever. People watch because they wanted Se Ri Pak to come back and win a major after all the trouble she had. People watch Annika because they hope she will win or lose. In Annika's case she doesn't draw quite so much support or resentment, people are fairly passive. In Michelle's case, the majority of people watch hoping she will succeed. There is a minority, but also a sizeable minority who want her to fail. That includes yourself, Alex, Ford, 2under and some more cronies. The result though means more bums on seats watching what happens. Wie generates interest and that should increase the viewership and attendance at lpga events. In the same way, Tiger increased those things on the pga tour. That didn't just happen because he was a better player, it happened because people cared one way or another of how he did in those events.
03/03/07 @ 18:15
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Billy Dawg,
If you had taken time to read through my response, you would see that the crux my argument is based on the fact that the level of play is THE reason that consumers prefer the PGA vs the LPGA, and for that reason it will most likely ALWAYS be that way. If the LPGA wants to "close the gap" in viewership, they will need to "close the gap" in ability. Based on history, my bet is against the LPGA achieving that feat. Otherwise, the LPGA will depend on sex appeal or hype, vis a vis Ms. Wie, to "close the gap" on comparative popularity. And Stanley, I am no-ones "cronie". I have made observations, and based on those observations I have made opinions. And don't put words in my mouth. I have NEVER said I want anyone to fail. I happen to feel as though the media and loyal Wie followers place such lofty expectations on her that it is next to impossible for her to reach those expectations. What is success for her? Some say LPGA wins, some say LPGA majors, some say she will be a failure if she doesn't end up the all-time leading LPGA major winner. Some say she needs to compete and win on the PGA. So what is it? Its confusing for her, and the hype is getting old. Its nothing against her, but I know quite a few struggling Nationwide Tour players who have talents that exceed hers, and would kill for the chance to compete on a higher level. Give her time to develop, and shut the hell up about her already. Let her grow up. I don't know Alex or the Judge. But just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them a pariah.
03/03/07 @ 18:32
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Guys,
For the final time,when Shanks originated this blog, the subject was, and presumably still is, the likelihood of attendance and television viewership of LPGA events increasing substantially in the foreseeable future. To return to that thought, nothing here has been put forth in the way of evidence to support that premise except the desires of its proponent to have it happen. Repeating that women's golf will soon be as wildly successful as women s tennis, is extraneous. One could just as well assume that since women have been successful as fashion models, they also can't miss as structural engineers. Proponents of this shaky premise haven't come up with anything concrete to support their fervent hopes. In contrast to the words of an old song, "wishing won't make it so."
03/03/07 @ 19:08
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Those seven 300+ yard drives that Bubbles supposedly hit in 36 holes of one of her missed cuts are one of those urban myths that follow her around. I personally have never seen one of her fictitious drives. Have you?
03/03/07 @ 19:13
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
Do you think the moon landing was a fake? Reading your posts, it's as if you you go in for conspiracy theorys. Those 7 drives over 300 yards definely did happen, as measured by shotlink. I can give you the exact holes and the exact distances hit on each hole. And since you asked, yes I've watched her hit 300+ yard drives. Even Fred Funk hits 300+ yard drives and she is longer off the tee than he is.
03/03/07 @ 19:36
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
2under said:
I happen to feel as though the media and loyal Wie followers place such lofty expectations on her that it is next to impossible for her to reach those expectations. What is success for her? ____________________________ 2under it is very easy to understand how you are making the mistake of thinking that her fans have too big of expectations for her. That is because people like Alex constantly repeat claims that her fans are claiming this and that, when they didn't claim anything of the sort. The fact is that Michelle's fans would be delighted if she broke Paula Creamer's record as youngest lpga winner. Given her record, that isn't a huge prediction to make. It's only Alex and those kinds of people who make claims about her winning pga events and go on about her qualifying for the pga tour and all the rest of it. Most sensible Michelle fans, are hopeful that she will win many lpga titles but know that at 17, that's far too early to call how a player will perform on the pga tour.
03/03/07 @ 19:40
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
I see by the last sentence of your post that you haven't abandoned hopes of Bubbles competing, not accepting another of those undeserved sponsors' exemptions, on the PGA tour. I haven't had a good laugh in a while, so Stanley, please tell me how Bubbles is going to become a member of the PGA tour.
03/04/07 @ 08:23
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Wow,
Alex, just doesn't cease to amaze. While I wrote quite a piece about how Alex tries to twist everything anyone says and make it into claims that were not made, it has come true again. Already in the thread Shanks made some points, then Alex completely twisted those and said Shanks was saying something else. Then when I made the point that it was only people like Alex who were discussing Michelle's pga tour creditial yet, then he still just doesn't get it. One would wonder if English is Alex's first language. If it isn't, than it is understandable that he just doesn't get what people say. I said that it is far too early to be discussing and accurately predicting how someone will do on the pga tour at just 17, and then Alex asks, how do you think she will become a pga member. It really is amazing each time Alex makes one of these gaffs, and it shows that the first person to which I grant the title of an Alexhead will truly deserve it.
03/04/07 @ 10:52
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Do you mean "gaffes?"
03/04/07 @ 14:33
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Stanley,
You said, "Then perhaps if they are watching tennis, they refuse to watch any match that Roger Federer isn't playing in, because it is plainly obvious that any match he is not involved in does not have tennis at its highest level, because he is the only player who plays tennis at its highest level." Stanley, I have two reasons for wanting to watch men's sports. Firstly, I want to watch the best CATEGORY of competition. Secondly, sport is a characteristically masculine endeavor (you should study the origins of it); thus, I want to see men going mano a mano. I'm not interested in watching women, many of whom have been masculinized. Secondly, it's laughable that you claim the Wiebots never made the lofty predictions for Bubbles' career that Alex, I and others have presented as exhibit A when questioning their sanity. Either you're much like the Soviet communists, who would just deny that actual and well-known events had occurred, or it's attributable to the fact that you're new to these boards. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that, according to the Wiemen, Bubbles was an Amazon golfer, one who would shatter sex barriers with a sonic boom of brilliance. Because of this, the trifling task of breaking little Creamer's record wasn't even mentioned; it was just a given, something that would occur just like breathing, something that Bubbles wouldn't even have to use two neurons to think about.
03/04/07 @ 16:38
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
When you cast aspersions at the English language used by other posters on these boards, you leave yourself open for retaliation. Despite the fact that you are either a Brit or a wannabe Brit, your poor usage, spelling, and misuse or non-use of proper punctuation is here for all to see. Now, if I were not a gentleman, I could respond to your inference by saying something like "if brains were dynamite, Stanley wouldn't be able to blow his nose." Or "if stupidity were music, Stanley would be the New York Philharmonic." Or even "that Stanley is so dunb he should have been twins." But as I said, I'm a gentleman, so I won't say such things about a young misguided newbie.
03/04/07 @ 18:47
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
Obviously my comments hit a sore spot. Sorry if I hurt you that much. Judge Smails, I've read these boards long enough to know that if someone proves Alex wrong conclusively, Alex will not admit it. Take Alex's statement that a 485 yard par 4 was routine on the pga tour. When Alex was proved wrong, he just ignored it and moved onto the next thing to grumble about. It is a very major pattern that Alex tries to cover over the cracks and ignore all the times he has been proved wrong. Then he will mention how some random guy happened to post on the board that Wie would win the Evian & British back to back or something like that, and then he passes these predictions off as if they were made by every Wie fan. Judge, it is plainly obvious why it is nice for you to have an adoring fan following your every word, but sometimes that weight tied around your ankle can be more trouble than it is worth. If your posts were taken on their own merit, you could be thought of as an intelligent guy, sure a guy who has some pretty outlandish views, but nonetheless, someone who can express an opinion and articulate it well. While you have Alex as your cabin boy though, your views will get confused with his, and his ineptitude will reflect onto you as well.
03/04/07 @ 19:04
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
There may be hope for this recent crop of Wie-wee's. Take a guy like Stanley.(please!) He doesn't predict much of anything for Bubbles. He doesn't say that she will win any LPGA majors, or make any PGA tour cuts, and he is even silent on that article of faith of all good Wie Warriors, that Bubbles will someday play in the Masters'. So there may still be hope for the Young and the Senseless. But if Norman, Ghet Rheel, and Jim C get wind of their his apostasy, Stanley will surely be drummed out of the corps.
03/04/07 @ 19:09
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
You seem to be hung up on that "485 yard hole" bit. I first used that distance of hole in reference to a 485 yard par FIVE in an LPGA event. A little bit of research was necessary for me to discover that although there are several par four's on the PGA tour LONGER than 485 yards, many more are shorter than that distance. So, although I don't deem the word"routine" to be at all definitive when used in that context, I will hereby amend that text to read "a 485 yard par four is relatively long on the PGA tour." Stanley, frivolous semantic trivialities aren't the bone of contention here, but if they float your boat, I guess there's no harm being done.
03/04/07 @ 19:24
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Stanley,
The only people who look ridiculous on these boards are the Wiebots. They bought the media hype hook, line and sinker and now are left with egg on their faces. Of course, many of them have, for the most part, receded into the woodwork, since Bubbles has been leaking oil for quite some time now. Stanley, when did you learn of Bubbles? You seem like someone who is new to golf.
03/04/07 @ 21:07
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
Ghet Rheel, Norman and Jim C. have kept a very low profile since the U.S.S. Bubbles started listing badly. Of course, though, should she capture lightning in a bottle and actually accomplish something, they'll be back strutting about and displaying bold plumage. That is, until she chickens out again.
03/04/07 @ 21:11
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
I don't intend to get into the Wie fight here, guys, but I saw her hit a 596 yard par 5 in 2 shots. It was on No. 11 at Bulle Rock in the LPGA Championship last year. So let's put that to rest, ok?
2under brought up a thought that I've been trying to get to through all of these landmines. He said "If the LPGA wants to "close the gap" in viewership, they will need to "close the gap" in ability." My assertion that the LPGA will improve does not necessarily mean they will "close the gap." The PGA Tour will always be the best and could also improve. But female tennis players didn't close the gap in ability, yet they were able to improve their own visibility, viewership and, ultimately, earnings.
03/05/07 @ 07:51
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Who will constitute this new group of spectators that will measurably increase the revenues of the LPGA tour? Which demographic group will be the new fans? Remember, to be a real spectator at a golf tournament, one has to be ready, willing, and able to walk about six miles a day, sit or stand in the hot sun, or the chill drizzle and cold wind and wait through a lot of dry spells for that spectacular shot. Many sports fans look upon golf as extremely boring. So tell me. Shanks, who will be that new group of fans who will propel the LPGA into the big time?
