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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Judge, Aren't you the kind ones? Taking the time to enlighten us about the truth!

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alex,
Your licking up to Judge Smails is sickening but is nothing new.

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.

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.

Johnny N

The Judge is one of my clients.

I have to coddle him.

He helps pay the bills.

What's your excuse?

Johnny N

The Judge is one of my clients.

I have to coddle him.

He helps pay the bills.

What's your excuse?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alex,

Thanks for the kind words. And I notice that the Wiemen's silence in this matter is deafening.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course the lpga attendances will increase, they could hardly get much lower anyway.

Matthew,

Hey, that's a good point. I guess you could chalk it up to deviation toward the mean.

Matthew,

Hey, that's a good point. I guess you could chalk it up to deviation toward the mean.

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.

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 . . . .

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.

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?

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.

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.