03/05/07 @ 08:35
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
My contention, to counter yours, is that short of closing the gap from an ability standpoint, women's tennis has made its money from: 1. Sex appeal 2. Hype surrounding the "Serena factor". I think point #1 is obvious. Point #2 I would almost compare to the "Wie factor". When Serena was hot, so was women's tennis. But when she became more interested in her fashion design business, women's tennis hit the reverse slope of the curve on popularity. No longer does it have the same popularity it did years ago. Again, to reinforce my earlier point, this popularity is unsustainable, tuntil such time as they can compete on an even playing field. You cite earnings as proof that popularity is equal. I earlier stated that factor alone cannot be used to evaluate popularity. "That being said, financial parity is not necessarily a direct reflection of popularity OR relative competitiveness. PC has crept into sports and gathered a pretty strong foothold..." But the point of this is golf, not tennis. Where is women's golf? Look at the relative media time spent on men's events, advertising, etc. It has an overwhelming advantage. It has been that way, and the PGA seems to be maintaining, at the very least, the gap it had since my youth. The Golf Channel, NBC and CBS are primarilyu men's events programming oriented. That is the fact, and it is irrefutable. Stanley, you unknowingly made my point. You say most realistic Wie fans believe she will win many LPGA titles. Is that really the success you believe others have for her? Her father? The media? I think it shows there are too many expectations thrust upon her. To my knowledge, she hasn't won an LPGA tournament yet. So why is she competing on the PGA? Nothing against Ms. Wie personally, but I don't want to see ANYONE without the credibility to compete on the PGA until they can qualify to be there based on the merit of their play. Heretofore, her play hasn't met the mark. That's just the facts. Nothing personal. And Stanley, I am waiting for from you: 1. An apology for calling me a "cronie". I don't ever believe I have attacked you personally. 2. The storylines you find so compelling in comparison to the PGA, which lend credible evidence to the argument that the LPGA has closed the gap, or is substantially closing the gap.
03/05/07 @ 08:52
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Tiger Woods has made golf a cool sport amongst younger generations. If you go to a Tour event these days, the crowds are not only larger but younger in general. So, in a way, the LPGA is also benefitting from Woods stature in the sports world. It is my belief that the unprecedented infusion of youth in the top level of the womens game has created a buzz where there hasn't been one before. All you have to do is look at USA Today coverage to see that it's not just my opinion.
03/05/07 @ 09:15
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
2Under,
First please accept my apology for calling you a cronie. It is often too easy to lump all Wie-critics into one barrell, and it isn't fair to those who have legitimate points. It's obvious that Alex and Judge Smails have a deep felt bitterness towards Ms Wie, that's more to do with severe consersative views and nothing to do with Wie herself. Ironically, I'm a conservative myself, but just not near as far to the right as they are. Anyway, in your case 2under, you do bring some valid points. First on your question of what was so compelling about the lpga majors, the answer was a number of very close and exciting finishes to the majors. At the British Open, Tiger did a very clinical, but also boring performance to win. Same thing at the pga championship. Anyone who has followed Luke Donald career thus far, knew that he would fade miserably against Mr. Woods at the pga championship. In contrast, the lpga majors had tight finishes with a number of players competing. There was the storyline at the Kraft Nabisco, where Wie hit a birdie at 16 to take the outright lead with 2 holes to go, only to be over taken by a holed out eagle wedge from Karrie Webb. At the lpga championship, Se Ri Pak was a great story. Annika winning her first US Open since 1996 was a big deal. I'll answer your other question in a new comment.
03/05/07 @ 09:27
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Comment from 2 Under:
Nothing against Ms. Wie personally, but I don't want to see ANYONE without the credibility to compete on the PGA until they can qualify to be there based on the merit of their play. _________________________________ You do raise a valid point. However the same point can be made about Tiger Woods early pga exemptions. He did nothing of merit to deserve those exemptions. Some people get confused & say but he won 3 amateur titles. However for his first 7 pga tournaments, he had won zero amateur titles. In getting his first pga exemption, he had won one boys amateur title, hardly worthy of a pga exemption. For the next exemptions, he won a 2nd and later a 3rd boys Junior Title. However he had failed in his attempt at the mens amateur title getting knocked out in the 2nd round as a 16 year old and again as a 17 year old boy. He surely didn't deserve his pga exemptions but he still got them. 2under, there is something very important about sponsors exemptions. Nobody deserves a sponsors exemption. They are freebies, given out to who the sponsor chooses to give them to. If those places were to be given to the deserving, they would just give them to the first alternate players, but they don't. Sponsors exemptions are there as a perk to the sponsor. If you want people to stop getting freebies, maybe you should call for the abolition of all sponsors exemptions. The sponsors wouldn't allow that though.
03/05/07 @ 09:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
2under,
Proponents of the theory that the LPGA attendance and television viewership are certain to increase refuse to accept that the public's entertainment funds are finite. They also will not accept that golf fans , and especially live spectators at a tournament, are a rather homogeneous group, in their late thirties to their seventies. Notable exceptions are the raucous groups of young beer drinkers that follow Tiger and Phil around on Sundays. Golf fans are not the Ultimate Fighting or the Nascar crowds. At any PGA tournament, one is liable to meet folks who have traveled hundreds or even thousands of miles to see the best that golf has to offer. My wife and I have done just that many times. Would we ever consider going long distances and racking up considerable expenses to see an LPGA event? Our answer and those of most golf fans are obviously "no". What would change our minds? Nothing that I can see.
03/05/07 @ 09:37
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Comment from Judge:
The only people who look ridiculous on these boards are the Wiebots. They bought the media hype hook, line and sinker and now are left with egg on their faces. _________________________ No they arn't. The girl has 3 top 5's in major in 2006. Only one player can boost the same, Tiger Woods. There is only a handful of players with 2 top 5's in majors. They include Phil Mickelson, Karrie Webb and a couple of others. If you call that some sort of failure, then you are the one with egg on your face, but since you don't realise it, you won't have the sense to wipe it off. You really are bitter and twisted if you don't realise that she has played exceptionally well on the lpga tour.
03/05/07 @ 09:40
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Judge Smails:
Stanley, when did you learn of Bubbles? You seem like someone who is new to golf. __________________________ Nice attempt at an insult. To answer the question, I first heard of her as an 11 year old golfer. That's how good she is, talent like that gets discussed early, for those in the industry. Over 20 years of experience in the golf industry, just a newbie really.
03/05/07 @ 09:42
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Well nobody can ever accuse you of being unbiased and/or objective. In one post you posited these beauties: "Wie had the outright lead with two holes to go, but was OVERTAKEN by Karrie Webb." "Everyone knew that Luke Donald would FAIL MISERABLY against Tiger" I tell you, Stanley, you are one barrel of laughs! Too funny! Keep 'em coming, Stan baby. We can all use the entertainment.
03/05/07 @ 10:05
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to base most of your opinion on what you & your wife are willing to do. Although the women's game will likely never approach the popularity of the men's game, just so you know, people do travel from around the country to attend women's majors. Just not you & the missus.
03/05/07 @ 10:12
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
You are wrong. I base my opinion on the desires and doings of my rather large circle of friends, and those of my five adult children and their spouses, all in all a diverse demograpjic group as far as age is concerned. Yesterday at the Sunday brunch at our club, (yes, we belong to a private golf club, nothing uppity),several of us were discussing our annual pilgrimage to the Memorial, a trip of about 400 miles for us denizens of suburban Chicago. At least eight of us are going for the entire week, practice rounds, pro-am, the works. Just to test the reaction, I asked how many of those present would consider a similar trip to an LPGA event to be held in our state capital, Springfield, in late August. Incidentally, the trip is about 200 miles. I got some quizzical looks, no takers, and then someone changed the subject. Yesterday afternoon, I asked the same question of two of my adult daughters and my sons-in-law. Although they all play a certain amount of golf, none professed any interest in attending an LPGA event that was going to be held relatively close by. But ironically, we do get to watch our grandchildren when they go to the final two days of the John Deere. I'll repeat my question. Who will be the demographic group that will put the LPGA into the big time? Also, when can we expect this boom out to take place?
03/05/07 @ 10:51
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
As I have previously stared, we have been spectators at two LPGA events. Once in I think the year was 2000 at Long Grove which is abiut ten miles from our residence , and the other in Wilminton, Delaware in 2003, an event won by Annika. We had been in the Philadelphia area, so we made the short trip for the final two days of the tournament. So it's not s though we are not familiar with the LPGA or have some innate bias against it. We went twice. Would we go again? Never say never, but it's highly unlikely.
03/05/07 @ 11:08
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex, what did you find funny about those two statements.
If you watched the lpga championship, you should have noticed Wie hit a pitch to 3 feet and knocking in a birdie to go to -8 and take the outright lead with 2 holes to go. Then Karrie Webb holed an eagle pitch to go to -9. That's a fact so what do you find amusing. On the Luke Donald issue, I've followed his career for quite some time. He is a very good player and regularly finishes in the top 10. In fact, in his last 25 pga events he was in the top 10 13 times, that's over half, but my statement that he it was obvious that he would fail miserably when put up against Tiger down the stretch of a major was very correct also.
03/05/07 @ 11:41
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
Your circle of friends are unlikely to be a fair representation of the general public. It is highly likely that the majority of your friends probably believe that a womans place is in the home and they shouldn't be playing golf in the first place. By the way, you mentioned you are from Chicago, do you have any Irish connections?
03/05/07 @ 11:44
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Yes, Stanley,
And Woods never deserved any exemptions despite his three junior championships and three men's amateur championships. You just keep telling yourself those things, Sonny, and stay away from the men in the white coats.
03/05/07 @ 11:49
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
What in hell are Irish connections? You haven't been hitting the bottle this early, have you? On second thought, it's now around 5:00PM where you live, so that accounts for it. Stanley, my wife, my three daughters, and my daughter-in-law all play golf whenever and as often as they desire. You're mistaken again, but keep trying, you're due to get something right any day now.
03/05/07 @ 12:00
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, we accept that you and your clan are not fans of the LPGA. So it is not to your liking - fine. We understand. But if you all represented the LPGA fan base, there would only be maybe about a hundred out-of-towners attending any one event.
Here are some numbers which support my assertion that things are on the rise, excerpts from 11/06 pre-tournament press interview with LPGA Tour Commissioner Carolyn Bivens: We have an LPGA-record 10 players cross the million dollar season's earnings this year. Two more could join them this week. The previous record was set last year when we had six players who made a million dollars in a single season. Our cable viewership is up 59 percent from 2005. Let me say that one more time, 59 percent from 2005. Our network numbers are up 13 percent and The Golf Channel viewership is up 57 percent. Page views on the LPGA.com are up almost 40 percent, exactly 39 percent compared to 2005. The average purse is now $1.596 million, just shy of $1.6 million. This represents a 9.6 percent increase in the average purse from tournaments in 2006.
03/05/07 @ 12:49
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
I have to agree with you on Luke Donald, he's an El Foldo if there ever was one. Why, I can remember him at the Honda just a year ago now. Can you recall how he folded up like an accordion and allowed the whole field to swarm passed him? Wait a minute! He didn't fold at all. In fact, he won by two strokes after holding the field safe for the entire last round. It must have been in the 2005 Target that he folded since Tiger was in the field. Yes, that's it! But wait! Luke closed with a 64 to make up six shots on Darren Clarke to win by two shots. (Stanley mode)Well I don't care, I still say he's a choke artist. And he wasn't much at Northwestern, either. So there!
03/05/07 @ 12:56
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex said:
Yes, Stanley, And Woods never deserved any exemptions despite his three junior championships and three men's amateur championships. ____________________________ Alex, you have really lost the plot. I clearly stated, that Woods got his first 7 exemptions, despite having won ZERO US Amateur adult titles at that stage. I also explained how some people get confused and say, he got exemptions because of his 6 amateur titles, even though he won his 3 adult titles later after having already been given 7 pga tour exemptions. Yet you still come out and claim that he got the pga exemptions based on his 3 Junior and 3 Senior Amateur titles. It's no wonder I questioned if English was your first language before, but it is becoming more clear that your comprehension is actually the problem. To simplify for Alex: TIGER WOODS RECEIVED 7 PGA TOUR EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT HAVING WON ANY US AMATEUR ADULT TITLES. For his first exemption, he had won ONE boys title. For his pga exemptions 2 to 4, he had won a 2nd boys title and got beat in 2nd round of Adult tournament. For his pga exemptions 5 to 7, he had won a 3rd boys title and again got knocked out in the 2nd round of the Adult tournament.
03/05/07 @ 13:53
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Excellent figures by Shanks.
You have shown, that not only is the lpga likely to increase in those areas, but it is also already increasing in fan interest, popularity, viewers and prize money, A word of warning though, Alex's lack of comprehension probably won't enable him to understand the figures.
03/05/07 @ 13:57
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
Since you think Luke Donald is a great closer of tournaments, it can safely be assumed that you don't watch golf at all. Donald won: - once in 2002 on the pga - twice in 2004 on Eurpean pga - once in 2006 on the pga. Four titles for a full time golfer, with his talent is very few. The Target World Challenge you refer to is a silly season event and doesn't count toward any money list or any rankings. If you knew Luke Donalds talent level you would understand that he could quite easily have won about 20 titles already.
03/05/07 @ 14:03
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
If your figures from MS. Bivins" desk are correct, and I have no reason to think they are not, then the renaissance of the LPGA is a fait accompli, it has already happened. As long as you have these statistics at the ready, see if you can find the one that states the paid attendance at LPGA events. If things are going that well for the LPGA, it would seem that all goals thus far have been met. Do you think that in the near future, Ms. Bivins might have to set allowable maximums for attendance to LPGA tournaments? And Stanley, again, what is an Irish connection? And what would that have to do with the city of Chicago?
03/05/07 @ 16:00
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
I'll relate a little anecdote that is apropos. My girlfriend never liked golf until she met me, but she has a keen mind so she has come to understand the game quickly. Now, she has watched quite a number of golf telecasts, but for a long time had only watched PGA events. Then, one day, she tuned into an LPGA tournament. When telling me her impression, she chuckled and said it was like watching children play golf.
03/05/07 @ 16:51
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
The stats are interesting, but where's the context? The question is whether the LPGA is "closing the gap", or is the PGA continuing to pull away? I am betting the first place prize for most men's events is close to $1M. The purses, I think, hang around $3.5 M. Just pure conjecture on my part, but I bet there isn't an appreciable spread between purses now vs. then.
03/05/07 @ 17:01
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
....that is if purses are truly a measure of "closing the gap", which I balk at.
Regarding viewership, given the comparatively small amount of viewers of LPGA vs PGA events, it is easier to increase viewership on a percentage basis vs a PGA. Absolute numbers would provide greater validity to your argument. As well, by changing programming and adding an LPGA event on the Golf Channel, that would have the net effect of increasing viewership, without actually netting new viewers/consumers to the game. All that means is the LPGA is marginally more profitable than a rerun of "Playing Lessons with the Pros".
03/05/07 @ 17:06
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Stanley, Stanley, Stanley, what are we going to do with you?
You've trotted out the platitudinous "There's no difference between the young Woods and Bubbles and he received exemptions" argument, something that has been beaten to death on these boards. So, I see you need some remedial education. There is a very big difference between the two: Woods has a Y chromosome. And, yes, this DOES make a significant difference. Now, although I know your feminist upbringing has handicapped you in this area of understanding, let me attempt to add some nuance to your thinking. Since Woods demonstrated dominance in a MALE golf arena, it was legitimate to consider giving him exemptions in the professional MALE arena. Additionally, in case you didn't notice, boys grow up to be men (except for a few errant souls in San Francisco). As such, it is understood that, if they are to have a future in golf, it will be on the PGA Tour. In the same vein, because they are male, they have no opportunity to cut their teeth on the LPGA Tour, as it openly discriminates against them. Lastly, being male, they possess male potential, which -- I know this may come as a shock to some -- is greater than female potential. To illustrate this point, consider two ten-year-old milers, one male and one female. They may both be very talented runners and, at that age, may both be running the mile in similar times. However, if you had to bet on which one would be running considerably faster six years hence, you'd bet on the boy every time. That is, unless you're clinically insane. The same holds true with other physical endeavors, such as golf. There was every reason to believe that the immensely talented Master Woods might have a fruitful career on the PGA Tour; however, there is also every reason to believe that the immensely talented Bubbles will not. You see, it's that Y chromosome again, along with physiological and hormonal differences, all those things with which moderately educated people are somewhat acquainted. Oh, and Stanley, I said that you SOUND like you're new to golf. And you still do.
03/05/07 @ 17:12
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Stanley,
I can't say I agree that: 1. Some of the "newsworthy" events were all that newsworth. Nor do I believe they trump some of the PGA storylines. But I can agree to disagree there. 2. I didn't see Tiger's win as being pedestrian. I thought it was just an outright assault of the course, winning in the fashion that he did. It was precision. It was surgical. He managed his game so well. But we can agree to disagree there, too. Now as far as sponsor's exemptions go, I can't argue with you. In my book, no unproven "commodity" should be allowed to compete, period. The original intent of the exemption has become sullied. What was once intended to be a "one-off" for oversight during the invite process has become a complete publicity stunt. And Ms. Wie has become a willing accomplice. Do I blame her? No. Hell, I would probably be hypocritical enough to accept an invite if it was to be given. Thankfully, my abject failure would not be published for all to see. Unfortunately for Ms. Wie, that failure seems to overshadow and dominate the event. I find that regrettable. Not her fault that it is reported, but she could wait until she is ready. A double edged sword, b/c she is female? Perhaps. However, that's the hype. And Ms. Bivins is riding her like a horse... I think that just sucks.
03/05/07 @ 17:17
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Comment from Alex:
And Stanley, again, what is an Irish connection? And what would that have to do with the city of Chicago? ___________________________ Alex, although Chicago wouldn't have as big an Irish population as Boston for example, it is still very much there. I know plenty of people from Chicago with Irish heritage, and who are members of Irish associations there. When you mentioned you were from Chicago, I wondered if you could have an Irish connection. Luckily from your answers, it's likely you don't. As you might have guessed, I am Irish. That's why I found it highly assuming when you kept going on about the limey Brit thing, and how you were incinuating how homosexually orientated they were as well as how left wing they are. You might like to note that as regards conservative, we in Ireland do not have gay marriage, same as America, but unlike there, babies aren't aborted here. Anyway, just thought you'd like to know, you limey lover.
03/05/07 @ 17:32
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
2 Under,
How dare you bring some common sense into the debate. I understand your view about sponsors exemptions. You are against all sponsors exemptions and you are consistant in that, and that is fair enough. There are plenty of other people who basically just don't care about sponsors exemptions unless they are given to Michelle Wie, and then they really start to care about them.
03/05/07 @ 17:36
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Jugde said:
Since Woods demonstrated dominance in a MALE golf arena, it was legitimate to consider giving him exemptions in the professional MALE arena. _________________________ Judge, Woods demonstated some talent against boys. That doesn't mean a thing. Many many Junior Boys Champions have gone on to do little else. Michelle Wie demonstated talent in her one Male Amateur Event she entered, which was the US MENS Publinx. There she got to the quarter final against MEN, not boys. She did that at 15 years of age, while Tiger had still failed to get past the 2nd round of the US Amateurs against men at 17 years of age. Of course Tiger had potential to improve but every boy who wins the US Junior Amateur has potential to improve, but do you think they should all get pga exemptions?
03/05/07 @ 17:42
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
There is a persistent rumor going around that Stanley has swept into a commanding lead in Alan Cup points, something unprecedented for a newbie. Although the Alan Cup points are under the strict supervision of the accounting firm Of Melvoin, Altschuler, and Glasser, word from a source that insisted upon anonymity has leaked that Stanley is on the verge of a novice victory heretofore unattained. Whether he ultimately captures the cup in his initial attempt will hinge largely on his ability to maintain his present pace until the cutoff date of April 15, 2007, at which time Alan Cup points will be tallied. I must admit that some of his inanity of late has been world class, but at the same time, much is just a re-hash of the same, old, tired canards. Will he, can he do it? Being from the old school, I remain skeptical. However, Stanley has all the convoluted idiosyncrasies tomake a believer out of me. Stanley, make us proud! Show us you've got what it takes! Go for the gusto! Bring home the Alan Cup to the birthplace for which it is named.
03/05/07 @ 17:53
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
You are to be commended for your honesty Admitting that you are Irish was indeed courageous. But although that was a good thing to do on your part, you must know that bad things happen to good people all the time. By your frank admission that you are a Harp, an Irishman, you have eliminated yourself from further consideration for the Alan Cup. According to the rules committee, being Irish is an unfair advantage in Alan Cup competition.
03/05/07 @ 18:00
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Stanley,
I made my point adequately, and you understand it well. Bubbles didn't prove anything in her foray against the college guys in the Publinks (a second-rate amateur), except that Clay Ogden deserves an exemption before she does. Really, the issue it moot because you know that, upon hearing about the young Woods, you had much higher expectations of him (regarding PGA Tour success) than you did of Bubbles at the same age. Again, that is, unless you're clinically insane.
03/05/07 @ 18:22
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
2under, I never said the LPGA will lose the gap' on the PGA Tour. Here is precisely what I said, "My assertion that the LPGA will improve does not necessarily mean they will "close the gap." The PGA Tour will always be the best and could also improve. But female tennis players didn't close the gap in ability, yet they were able to improve their own visibility, viewership and, ultimately, earnings."
Alex brings up a great point about actual attendance at LPGA events. It is nowhere near the level of the PGA Tour and in all likelihood will never be. In Bivins remarks she did mention increased attendance but did not give any figures. I would presume that to mean those figures were less impressive than the tv & internet increases.
03/06/07 @ 07:35
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex said:
According to the rules committee, being Irish is an unfair advantage in Alan Cup competition. __________________________ Pity that statement can't be bolded. It's nice to highlight Alex's racism and steortyping for what it is.
03/06/07 @ 08:20
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
One might be led to wonder, if Alex's bitterness towards Michelle Wie is led by racism as well, given that he has already showed racism towards British and Irish people.
03/06/07 @ 08:21
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
By the way Alex. For the record, Michelle Wie hit a 348 yard drive on the par 5, 596 yard 11th hole of the 4th round of the lpga championship in 2006. She followed that up with a 5 wood to the green. So she didn't even need a 3 wood to hit the green. Alex earlier said how this didn't happen. Once again, Alex has been proved a fool. Just how many times is Alex going to be proved wrong on just the one blog. Judge Smails, understandably sticking by him, also makes a fool of Judge Smails. It is understandable that Judge Smails stood by him because the human being is bound to want to keep those close, who are praising them and licking up to them at every opportunity. One piece of advise for Alex. Keep praising the Judge as you do, but just leave it at that. As you have found out, time and time again, when you make your own statement such as Wie not hitting 300 yard drives, or not hitting a 596 yard par 5 in two, or a 485 yard par 4 being routine on the pga tour, you are just making a fool of yourself. It is plainly obvious that Alex knows nothing about golf. One thing that is puzzling though is for someone who thinks womens golf is such a load of rubbish, why does Alex spend so much time talking about it.
03/06/07 @ 08:30
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
I give Stanley a B- on his latest post. Too much repetition. Nothing new with any substance. And dredging up the old charge of racism, something that Ghet Rheel practically beat to a frazzle, is unlikely to impress the judges. One thing to his credit is that he hasn't yet mentioned "astroturf." Still, the Alan Cup rankings are similar to World Golf rankings in that points are awarded on a two-year rolling basis with the emphais on the present year so Stanley still maintains a clear lead.
03/06/07 @ 08:52
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
My assertion is that the LPGA isn't going to "close the gap" in any significant sense in viewership over any sustained period of time. We witnessed a spike in the women's game as a direct result of Anna and Seren. Anna for her looks, Serena for her power. Now that both have departed from the game, there aren't any significant storylines to continue to sustain viewership. Tennis not withstanding, the LPGA has to rely on the same "hype" factor. And hype doesnt' sustain viewership. So in order to "close the gap" in any sustainable fashion with viewership, the LPGA must "close the gap" significantly in playing ability. We have seen time and again "hype" provided only temporary surges in interest.
03/06/07 @ 09:14
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I find it most interesting that you would quote Ms. Bivins' statistics as chapter and verse on the increased popularity of the LPGA tour. Yours are the first positive comments about Ms. Bivins that I have seen on these boards. It is virtually unanimous here that Bivins is a hopeless incompetent. Not that I can remember you stating anything derogatory abou her.
03/06/07 @ 09:40
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
2 under said:
We witnessed a spike in the women's game as a direct result of Anna and Seren. Anna for her looks, Serena for her power. Now that both have departed from the game, there aren't any significant storylines to continue to sustain viewership. ____________________________ 2 under, Are you aware that Sera won the 2007 Australian Open? Has she since departed the game?
03/06/07 @ 09:46
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Sera typo for Serena of course.
03/06/07 @ 09:47
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
Is Alex for real?
It is obvious he is just a creation of the Wie hype machine to keep fueling the hype. Many of us are against the hyping that this player gets and the freebies she is handed out in pga and lpga events. We have sound arguments against her being handed these freebies. Alex has been created as someone who is obviously intellectually stupid, as well as racist, as already pointed out. He was just created in order to attack the credibility of those who have legitimate concerns about teenage girls getting pga tour exemptions. Michelle Wie didn't belong at the Lumber Classic, shooting high scores or in other events where she shot high scores against the men. That is a fact that gets lost when Alex puts forward his stupid Alan Cup competitions and other nonsense. Does anyone else know what he is on about? Also, the way he shows a complete lack of knowledge about golf and just appears to have as much golf knowledge as one of those idiots who follows Tiger around and shouts, get in the hole, when Tiger tees off on a par 5 hole. That is all part of the plan in order to discredit the anti-Wie person as a typical racist idiot who knows nothing about golf. A typical example of Alex's lack of knowledge came when he started talking about the yardage of certain holes. If he had ever even played golf he would know that course conditions make a huge difference and a 600 yard hole in one location could play like a 500 yard hole in another location. The fact is there are plenty of people who are not anti-Wie like the Alex character. Plenty of people just don't think she belongs on the pga tour.
03/06/07 @ 10:10
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
2under, you appear to be having an argument with yourself.
03/06/07 @ 10:35
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Stanley,
Yes, I understand Serena won a major. BUt she is far from her dominant levels of a few years ago. Shanks, If you believe I am arguing with myself, then what is your point? That must mean you with me.
03/06/07 @ 14:10
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
I hate this window. It doesn't show a full sentence.
I meant to say: "That must mean you agree with me."
03/06/07 @ 14:12
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
I have repreatedly stated that the LPGA is on the rise but have never said anything about "closing the gap". That has been your thing. For me to say that, I would be making a statment regarding the popularity of the PGA Tour relative to the LPGA. Have not done that. These 2 Tours are on two different planes.
03/06/07 @ 14:24
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
To a large extent, yes, I do agree with you. I would only say that the LPGA does not have to necessarily "close the gap" to improve it's popularity. I'm fairly sure that was the case with women's tennis. Those women didn't "close the gap" on Pete Sampras. They just had some great competitions, with young superstars dominating their headlines. I see this happening now on the LPGA.
03/06/07 @ 14:29
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Matthew,
Entrees for the Alan Cup competition for the year 2007 are closed. However, you do show considerable promise.. If you so desire, your name can be nominated for next year's Alan Cup.
03/06/07 @ 15:00
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Alex,
Even I am getting sick of the Alan Cup. It was funny the first time, maybe even the 2nd, possibly mildly humourous after 5 times or so. But please it is getting old. The same joke over and over again is just not funny. Give it Alex and move on.
03/06/07 @ 15:14
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
Arguing semantics is pointless..."I have repreatedly stated that the LPGA is on the rise but have never said anything about "closing the gap". That has been your thing. For me to say that, I would be making a statment regarding the popularity of the PGA Tour relative to the LPGA. Have not done that. These 2 Tours are on two different planes." Improvement in viewership is relative. I can grow volume in the face of declining share. That is nothing to congratulate. In fact, if a salesperson is not growing share relative to volume, they lose their job. Is that truly what we are arguing here? T
03/06/07 @ 18:40
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
George,
I was thinking of calling it the Stanley Cup, but that one is already taken.
03/06/07 @ 19:10
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
George,
You're probaly right. Sometimes it seems that the only way to answer the absurd claims and methodology of the Wie Warriors is with ridicule. Some of the outlandish comparisons between Woods and Bubbles that this newest batch of Wie-wee's come up with are even more bizarre than those of their predecessors. In any event, George, I'm glad that you're still extant, and I would like to see your take on Shanks' view of the vast improvement in the LPGA.
03/06/07 @ 19:22
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Any news on the increase, if any, in the numbers of live, paid, attendees at LPGA events?
03/06/07 @ 19:26
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
2under, I said is that the LPGA is on an upswing. With a minimum of effort I found some figures to back up that claim. You can argue whatever you want but I have yet to read anything from you or anyone else which plausibly refutes what I said. Perhaps Alex, who really dislikes the LPGA, can find some non-anecdotal information that disproves my assertion.
03/07/07 @ 07:31
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
As you surely know, it is difficult to "prove" a negative. My sense is that while the LPGA is not sinking fast, neither is it taking off. I do not "really dislike" the LPGA. I do find the pace of play slow, the type of golf unimaginative, and that's being kind. I have tried, but I can't even find anything about live attendance at LPGA events; also nothing unbiased about television ratings.
03/07/07 @ 08:59
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
Yes, Stanley is slipping. And the comment about the Stanley cup was funny. I will tell everyone this: If the LPGA does increase its market share, it will only be because of political correctness. As to this, women's tennis has been mentioned a few times here, and, as I have pointed out, it benefits from this as well. It has only increased its popularity because it rides the men's coattails at the majors and because people believe the women are better than they are. For women's golf to increase its gate, it will have to effect the same con. Of course, with our feminist media on its side, anything is possible.
03/07/07 @ 11:05
Comment from: George [Visitor]
Alex,
You are wasting your time arguing with Shanks. The lpga starts from such a low base that is is bound to increase, particularly when measured in percentages of increase. The real increase figures won't be that much though, unless Wie does what the Wie Zealouts are predicting she will.
03/07/07 @ 11:23
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
Judge,
I agree with you on many things, but in the case of womens tennis, much of the tennis audience expressed their dissatisfaction at the boring nature of the mens game where it just turned into ace after ace after unreturnable serve, and then if someone got a serve back the point would end pretty quick anyway. The womens game, while far slower and much less skillful at least brought some entertainment and some points which were constructed by the players. Maybe you will be able to give some more info, but the mens game does appear to have got a bit better, not so much the one or two stroke affair per point that it used to be. Have they modified the tennis ball to slow it down a bit? The main point anyway, is that the mens game certainly did suffer from the boring big serves, and that helped the womens game in that many people turned to it for better entertainment.
03/07/07 @ 11:30
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Smails, you really have it against the LPGA so my question to you is this: why not just ignore these discussions? If I detested something as much as you apparently do the LPGA, I wouldn't be bothered with it.
Alex, I agree that live gate figures are hard to attain but I'll keep my eyes peeled as we go forward for something on the subject. And like I said earlier, I presume those precise numbers weren't quoted because they are the least impressive of all the increases mentioned. I also agree that putting butts in the stands will be the hardest for them to do. But unlike Smails, I don't think people will actually go to the tournaments out of a sense of being PC. I believe that like myself they will find the level of competition attractive. They have very close contests with choking and heroics like every other professional golf event. No, they as a whole won't be playing the power game featured on the PGA Tour, maybe never except for a lucky few (relatively speaking). But they do play a smart, controlled game from which most amateur male golfers could learn and appreciate. I know you call it pitty-pat golf but the fact is it's very effective. Myself, I'd rather shoot something under par pitty-pat style than shoot a manly 80 anyday.
03/07/07 @ 11:31
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
It has been some serious fun in humiliating you repeatedly in this blog. Don't worry, it's just a personal thing. If you were a nicer guy, people wouldn't get such pleasure in making such a fool out of you. It's good to know that the Judge is sticking by his lap dog. Hopefully Alex will continue to be obediant to your every word Judge, and keep you company in the blogs. Just how many times did Alex make stupid comments in the blog where it easy to prove him wrong. It's easy to assertain that he has never played golf.
03/07/07 @ 11:35
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Stanley,
Alex makes all you Wiebots look like fools, you just don't realize it. Oh, by the way, do they still teach spelling in school in the British isles? Or is it the six-pack and potato that have thrown you off your game? Matthew, Actually, you stole my thunder. A couple of days ago I wanted to mention the feeling that power has ruined men's tennis, but I didn't get around to posting. Obviously, this is a big difference between women's tennis and women's golf: In the former the lack of power could conceivably enhance viewer enjoyment, while in the latter this isn't the case. As far as the balls go, I don't know of any changes that have been instituted, but the US Open has long provided heavier balls for the men (going back at least fifteen years). I have to say, however, that this perception of men's tennis might have resulted from the fact that Wimbledon garners an inordinate degree of attention. Casual fans may only watch a big event like Wimbledon, and since it is played on grass, the play is MUCH faster. I think that when people start watching men's tennis at other venues, though, they start to realize that the points aren't always as short as they had imagined.
03/07/07 @ 12:27
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Exactly what is "serious fun?" Is it serious? Or is it fun? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Similar to "Intelligent Irishman."
03/07/07 @ 13:09
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I'm a 14 handicapper so anything close to 80 shot by me would be outstanding. But we're not discussing amateur golf here. These women are professionals and, in my view their game is not up to professional standards. If you and others with similar tastes want to be spectators at LPGA events, by all means, have at it. I've seen it twice in person and that's enough.
03/07/07 @ 13:22
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, perhaps your refusing to see what is good about the "pitty-pat" game is indicative of why you would be thrilled with "anything close to 80". But I could be wrong. And I would appreciate it if we keep from posting ethnic slurs on this site.
03/07/07 @ 14:04
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I will defer to your request to desist from making any remarks that you may construe as "ethnic slurs." Does your proscription of invective cover your ally Stanley's continous referring to me as a canine pet, i. e. "lapdog?"
03/07/07 @ 14:29
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Agreed, that's childish stuff. Personally, I don't see the need for any of that but I have to draw the line at being disrespectful towards nationalities or races in general. Seems like lampooning ideas & stances would be enough fun for any critic or fan. Thanks. .
03/07/07 @ 14:46
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
You're welcome. One trend on the LPGA is the number of LPGA tournaments being held outside of the US. According to what I've read, no fewer than ten events on the LPGA tour will be held in Mexico, Canada, all over Europe, as well as several in Asia. Shanks, I was born and raised on the north side of Chicago in what some would deem a tough neighborhood. We had a variety of ethnic groups in that neighborhood, including Irish, Italian, Czech, lots of Greeks, many, many Polish, and my ancestry, Slovak, a small minority I engaged in a fistfight over these attachments almost every day, but nobody ever took it seriously, and some of the guys I used to do battle with ended up being my best friends. We still give each other the business when we get together a for a little libation. But then, we don't have thin skins like these PC characters. I've agreed to desist and I will abide by your wish.
03/07/07 @ 15:17
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
I grew up in an all-white neighborhood bordering Washington DC and during my childhood it changed to about half white/black. We didn't have ethnic pockets but as that change happened I was involved in the sort of thing you are describing. I played high school basketball and was actually a minority on the team. But truthfully most of what we did was ribbing each other about typical ethnic stuff, seldom resulting in problems. My parents grew up in Washington DC in the 30s & 40s and back then the city was as you have described Chicago, very ethnic. So they had more of the experiences you are talking about. My step-Dad talks about that still, and has a vast array of ethnic jargon to call upon. Are we too sensitive nowadays? Probably, yeah. I don't care if somebody calls me by those type of handles but we have to maintain a certain decorum in this very public arena.
03/07/07 @ 15:50
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Shanks,
Even though you didn't ask, I'll also stop the lap dog references on your blog. It is highly amusing how Alex praises Judge Smails every word, but instead of insulting it again, I'll just read in amusement. Incidentally, Judge Smails mentioned something about drinking in relation to the Irish, which is a stereotype. For the record I don't drink alcohol at all.
03/07/07 @ 19:35
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Judge Smails said:
Alex makes all you Wiebots look like fools, you just don't realize it. _____________________________ And how exactly does he do that? Perhaps by making blunder after blunder in what he states as facts. Alex himself is the only one he makes a fool of.
03/07/07 @ 19:37
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Judge,
Since I am in the golf industry and you are not, perhaps the news hasn't filtered through to you yet, but as regards the power game enhancing the mens game, there has been a shift in attitudes, for the very reason that it is ruining the game. The R&A and the USGA are introducing new regulations on wedges. You probably don't know anything about this sort of stuff, but basically the types of grooves that they have made on wedges make it much easier to spin the ball when coming out of deep rough. This has had a negative affect on the game because the punishments for being inaccurate off the tee just don't exist as much. The new rules on groove setting for the wedges will make it far more difficult to spin the ball coming out of the rough and this is expected to make the pros more concerned with hitting fairways. There are also other discussions about how to stop power making too many courses obsolete. These discussions range from making a uniform golf ball for the pros as well as modifying the standards allowed on the clubs.
03/07/07 @ 19:46
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
If all that you say is true, that power is being legislated against, spinning the ball out of the rough is being discouraged, and other modern improvements in clubs are being proscribed, the ladies' game may actually start to encroach on that of the men. If mediocrity is the goal, tha R&A and the USGA are on the right track. Do you suppose that hickory shafts and balls with square depressions will make a comeback?
03/07/07 @ 22:35
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Stanley,
Since you've shown that you are very proud to be "in the golf industry"., perhaps you will tell us folks who have real jobs just what facet of that industry you are in. Caddying and groundskeeping don't qualify as the "golf industry."
03/07/07 @ 22:51
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
Alex,
Why do you think that the ladies game will encroach that of the mens? Men on average will still hit the ball further than their female counterparts on average, no matter how the clubs or balls are adjusted. Also, mediocrity is not the goal. Great players will play great golf. The difference is that modern clubs are making good players into great players, because the clubs are much more forgiving to mishits. Are you in favour of players getting away with mishits, just because of technology? As they adjust the clubs to bring back more skill, great players will still be great players.
03/08/07 @ 08:55
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
The point is the statistics you purportedly use to support your view, in fact, provide no context to your argument. They mean virtually nothing. You have provided superlatives and meaningless data. If your only argument is that the LPGA has "improved viewership", that means nothing. Where's the "statistical significance"?
03/08/07 @ 20:06
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Sorry 2 under, but we'll have to disagree that the following are meaningless statistics:
"cable viewership is up 59 percent from 2005 ... network numbers are up 13 percent and ... The Golf Channel viewership is up 57 percent ... Page views on the LPGA.com are up exactly 39 percent compared to 2005. The average purse is now $1.596 million, a 9.6 percent increase in the average purse from tournaments in 2006." Everything there indicates a higher interest in the LPGA. If you can't at least see that in those numbers, then I don't have anything else to say about the subject.
03/09/07 @ 07:23
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Women's golf, according to any surveys that I've seen, is at the absolute bottom of all sports' viewing. It fares poorly vis-a-vis against Nascar, Ultimate Fighting and the World's Strongest Man, and ,of course, Men's golf. With the sparse attendance that is obvious at LPGA events, I can't see how they can be seen as anything but a "loss leader" by their sponsors. The recent SBS in Hawaii was an example of a corporation taking a financial bath in order to garner publicity. SBS is a Korean company who came to American soil to showcase the burgeoning number of young Korean females on the LPGA tour They must have had a huge shortfall in revenues, but they must not be too concerned, since they hoped the advertising would offset it.
03/09/07 @ 09:45
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
You need to take a stats course. Why do you think the LPGA avoided #'s in favor of %? Eas As well, LPGA.com hits, in it of itself, means absolutely nothing. How much is repeat traffic? Hits from advertising? Redirecting from other sites? None of that means "viewership" is up. Your stats, objectively speaking, do not support your premise.
03/09/07 @ 10:00
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
I can't argue with much of what you said. My contention is only that they are improving. And I have evidence to back that up. But you point to the SBS in Hawaii as an example of sparse attendance. I say most golf in Hawaii is poorly attended, unless Woods or, now, Wie is in the field. The Champions Tour had similar attendance at the exact same Turtle Bay course as did the SBS.
03/09/07 @ 10:08
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
No question that percentages are more impressive and that's why Bivens used them. I get that. But it doesn't make them untrue. An increase is an increase. I seriously doubt the purse increase of 10% is because viewership is flat or decreasing. Sponsors aren't stupid. You could have a point about internet hits to some degree but when taken in tandem with tv ratings I'd say it's likely that some of that 39% increase is from interested people. So I'll say that the numbers DO back up my contention that the LPGA is on the rise.
03/09/07 @ 10:35
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
The Golf Channel is on the TV in our office lounge as I am writing this post. World number one Annika is in the field defending her title. Lorena is also competing before the local fans in Mexico City. The weather is perfect, the course is immaculate. In perhaps the largest city in the world, a city with about a million US expatriates, and with a native daughter playing, a woman who was the player of the year and the leading money winner in 2006, the galleries are thin, if not sparse. The applause is similar to that one would hear at a lawn party with the Budapest String Quartet performing. Is this an example of the ever-increasing popularity of the LPGA?
03/09/07 @ 14:24
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
C'mon Alex, you know they're trying to grow the game in Mexico. Hardly anybody but the rich play there now. There weren't any crowds at the PGA tournament 2 weeks ago but I didn't hear you crowing about that either.
You gotta do better than that, my man.
03/09/07 @ 14:31
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I disagree. The PGA galleries in Cancun were massive by comparison to this one in Mexico City. With the two-tier economy and class structure in Mexico, the capital and its environs have hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who would be categorized as middle class or better by US standards. Shanks, have you ever visited Mexico City? Not the hinterlands but the Federal District itself. I have been to that metropolis several times. Entire sections of that city are predominantly American and European in character. The preponderance of the galleries at Cancun were Gringos and Europeans. Where were they today in Mexico City?
03/09/07 @ 14:57
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
All the golf fans in Mexico City were probably at home or in a watering hole waiting to watch the PGA on that very same Golf Channel.
03/09/07 @ 17:17
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
Shanks is correct. Golf is not a popular sport in Mexico by any means.
The lpga tour numbers should be judged when they hit the American mainland. The lpga tour is a US golf tour. Surely the events on the US Mainland are the best ones to make judgements about.
03/09/07 @ 17:54
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Matthew,
No fewer than twelve of the LPGA tournaments will be held this year outside of the US mainland. Three others will be held at locations yet to be announced. About 40% of the players on the LPGA tour are not US citizens or have dual citizenship. The LPGA may still be a US tour, but not by much.
03/09/07 @ 21:52
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Matthew,
Remember, what is being discussed here is the relative popularity of the LPGA. Until you brought it up, the nation , area of the world, or the state of the union where the tournament was played was not an issue. Since you have conceded that the LPGA is not popular in the Hawaiian Islands or Mexico, and the mainland US is the only area from which statistics should be relevant, any stats from the Weetabix, the Evian, and the LPGA events held in Thailand, Korea, and Japan will be of equal insignificance. I'll be reminding you of your premise in case it escapes your memory.
03/09/07 @ 22:04
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Admittedly, I don't watch much LPGA golf. I find it boring, tedious, and a round takes far too long.
But since others have opinions diametrically opposed to mine, I figure that it won't hurt to watch at least some of the pitty-pat LPGA game to try to glean something from it. Much has been written and blogged how the girls are becoming stronger and more durable, how they are working out, gaining extra muscle, and are driving tha ball almost as far as the men, and in the cases of Fred and Corey, even farther. So you can imagine my utter amazement when I caught a few glimpses yesterday of the MasterCard event from Mexico City. These super tough women, these Amazons of the links were riding around the course in GOLF CARTS! You know, those four-wheeled things with the sun shades that were developed so that the elderly could still play the game. The announcers said that this was allowed because the Bosque Real course is quite hilly and the girls might get tired walking the course with such terrain and at a high altitude. Imagine that, a HILLY golf course! With that as a precedent, maybe the PGA will allow golf carts at the US Open this year since Oakmont is also very hilly. The theme song of the LPGA should be a re-make of the old Helen Reddy standard "I am woman, hear me roar" as the girls ride down the fairways in style.
03/10/07 @ 10:10
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
I find this action by the LPGA to be grossly irresponsible and dangerous. I mean, putting women behind the wheel? I just hope that when they drive, they'll be able to keep it in play and that when they approach the green, they don't hit any spectators.
03/10/07 @ 13:48
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
The organizers of the tournament at least had the good sense not to allow the female golfers to drive the carts. I think the caddies are behind the wheels. As far as hitting any spectators with either the ball or the cart, there is almost no chance of that happening. The galleries are so sparse that around some greens(and tees) there are NO spectators. None.
03/10/07 @ 14:32
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Good point, Alex, good point.
03/10/07 @ 21:37
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
I was not aware your statement were tantamount to factual evidence. While I can't prove the negative, I can call into question the loose association you create between your "supportive figures". With that in mind, maybe I could ask you to state, for the record, that my +2 qualifies me for a sponsors exemption? I've got my eye on the FBR next year...
03/11/07 @ 18:26
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Here's the thing, 2under. Only one thing "qualifies you for an exemption". Putting butts in the seats, in the mind of the sponsor. I live in the Washington DC area and one year Mark Rypien (then QB of the Redskins) was given an exemption. Now, he was a 1 hdcp and had played in some of those atrocious celebrity pro events. It DID create a little buzz and probably sold a few hundred extra tickets to a tournament mostly devoid of the big names in pro golf. Of course, he shot a million but at least he served the purpose. So, sure, if you have a huge following, you "qualify for an exemption."
You guys gotta let go of that tired old argument.
03/12/07 @ 06:42
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, I wasn't able to catch any of that tournament but apparently there are a few spectators out there. This quote from Stacy Prammanasudh, who played with Lorena Ochoa - "It was a little crazy out there with all the photographers, media and all her fans. It's great to play around that. They're clapping for everybody and cheering everyone on, so it was just a wonderful atmosphere."
03/12/07 @ 07:27
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Yes, there were a FEW spectators on the course. Perhaps a few thousand total. At the 18th green, there was quite a large grandstand built, one that would hold about 3,000 spectators. When Annika's went through, there may have been 200 people watching. On many holes there were no spectators on the tees, almost none lining the fairways, and very few at the greens. You don't have to take my word for it, just view any video tape of the tournament. Lorena is a native daughter and favorite of those who did attend. so Stacy may have thought the galleries were large and boisterous. They were not.
03/12/07 @ 08:25
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
I'll take your word for it.
03/12/07 @ 08:29
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
The point of my response was exactly what you responded to Alex: "We'll take your word for it." That doesn't constitute proof of your argument. And if your point has been that the LPGA is merely "improving", it holds no merit or importance. So why do you hold on so tightly to this beleif the LPGA is such a great thing?
03/12/07 @ 16:07
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
2under,
A microcosm of what ails the LPGA just occurred this afternoon. Annika lost to Meaghan in a sudden death playoff that lasted four holes. The par five 18th was the only hole involved in the playoff. Both players had parred it in regulation. And neither birdied it in the playoff. Annika bogeyed it in her fifth try on the day. The best in the world and possibly in history, along wth her playing opponent, could not get better than a par in five consecutive tries each on the same hole. Will his display of boring, mundane golf discourage guys like Shanks from defending it? Not on your life. He and the other PC feminists have far too much invested emotionally to abandon their hopes.
03/12/07 @ 17:56
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Here's what I don't understand. Why is that you two guys feel the need to disparage the LPGA? What do you have emotionally invested that makes you drone on & on about what you can't stand? Everybody who reads this totally accepts your disdain for this product. Now, because of a lackluster playoff, Alex is knocking Sorenstam, of all people. (I won't even get into her accomplishments but I do seem to recall her once shooting 59.) Let me remind you that both players were 11 under par for the regulation 54 holes. I'm sorry that neither one of you can appreciate golf that's not this new power game of knocking it 300+ yards and hitting irons into par 5s. You must absolutely hate Corey Pavin for winning the US Open by hitting fairway woods into some par 4s. But apparently that's who you are.
03/13/07 @ 06:31
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
FYI Alex, Francella birdied the 4th playoff hole. So you are either dead wrong or you just flat out lied to bolster your criticism.
03/13/07 @ 07:27
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Since you say you don't understand my stance on LPGA pitty-pat golf, I'll explain it one final time. The women do not play their tedious game because it is their choice. They play at that slow, methodically pace because they can play at no other pace. I firmly believe that were it not for the pressure of political correctness, the LPGA would not exist. It would have died on the vine like so many other marginal sports. Women's golf is boring, overly long per round, and tiresome. It isn't much to see, and I am apparently not the only golf fan that has this opinion. The dismal television ratings and the sparse attendance speak for themselves. Now, if you want fervently to believe otherwise, by all means, dream on. As far as your putting Corey Pavin into the mix,that is a non-sequitur and you know it. Corey is a US Open champion and has won many times on the PGA tour. What you seem to forget or to ignore is that Corey has a "y" chromosome. To compare Corey to any of these weak-hitting females is like comparing Secretariat to a pack mule.
03/13/07 @ 07:30
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
This is extraneous, but I NEVER flat out lie. The box score posted yesterday on the Golf Channel had Meaghan scoring a par five on the fourth playoff hole and Annika scoring a bogey six on that hole. I don't know if that line score is still up there, but it surely was yesterday after the playoff. In any event, it was a boring event under any circumstances. And you really shouldn't accuse anybody os "flat out lying" without checking the facts.
03/13/07 @ 08:00
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
As is typical Alex, you didn't read all of my comments. If you bothered to look closely, you would notice that I said "either, or". I'll take your word for it that you were just dead wrong. And from your new post, I see that your negative commentary wasn't based on actually watching the broadcast. Also typical.
03/13/07 @ 08:06
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, you get a pass. The Golf Channel has it wrong. But that still doesn't excuse your criticism of the playoff without actually watching it.
03/13/07 @ 08:22
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
The line score as posted on the Golf Channel is still there. They are obviously mistaken if Meaghan did birdie. The MasterCard was not televised yesterday to my knowledge. I was quite busy yesterday, but according to my wife, the Golf Channel had run hours of infomercials rather than the MasterCard. In any event, the difference is a triviality at best and doesn't alter the substance of my argument, which is that women's golf is a tedious, tiresome, boring exhibition that would be assigned to the trashcan of sports' history were it not for the current climate of political correctness. THE END!
03/13/07 @ 08:24
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Interesting, Alex. The substance of your argument is your personal opinion. Uh huh. You haven't said anything that we haven't heard before. So why beat a dead horse? You and your boy 2under haven't responded to that question yet.
I must say that it is rather amusing you cannot appreciate a group of players with enough game to give you 5 a side and still kick your butt. I say that somebody that good could teach you a few things, but only if you had the eyes to see.
03/13/07 @ 08:43
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Let me see if I have understanding of your position taken in your penultimate post. You convey the thought that unless one has seen something happen in person or on a television broadcast, he or she has no business commenting on that happening. Really! If that were the case, then neither you, me, or anyone else has any business commenting on the playoff at the MasterCard. That would make your blog sort of unnecessary, no? I have much faith in the written word, especially when it comes from what I believe to be a credible source. The Golf Channel posted the playoff line score, thus I believed it. I wasn't present at Ford's Theater on April 9, 1865, and neither were most of the writers who wrote of President Lincoln's assassination.. But I have no reason to doubt that John Wilkes Booth did the deed, and I feel eminently qualified to write my opinions of that occurrence. And speaking of beating a dead horse, you actually dredged up the tired irrelevancy that these professional women golfers can soundly defeat a 63 year old, 14 handicapper. Hey Shanks, I know that! And Shanks, 2under is not my BOY or anyone else's BOY. Let's be politically correct here.
03/13/07 @ 09:54
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
correction: April 14, 1865
03/13/07 @ 09:56
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
So you are telling me that by looking at a box score, you know how the round was played? I saw what was on the website. First of all, it didn't mention weather conditions (course was wet and playing long, they'd been delayed by rain and I don't even know if the wind was up)? Nor the length of that par 5 (586 yds)? It didn't give you a shot by shot analysis. But you presume to know that it was a "display of boring, mundane golf". Admit it, that box score was all you knew before writing those disparaging remarks. Shame on you.
03/13/07 @ 10:18
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
I assumed that the final round of the MasterCard was boring because as far as I know, all LPGA golf is boring. You and other feminists may become excited by this pitty-pat game, I do not. But then, there is no accounting for taste. To return to the original premise of this blog, you stated that the LPGA tour was indeed on the rise, its popularity increasing dramatically if not exponentially. You were adamant that although the LPGA would not match the PGA in popularity, it would close the gap significantly. Then you cherry-picked some vague statistics and offered them as "proof" of your position. On the other hand, guys like 2under, Judge Smails and myself think otherwise, that the LPGA is not closing the gap, that in fact it is lagging even further behind. And we offer as evidence the sparse attendance and miniscule television ratings as our "evidence." Notice, I never said "proof." This entire blog is nothing but personal opinions on any side. You and your allies have yours, and we have ours. I think our evidence is far more convincing than yours, a conclusion with which I am sure you disagree.
03/13/07 @ 11:42
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, you confound me. How about providing some proof to these claims of yours about what I have said like "popularity increasing dramatically if not exponentially" or the LPGA "would close the gap significantly." I defy you to find proof here in this blog.
However, just like you ignore the question of why you drone on & on about your distaste for the LPGA, instead of just ignoring it, you likely will ignore this challenge too. As far as the statistics I found, they are not nebulous, but rather tangible as the sponsors have validated by increasing the average purse by nearly 10% over last year. Please.
03/13/07 @ 12:11
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
You, of all people, criticize others for droning on and on. I guess it takes one to know one. From the tone of your replies, it sounds like you don't want any diversity of opinion on your blog If you want a lot of heads nodding in agreement, maybe you can get them if you put your blog on the NOW site.
03/13/07 @ 12:55
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Shanks,
I'll answer your question about why we deride the LPGA. Shanks, in a way, this reminds me of the homosexual lobby. They imbue school curricula with their agenda, come out of the closet in every way imaginable, get in everyone's face and then, when traditionalists merely respond, ask why the latter are so hung up on sex! Likewise, the PC crowd fired the first salvo here, so some feel compelled to respond. What I'm talking about is the fact that we have a PC, affirmative-action mentality in this country that makes most people carry water for feminist causes. With respect to sports, this means that we tend to have many women's sports rammed down our throats in the name of social engineering when there really isn't a market for them. Or, maybe I should say, they're trying to CREATE a market for them. For instance, it's my understanding the the NBA buttresses the cause of the WNBA and that it kick-started the latter in the first place. Similarly, I just read yesterday that the NFL was funding a training camp for girls. But it extends far beyond such obvious initiatives. In the name of pcness we have Title IX dictates, which are unjust for a couple of different reasons. Then, of course, there is the overall affirmative-action mentality I mentioned, one that shapes the thinking of people such as you, even though you're not fully aware of it. It makes many sports writers and others feel compelled to write gratuitously complimentary articles about women athletes and sports; because of this mentality, it "feels" right to these journalists, as if they're doing a good deed. Now I speak only for myself, but their actions constitute the antithesis of a good deed. It does not behoove us as a civilization to masculinize women, which is exactly what we're doing. To be like the Muslims would be wrong, for they are one extreme; however, we are the other. Only, a people, just like a person, rarely recognizes its characteristic flaws. Life is the best teacher, though, as my mother used to say, and life will soon teach us a very tough lesson.
03/13/07 @ 13:07
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Noted, Smails. When society crumbles, we'll wish we had listened to you and totally ignored the LPGA.
If you go back to the original blog, it only says the "LPGA is starting to raise its profile." No matter that Alex, 2under & yourself don't care for the LPGA, when questioned I produced factual evidence that backs up my mild assertion. And because you guys just can't stand that, all I get is opinion to the contrary. Certainly, you are entitled. But to attack repeatedly, sometimes falsely as Alex did just a couple of entries ago, just blows my mind (closing the gap, exponential growth - NEVER said that). My point is this - if it were me, I'd just say my peace, perhaps argue the point a little (because face it, that's fun) and move on. It's not like we're going to change the minds of many, if any, by reading this. And Alex, your response resembles something like "nyah, nyah" on the playground. I really appreciate you totally ignoring the questions asked of you. Just proves what I've been saying.
03/13/07 @ 14:13
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Smails, you know what, I have to apologize for being so flip in my initial response. You were kind enough to illuminate on your reasoning and I should thank you for that. Actually, I understand your point. I just don't agree with you. Here's the thing about traditionalists. Sometimes they are wrong. It was once the traditional view that the world was flat. It was once the traditional view that slavery was acceptable. And it was once the traditional view that man would never fly.
03/13/07 @ 14:31
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Shanks,
You merely state the obvious. There are two types of fools: Those who will never consider that which is new because it is new, and those who will always dispense with that which is old because it is old. Of these fools, however, the latter group is in control nowadays and is, within the context of our civilization, much more dangerous. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, tradition is ". . . democracy extended through time" and ". . . the democracy of the dead." Moreover, I will add that without proper tradition you cannot have freedom. This is because some kind of controlling influence over appetite and will must exist, and the less of it there is within people, the more there must be without. If your behavior is not controlled by tradition, social codes and convention, it will have to be controlled by laws, mandates, and regulations, imposed by Big Brother. How to you discern the difference between good and bad tradition? There is only one way: They have to be judged under the light of Truth. Oh, and for you moral relativists out there, if you would ask the usual stupid question, "Whose truth?" then the problem is before you. All you need do is look in the mirror. No civilization can long endure once it detaches itself from Truth. Lastly, I have no more use for militant secularists than I do for militant Muslims. In fact, the only difference between the two is that that latter can perpetuate a civilization, albeit a dark one. The former cannot and are in the process of destroying ours. I'll also tell you that if I ever ran the show, I would bring both groups to heel with extreme prejudice. And that, mon frere, you can take to the bank.
03/13/07 @ 15:27
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Traditionalists have been right about many more things than those that proved wrong. For instance, that traditional education is far better than outcome based education. That certain jobs requiring strength, agility and stamina such as ironworkers, bridge painters, firefighters, policemen, and combat infantry are best performed and should be the exclusive province of the masculine sex. And that the principals of free market and free enterprise, unfettered by political correctness, will ultimately doom mediocre sports like women's golf as a major entity.
03/13/07 @ 16:57
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
#1. And get this straight...I am no-one's "boy". I have not called you a name, and you are very adamant about the premise of keeping discourse above board. If you can't, get rid of your blog. Got it? #2. If you create an opinion, you are subject to criticism. If you can't take the heat, get out of the freakin' kitchen. I'll debate the merits when I calm down...
03/13/07 @ 17:53
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
Regarding the "substance" of your argument: You have made the assertion that the LPGA is "improving". As a blogger, you are accountable for that comment. Improving means nothing without comparison. A rising tide raises all boats. You used womens tennis as a comparator. I would like to stick to golf, but since you brought up tennis, let's use the analogy. Just like women's tennis had relied largely on superficial issues, so has women's golf. Sex appeal, hype...I don't need to revisit the argument here. 9.4% increase in purse? Hmm...how does that compare to the same increase in the PGA purses? It doesn't... I could go on and on...I am not disparaging the LPGA. It is what it is. But I am not going to simply agree with the patently false notion that the LPGA is "improving" with any degree of import. It just isn't happening. I have nothing against women, I have something against falsitude. And your assertion, from the very beginning, has been exactly that... Y
03/13/07 @ 19:04
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
I would typically agree with Alex on the lpga tour not being a popular sport and the unlikelyhood of it improving in a big way.
However, I did watch quite a bit of the Mastercard Classic and the crowds looked pretty darn good, and the levels of cheering were huge, not only for Lorena's group but other groups as well. The SBS as the first tournament had very very disappointing crowds. However the crowds for the Mastercard looked much more impressive. Whether Alex just switched on at the wrong time, or if he is lying about the crowd size is questionable. It's pretty obvious his bias against women playing any kinds of sport could probably skew his judgement in a big way.
03/13/07 @ 19:24
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
As regards, the NBA supporting the WNBA good for them.
The NBA also supports young kids who have no chance of being huge superstars, just to play some sport. That is good for fitness. Anything which encourages people, both men and women to play sports is good. It's fairly obvious that Alex and the Judge would rather women got their exercise by doing ironing and washing laundry, more physical sports like basketball do bring very good healthy benefits. Sport is good for people. If some women are inspired to try to play better basketball to get on the WNBA, then the WNBA is doing good.
03/13/07 @ 19:28
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Matthew,
You're a good little boy -- the feminists will give you a cookie. And, yes, you're right, sports will be your savior. I mean, who needs God when you can throw a ball around?
03/13/07 @ 19:52
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Matthew,
You've blown your cover! You're not married. You've got to be single. You let the cat out of the bag with your comment about washing and ironing. With the types of fabric and the newer washing machines, there isn't a married man alive who hasn't washed a lot of clothes. As for ironing, man, where have you been? Ironing went out with spats! For your information, my wife plays golf more often than I do. Two of my daughters were better than average basketball, volleyball, and softball players in high school and college. My youngest daughter was all state in high school and all conference in college in the sport of gymnastics. She is using her gymnastics skill for the last two years at her job with the Cirque du Soleil in Las Vegas and on tour. My two granddaughters are both active in all kinds of girls' sports in their middle schools. So i'M not quite the ogre that you might think.
03/14/07 @ 07:22
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
A note for 2under - with the shortened season and significant changes to the new PGA Tour schedule including new events, I wouldn't know how to compare 2007 to 2006. But if you compare 2005 to 2006, the average purse on the PGA Tour increased 2.5%.
03/14/07 @ 08:20
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Matthew,
About five days ago, Shanks wrote that it was not relevant to comment on the sparse crowds at the MasterCard since golf had very little following in Mexico. On March 9, 2007 at 17:54, you posted the following in support of Shanks' premise: "Shanks is correct. Golf is not a popular sport in Mexico by any means." You went on to say that the LPGA is an American tour, and that lpga stats should only be judged for events held on the US mainland. By that criterion, those LPGA events played in Hawaii, Japan, Thailand, Korea, Canada, England, and Switzerland should also be disregarded. But then on March 13, 2007 at 19:22,you changed course 180 degrees and announced that in you view, the crowds at the the MasterCard were large and impressive. The cheering and applause for all groups, not just Lorena's was "huge." You even implied that I might be "lying" about the crowd size to prove my point. Now, Matthew, by the tenor of your posts, you impress me as a gullible young(25 years old or less)man. So won't berate you or your feminist opinions. As concerns the galleries at the MasterCard, did you pay any attention to the few stragglers in the large grandstand set up at the 18th green? Where were the huge crowds of boisterous fans? The applause" you heard on occasion was in fact "canned" or recorded applause, identical each time it wa played. So, Matthew, in light of the fact that you have expressed two diametrically opposed viewpoints on this board, I'd like to ask you this question: In your opinion, is golf in Mexico a sport of little consequence and similar following, OR, were the crowds at the MasterCard "very impressive" and the applause and cheering for all the groups "huge" and exuberant? Which was it, Matthew? It can't be both.
03/14/07 @ 08:22
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Hey Smails, are you going to take Alex to task now? With those long rants about masculinizing our women, you should be all over him for subjecting his daughters to a heavy diet of sports like basketball, volleyball, and softball. Don't you think they should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant?
03/14/07 @ 08:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
You're wrong yet again. Or perhaps I should say that you're still wrong. You see, Shanks, in my house we don't subject anyone to anything that they don't volunteer for, outside of not getting arrested and attending school every day. Where in the name of all that's holy did you get the idea that girls playing sports at the high school and college levels would "masculinize" them? You've got to be joking. No?
03/14/07 @ 10:47
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
Maybe it's time for me to quit posting on this thread and exit this "discussion." Shanks and his acolyte, Matthew, seem to be losing their collective grip.
03/14/07 @ 10:53
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Alex, perhaps you didn't read some of Smails' diatribe several posts back. If you did, you might understand my comment. Since he has called the LPGA part of the end of civilization as we know it, I can only presume that he would look even harsher at the sports your girls were playing. NONE of what I wrote was in any way a criticism of your daughters or you. Sorry you took it that way.
03/14/07 @ 11:01
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
Alex,
Both of the earlier comments were correct. The first one being that golf is not a popular sport in Mexico. That was and is a fact. The 2nd comment that I watched some of the Mastercard and was surprised that the crowds were much bigger than I expected is also true.
03/14/07 @ 14:21
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
Smails,
In many other area's I've actually agreed with some of your comments. However from the way you get so upset so quickly and completely over-react to any comments made, it's not surprising that Alex is your only friend on the blogs. Smails, perhaps you would like to go into more detail about your views, maybe give a full clear picture of what exactly you think women should be allowed to do, and what you think they should be stopped from doing.
03/14/07 @ 14:24
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Shanks,
Since Alex is highly intelligent and also possessed of a healthy world view, I'm sure that he did a very good job of raising his kids.
03/14/07 @ 14:27
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Smails, I'm just trying to reconcile this masculinization theory of yours. How does female golf cross the line, but basketball, softball & volleyball do not? How is it that Alex's daughters escaped the clutches of male-dom? Please, illuminate .....
03/14/07 @ 14:37
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
My daughters, my wife, my granddaughters, and my daughters-in-law did not need to escape the clutches of male domination since no males have ever attempted to dominate them. And in the unlikely event that any male does attempt to dominate any of them, that misguided male will live to regret it.
03/14/07 @ 16:32
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
I am guessing you forgot the FedEx cup. The FedExCup will award a total of $35 million in bonus money at the conclusion of the Playoffs including $10 million to the FedExCup Champion, the largest single bonus payout in sports. Now what was that about the LPGA?
03/14/07 @ 16:48
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Shanks,
I realize that I'm seen as being very radical within the context of today's society. Thus, I wouldn't expect that too many people would embrace my family paradigm. Again, though, I suspect that the women in Alex's family are pretty traditional and that I'd get along with them swimmingly.
03/14/07 @ 17:53
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
What guys like Shanks and others can't seem to grasp is that an overwhelming majority of real women absolutely relish their natural roles as wives, mothers, caregivers, nurturers, in other words, all the roles that heretofore have been traditional in civilized society. Real women realize that they simply do not have the strength, tenacity, and endurance to do the jobs traditionally assigned to men, like steeplejacks, Navy seals, paratroopers, and lumberjacks. They rightfully conclude that with three billion men in this world, there are enough guys to go around to perform these arduous tasks. But I seriously doubt that these misguided male feminists will ever realize just how much in error are their misconceptions about the cherished roles of traditional females. They seem to think that the most desired type of female is the quintessential female tennis player.
03/14/07 @ 18:21
Comment from: Matthew [Visitor]
Alex,
How did you get to talking about those traditional male jobs? What has that got to do with anything else discussed. For the record, I agree with your sentiments that men are far better suited to those kinds of jobs. So the point you are making is well made, although it is unclear who you are arguing with. Wasn't the topic golf? Golf is a game of hitting a little ball around a field and trying to get it in a hole. It's a far cry away from the other things that you described. And when it comes to golf, both men and women are capable of swinging those clubs and hitting those balls around the place. The difficulty with you and Judge Smails is that you put forward some very good views, but you just aren't applying them to the right places. Golf is nothing like those other physically demanding tasks that you described.
03/14/07 @ 19:39
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
This comment deserved repeating. It would be nice if someone could bold the statement because it would give great laughter:
________________________________ Comment by Judge Smails: Shanks, Since Alex is highly intelligent and also possessed of a healthy world view, I'm sure that he did a very good job of raising his kids. ________________________________ Judge, While you have made many posts, it would have been difficult to describe you as a commedian before, but well done on that gem. Well done.
03/14/07 @ 19:42
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
True, Alex. Of course, there's another factor as well. Most men accept the modern woman paradigm because it yields women of easy virtue, women who are promiscuous and will render the milk for free.
I've said it before, but a lot of these guys seem like members of the rubber-suit crowd.
03/14/07 @ 19:45
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
Let's put some context to your "improving LPGA purse" argument: To date, here are the top LPGA leaders in earnings for 2007: 1 Stacy Prammanasudh $268,937.00 2 Meaghan Francella $196,037.00 3 Paula Creamer $187,142.00 4 Jee Young Lee $126,383.00 5 Annika Sorenstam $109,852.00 6 Morgan Pressel $109,571.00 7 Julieta Granada $98,269.00 8 Karrie Webb $87,323.00 9 Lorena Ochoa $84,691.00 10 Angela Park $80,798.00 Now let's compare that with the PGA: 1 Charles Howell III 7 $2,327,825 2 Phil Mickelson 6 $1,669,642 3 Vijay Singh 8 $1,647,463 4 John Rollins 8 $1,471,066 5 Aaron Baddeley 6 $1,425,990 6 Henrik Stenson 1 $1,350,000 7 Mark Calcavecchia 7 $1,316,183 8 Mark Wilson 6 $1,118,212 9 Tiger Woods 2 $1,066,000 10 Paul Goydos 5 $1,058,173 All the way down to... 74 Dudley Hart 7 $268,940 ...before the top $$ earner from the LPGA registers on the list. Now, there have only been 3 official individual events on the LPGA, vs. 9-10 (depending on your ability to qualify for certain events). Even the number of events, particularly this early in the year, should provide some "context" to the argument. And let's not forget that $35M from the FedEx...
03/15/07 @ 06:45
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
Well, Smails, I see you avoided answering the question directly because that would have put you in conflict with your man Alex. That broad answer you provided is nothing more than stating the obvious. Alex' family played a lot of girl's sports. Somehow it didn't predispose them to a life of promiscuity. How does that work?
Alex, I really wonder how you would feel if one of your daughters had turned out to be a fabulous golfer - for a girl, that is. She'd probably want you on the bag, assuming you are fit enough to do that. Then you'd be in the heat of the battle, coming down the stretch of an LPGA event, matching shots with Sorenstam, Ochoa & Webb, trying to be somebody. Think THAT would be a "display of boring & mundane golf"? PS - Notice I said "your man Alex" not your boy Alex in deference to Alex's sensibilities. But where I come from, calling someone "your boy" is a term of endearment. In fact if you ever read any of my posts about travel, you'd see where I call my golfing buddies "my boys". Perhaps it's a generational thing.
03/15/07 @ 06:48
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
2under, you are correct, I did forget about the FedEx Cup. I was looking at the purses for winning, not bonus money. Didn't count the defunct West Coast Swing bonus against them either.
But you seem hell-bent on comparing the LPGA to the PGA Tour. I shouldn't have to reiterate that my point thoughout this is the LPGA is becoming more popular than it was. It would be silly to compare the two.
03/15/07 @ 07:00
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Shanks,
Did you not say that you were born and raised in the DC area? I was in the service with several guys from that area and I don't recall any of them referring to another man as "his boy." You're not a resident of the Dupont Circle neighborhood by any chance, are you? As my final comment on this thread, I'd like to return to the original topic. In your blog, you waxed ecstatic on the great coverage given to the LPGA in Hawaii by the USA Today. You gushed congratulations to the LPGA on having a "tremendous product." You ended your praise of the LPGA by chiding the great mass of commoners present with this bit of condescension: "It's about time the general public caught on." Shanks, you're probably right about my reaction if one of my daughters made it to the LPGA tour. I would doubtless walk down the fairway at 18 cheering her along, in the company of the other parents, relatives, and friends cheering their favorite pitty-pat golfer.
03/15/07 @ 07:32
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
The whole "me & the boys" thing must be generational.
Good coverage by USA Today - fact. Tremendous Product - opinion. General public should catch on - opinion. Somehow, if you were involved, I doubt you'd use the pitty-pat phrase. Instead, you'd likely be telling everyone you could how good these women are. And you know it.
03/15/07 @ 07:46
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
2 Under,
Your comment listing the top money earners on the lpga tour and pga tour was pointless, as you pretty much admitted by admitting that the lpga tour had just 3 events played in that money list. You might also like to note that they were 3, three round events with lower purses than typical lpga events. Those events only had prize money of 1.1 and 1.2 million. The next event kicks it up to 1.5 million, followed by the Kraft at 2 million, and then the Ginn Open at 2.6 million. So whoever is top of the money list after those events will have significant earnings. Also, in comparing the two tours, you are going away from what Shanks was arguing. He argued that the womens tour was improving. If you want proof at that, then maybe you should ask how many players earned over 1 million dollars on the lpga tour. In 2005 it was 6 players. In 2006 it was 11 players. That is significant improvement.
03/15/07 @ 08:36
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Stanley,
You are way off-base. Look back through the string. Shanks created the argument based on purses. Not me. I am merely refuting the flawed logic. Dudley hasn't won an event. He's played in 7 events, made 5 cuts with 1 top ten, a T8 at the Bob Hope. Contrast that with winners on the LPGA, who still haven't caught him. You call that improvement significant? Three tournaments or not, they still trail by leaps and bounds, and are not, in fact, improving by any significant measure. 11 players vs 6 does not represent a significant improvement, in it of itself. Statistically speaking, the n is too low to derive significance. Even at that, you had multiple repeat winners on the LPGA last year. In 2005, Annika won !) tournaments, Paula won two and so did Christie Kerr, so in minimized the potential for others to hit the $1M mark. Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water, either. What else do you got?
03/15/07 @ 09:59
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Stanley,
That was TEN tournaments Annika won in 2005.
03/15/07 @ 10:02
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Shanks,
"More popular than it was" means nothing of any significance. Last year I had $1,000 in the bank. This year, I have $2,000 in the bank. Though the increase, on a % basis is impressive, it does not have true statistical significance. I am still poor. Period. If you like the LPGA product, I am glad for you and Stanley. But to say it is "improving" is erroneous on a basis of signifance, regardless of USA Today's periodic spreads. Maybe it was just a bad news day.
03/15/07 @ 10:08
Comment from: Shanks [Member]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/shanks
2under, at least I see you don't disagree with me about the improvement anymore. I'll settle for that. Any comparison to the PGA Tour is absurd.
03/15/07 @ 10:23
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
2 Under,
You are sounding sillier in every post. You are talking about them not having caught Dudley, yet you admit Dudley has already played 8 events. The most that any lpga player played for your money list was 3 events, and as already stated those were 3 of the lower prize money events. Also, the argument that you put forward about Annika taking away the money from the others by winning so many events doesn't hold up either. Annika won $2,588,240 in 2005. Lorena won $2,592,872 in 2006. If Annika took away so much money that the others couldn't break the 1 million mark, then why didn't Lorena do the same? The fact is that there was more prize money available and that is why more players were winning more money. Why was their more prize money? Because the lpga tour is gaining popularity and sponsors are putting up more money due to that.
03/15/07 @ 11:15
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Stanley,
Apparently you don't grasp the whole concept of statistical significance, simple math, or common sense, for that matter. I would suggest you go back to school. Dudley made 5 cuts. For two appearances, he got paid $0. He had 1 top 10 (a T8). Wouldn't you think, just based on common sense, and the notion you and Shanks support, that if the LPGA was "improving", the spread would be more equitable? Yet mysteriously, it is not... And Lorena did do the same. And an "improvement" of 6 players to 11 does not represent a statistically significant number. Let's compare some 1st place prizes year/year: Tournament 2006 2007 SBS 150K 165K Fields 165K 180K MCard Classic 180K 180K How about the players? Let's just not look at the top. Let's look at the middle. #100 in 2006 - Yu Ping Lin $74,610.00 #100 in 2005 - Lee Ann Cooper $64,758.00 #100 in 2004 - Beth Bauer $78,572.00 #100 in 2003 - A.J. Eathorne $64,745.00 #100 in 2002 - Jenny Lidback $61,557 #100 in 2001 - Terry-Jo Myers $64,399 If these purses were so "rich", top to bottom, and "improving" so greatly, where is it? And I'm sure if you added in COLA, you'd have some year/year decreases on net value. And Stanley, if such vast improvement is being made, where's the Kotex Cup, with the $35M purse?
03/15/07 @ 16:59
Comment from: Stanley [Visitor]
2 Under said:
And an "improvement" of 6 players to 11 does not represent a statistically significant number. _____________________________ Actually, an improvement of 6 to 11 is practically a 100% improvement. How can you say that is not a statistically significant number? As regards your 35 million purse argument, are you saying that every sport is worthless if they don't have a tournament with such a prize.
03/15/07 @ 17:57
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Stanley,
In fact, given the number of participants in the LPGA, the n is not significant. Take a stats course. I have never made the statement you reference about the $35M purse, so don't try to change the argument. Plain and simple, the question is whether or not the 9% change Shanks references in LPGA purses over the year represents any significant improvement. When we see the $$ the PGA has made, and is continuing to make, the small % gain Shanks (and you) claim to represent "significant improvement" is tantamount to pennies on the dollar.
03/16/07 @ 18:05 Leave a comment: |
 |
My Latest posts
Check it out!
Misc |
||||||||
 |
Add GolfPublisher.com articles/headlines to your web site |
| © Copyright 1997-2009, WorldGolf.com, LLC. For questions, comments or suggestions on any of our network publications, Contact Us! |
|
Brandon Tucker:
Ron Mon:
The Accidental Golfer:
Kiel Christianson:
