Oh so close...

[LobWedge]

McGavin, I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

[golfdoc]

Well let's see where to go with this one...

Is Michelle Wie a good golfer? Yes
Has she dominated Women's Golf yet? No
Will she? Maybe
Has she dominated womens amateur golf yet? No

Why would she have a hope in a PGA event?

This is for publicity and dollars only. It doesn't help the LPGA, it hurts it. It doesn't help men's golf. It helps the sponsors and the events.

The fact is, if there was a blind person with one arm who could compete, the PGA would give them a sponsors exemption because of the excitement it would create and the dollars.

The key is, they are not selecting people who will compete for titles. They are selecting people who will "maybe" make the cut and create revenues.

If Michelle wants complete respect, go to Q-school and earn a tour spot. Don't play your home course and miss the cut. Yes she has a great swing. Yes she is only 14. Yes she has a great future ahead of her. Talk about being used... She should ask for a cut from the PGA or appearance fees.

And somewhere in this post I read about chess. Why don't women compete against men in chess, or snooker or darts or bowling or diving or archery or anything else? Just curious???
Could they compete in hockey or baseball or soccer or football? No, they probably couldn't. What about tennis or track or basketball? probably not.

[natgolfer]

Has she dominated Women's Golf yet? No
Will she? Maybe
Has she dominated womens amateur golf yet? No Your point? Being 14 makes it rather difficult to dominate anything, however, you may recall that she made 5 of 6 cuts in LPGA tournaments, and she played in the final Sunday group twice, one of them a major. This obviously proves that she is good enough to compete, and was deserving of receiving sponsor's exemptions for these tournaments

Why would she have a hope in a PGA event? The answer is obvious. By scoring 72-68, and playing as well or better than many PGA Tour winners and major champions, are you saying that she did not have a hope? A hope of winning? Of course not. Of making the cut? Yes. She only missed by one.

This is for publicity and dollars only. Of course it is. Why did you think Sony sponsored the tournament? For philanthropic reasons? How much more publicity do you think Sony received because of the way Michelle played? Are you aware that without sponsors like Sony, there would be no PGA Tour? No golf to watch and nothing controversial to complain about.

It doesn't help the LPGA, it hurts it. How do you figure this? Did Annika playing at Colonial hurt the LPGA? Did more people attend subsequent LPGA events, just to see how good Annika really is?

It doesn't help men's golf. Did more people watch this tournament because of Michelle's presence? Most likely.Therefore, it helps.

It helps the sponsors and the events. Right! And if it is not about the sponsors and the events, what the heck is it all about?

They are selecting people who will "maybe" make the cut and create revenues. Right again. A good business practice, don't you think?

If Michelle wants complete respect, go to Q-school and earn a tour spot. I would hazard a guess that she earned a significant amount of respect last week based not only on her performance but also on the way she handled herself.

Talk about being used... She should ask for a cut from the PGA or appearance fees. The sponsors used her to gain publicity. Michelle used Sony to provide her with the next challenge, an opportunity to compete at a higher level on a Tour setup course. This had to help make her a better player. And what is wrong with this? Everybody wins here. Golf, Michelle, the sponsors, the fans and TV.

The big picture should be obvious.

[golfdoc]

Maybe I watch golf for different reasons. I wouldn't want to watch Tiger Woods miss the cut by one, so I wouldn't want to watch Michelle Wie miss the cut by one. I want to watch the golfers who are playing the best that week. Was she? No, not at all. I am not denying how good she is for 14 and how good she could be.

In terms of the LPGA, if this continues and the PGA can make more money, they will invite Annika and Michelle Wie and Seri Pak and the other top female golfers to keep playing mens events. This takes away from the quality of golf on the LPGA. What will happen when Wie is asked to play in a big PGA event the same weekend as an important LPGA event? What will she do?

If she picks the LPGA, it's because she actually has a chance of a good finish. If she picks the PGA, it's for the money, the publicity and that hurts the LPGA.

Does anybody think she, or any other female golfer has a chance to compete (Top 10) in a true PGA event?

Could she pull off a Ben Curtis type story? Does she have the ability to shoot low enough from the tips to compete in 4 rounds?

[jeffc]

[If she picks the LPGA, it's because she actually has a chance of a good finish. If she picks the PGA, it's for the money, the publicity and that hurts the LPGA.]

Well, by the same rights, all of the international and European Tours are hurt by the pros that skip those events the same week as the Masters, US Open, and PGA (among other big events). It's purely a matter of the golfers wanting to test themselves against the best in the game.

[Does anybody think she, or any other female golfer has a chance to compete (Top 10) in a true PGA event?]

Yes. She's 14. Give her 10 years to mature and gain experience. She's long enough, and that's usually the biggest hurdle for the women.

[Could she pull off a Ben Curtis type story? Does she have the ability to shoot low enough from the tips to compete in 4 rounds?[/QUOTE]

Could she? Of course she could. Maybe not right now, but give it time. If no names like Ben Curtis and Shaun Micheel can win out of nowhere, who's to say she can't.

I'm amazed at people who say she shouldn't be given the exemption. And yes, it is all about money. Do you think the PGA exploited Michelle Wie any more than they exploit Tiger?

[golfdoc]

I would prefer if exemptions went to the best golfers available to play that week. I want to watch the best golfers available. None of the women are. I do not think Wie has a chance of winning right now. If you say give her 10 years, then ok, let's wait and give her a chance in ten years.

Tiger is the best golfer. Nobody else has taken his spot. Every event wants him. Yes they make huge profits. No doubt about it.

I see a difference. Every event wants Tiger because they can make money and he is the best golfer. Every event wants Michelle Wie because they can make money. She doesn't have a hope of winning. She does not improve the overall quality of golf. I didn't find it very exciting watching her play. I will repeat... Yes she is awesome for her age. Are there better golfers who could have taken her spot? Most likely, yes.

[jeffc]

I would prefer if exemptions went to the best golfers available to play that week. I want to watch the best golfers available. None of the women are. I do not think Wie has a chance of winning right now. If you say give her 10 years, then ok, let's wait and give her a chance in ten years.

Tiger is the best golfer. Nobody else has taken his spot. Every event wants him. Yes they make huge profits. No doubt about it.

I see a difference. Every event wants Tiger because they can make money and he is the best golfer. Every event wants Michelle Wie because they can make money. She doesn't have a hope of winning. She does not improve the overall quality of golf. I didn't find it very exciting watching her play. I will repeat... Yes she is awesome for her age. Are there better golfers who could have taken her spot? Most likely, yes.

She beat, what, 47 men in the field. Are there 47 other golfers that we don't know about that wanted to play that week and that could have shot better than her? Somehow I doubt it. There's 125 men on the PGA tour that had the option of playing that week and another 25 who likely could have played had they wanted to.

So are you saying that the Masters shouldn't allow the US Amatuer winner (and a few other amateurs) because they have no chance of winning? I cannot agree with the arguement that she shouldn't have been given a sponsors exemption when these are handed out every week to guys that likely don't have a chance at winning (read local pros). It's one spot out of 100 or so. Heck, they let David Duval into tournaments, and lately, his chance of making the cut is slim and none.

[Rough Stuff]

Wow, what a hornets nest.

To add to the count, I am more likely to watch golf when its Sorenstam and Wie, or ANY popular underdog. I love watching someone fighting the system, at any time, and I love seeing them triumph.

There's always going to be resistance to change. Its unfortunate that it MIGHT damage the LPGA, but if golf CAN be done by anyone (ie: if women are capable of winning golf matches against men), then not only will the LPGA disappear, it SHOULD disappear...I doubt it will in any case.

Instead of speculation and negativity, why not just wait and see: the proof will be in the pudding...if its not Wie, it will be someone else...and your daughters, Mr. Karam, will have more opportunities...you should be pleased by that...fewer people will be telling them what they CANT do.

[Rough Stuff]

And somewhere in this post I read about chess. Why don't women compete against men in chess, or snooker or darts or bowling or diving or archery or anything else? Just curious???

Or sciences, or maths, or engineering, or a dozen other fields dominated by men...

Why are women not payed equal salaries for EQUAL jobs (female managers make less on average than males)?

Why is our parliament primarily men?

Because we live in a patriarchal society.

Its ingrained in society. Realize it. Women are told and taught at a very young age what they CANT do. I'd like to see anyone have self-confidence if they grew up being told what they can't do. How many men cry openly? Do you know why? Its not because we dont have emotional turmoil, its because we're told at a very young age NOT to.

Realize that NO ONE thinks that their perspective and way of thinking is skewed. NO ONE thinks of themselves as a sexist, racist, etc....but we all are, in one way or another. Mostly because we were taught to think that way, and are still taught to think that way every day, reinforced by everything around us.

A good story came up once: a girl asked her mom one day if she could work on the plane, and the mom said "Why do you want to be a flight attendant", and the girl said "I don't, I want to be a pilot."

Thats my social rant for the week, go ahead and take pot-shots...

[mr shank]

Or sciences, or maths, or engineering, or a dozen other fields dominated by men...

Why are women not payed equal salaries for EQUAL jobs (female managers make less on average than males)?

Why is our parliament primarily men?

Thats my social rant for the week, go ahead and take pot-shots...

Well, since you invited pot-shots, here goes; did you ever think - heaven forbid - that these fields are dominated by men because they are smarter and/or work harder?

I'm not sure what this has to do with Michelle Wie, but let's face it, from now on there will be women competing on the PGA Tour. The day a women comes out of Q-school with her tour card is the day pro women golfers will get the respect they deserve.

[Farzin]

. The day a women comes out of Q-school with her tour card is the day pro women golfers will get the respect they deserve.

Tiger never graduated from Q School.
Why can't anybody else do the same? I hope it is not because Wie is a female.

[natgolfer]

I want to watch the golfers who are playing the best that week. I can understand this point of view when it comes down to the back nine on Sunday afternoon, however, because you are not paying the bills and because you cannot always get your own way, you are stuck with having to watch the other 141 players in the field.

Does anybody think she, or any other female golfer has a chance to compete (Top 10) in a true PGA event? So in your mind the only true competitors are those who are in the top 10, week in, week out, and the other 140 or so are just weekend hacks. And just what, pray tell, is a "true PGA event?"

Does she have the ability to shoot low enough from the tips to compete in 4 rounds? Yes, and when that ability is further developed and if she wishes to do so, and if the reactionary forces of sexism, chauvinism and ignorance have not added an "M" to the PGA Tour by then, it will be interested to see what the she does.

I want to watch the best golfers available. And you do, each week.

Wow, what a hornets nest. Having stirred up a few hornet's nests over the years, the consequences are a little more painful than a few comments on this forum, however, I can understand how a comment like this "did you ever think... that these fields are dominated by men because they are smarter and/or work harder?" can be compared to a hornet's nest. It really stings and should raise the ire of most people. This, without question, is the most ignorant comment that I have ever read on this forum. Having worked with teenagers for all of my working life, there is no doubt in my mind that girls are as smart as boys and they work infinitely harder than boys, however, because they have not been given equal opportunity to use their skills by attitudes like the one above, the world is still dominated by men.

NO ONE thinks of themselves as a sexist, racist, etcWhile not sexist, racist, chauvinistic, I am biased towards providing members of both sexes equal opportunity to achieve.

The day a women comes out of Q-school with her tour card is the day pro women golfers will get the respect they deserve. Why do I get the feeling that the author of this comment is not likely to respect women for any reason?

Thanks jeffc and Rough Stuff for your reasonable responses. While it is painfully obvious and sad that some of the above bolded comments are "a mile wide and an inch deep," I hope that most reasonable golfers can see that what Michelle did on the weekend was outstanding and the accolades were richly deserved. While I agree that she is not yet ready for prime time, she at least deserved to be where she was last Thursday and Friday, and many of us will follow and wish her success in her quest to be a star performer, at whatever level she gets to.

I am still in awe of two things: (1) how anyone could have deliberately hoped for Michelle to fail, and (2) that in the negative comments about her, there have been no legitimate or practical reasons as to why she should not have played in the Sony. None.

[Colby]

Wow, what a hornets nest. Having stirred up a few hornet's nests over the years, the consequences are a little more painful than a few comments on this forum, however, I can understand how a comment like this "did you ever think... that these fields are dominated by men because they are smarter and/or work harder?" can be compared to a hornet's nest. It really stings and should raise the ire of most people. This, without question, is the most ignorant comment that I have ever read on this forum. Having worked with teenagers for all of my working life, there is no doubt in my mind that girls are as smart as boys and they work infinitely harder than boys, however, because they have not been given equal opportunity to use their skills by attitudes like the one above, the world is still dominated by men.

Natgolfer,

I am in complete agreement with you here. When I read this, I was wondering which decade I was really in. Are we back when women were possessions that require men to look after them? Are women in the workplace taking jobs away from men? I know a lot of women who can do pretty much any job they want because they are just as capable as any man, or more so. In a lot of cases, women have hit glass ceilings, while other women advance because they are token placements done to appease the feminist mob so to speak.

It's not like I'm I beleive women need to do everything. I don't think there should be two standards for certain jobs like firefighting where men may have to lift a certain weight, while women lift less (this is an example, and I have no idea if this is true or not), but if women can compete on a level playing field, why not let them compete for equal rewards. Why should they always be stuck with the lower paying menial jobs? Michelle Wie, on that course, and for those two days, competed from the same tees and beat or tied 47 men. She did this at 14 years of age, and with millions of people watching. If it was a 14 year old boy who performed the same feat would we be having this discussion?

On a course that she chose, Annika did not come close to making the cut, and said that she would not play the PGA tour again. After qualifying from the forward tees in a PGA sectional, Suzy Whaley also did not come close to making the cut. She probably won't get another chance to play the PGA tour, however I found her performance much better than Annika's due to the fact that Suzy's skill level is nowhere near Annika's. And then along comes Michelle. She did nothing last year in the male dominated tournaments that she played in. Then, a little older, and a little wiser, no father on the bag, she comes within a stroke of making a cut in a PGA tour event. And she states that she would like to come back and play more PGA tour events. And I think that if she continues to grow in her talent, she will play, and she will make some money on the PGA tour. Will she win? Who knows. The Tour is full of golfers who don't win.

But Michelle may become a fixture on the Tour, and if she wins enough to keep her card like every other golfer that has exempt status on the Tour, I have no problem with her playing week in and week out. Is she the only one? Who knows.

It's a brave new world, and it's been changing since the mid-fourties. Time to open the blinds and fnd out that it's not that bad.

[LobWedge]

I don't think that there's any question that Michelle Wie will get more opportunities to compete with the boys. Considering her play on Thursday and Friday, IMHO, I think she's earned it.

I'm curious to see what the future will bring re course set-ups on the LPGA tour. With the length she has now, and as she hones her skills, she has the potential to destroy every LPGA course. Unless something crazy happens to her during the next few years, ala Jennifer Capriatti (doubtful), my view is that the power's that be in women's golf will start to tighten up the layouts to keep the driver out of her hands as much as possible in an effort (probably futile) to level the field's chances week to week. I think lengthening the courses is out of the question. We'll see.

[natgolfer]

Colby, What a great comment! Perhaps the more that reasonable speak up and challenge the MCP's, the better are the chances that, when feeling outnumbered, they will go away.

Like you I object very strongly to the feminazis turning the apple cart upside down resulting in women and visible minorities getting a better than even chance at particular jobs, the firefighters being a good example. Fighting for equality in a male dominated world is one thing, but reversing the discrimination for selfish betterment, is another. Part of the problem is men not being organized well enough or not having enough courage to speak up against this reversal.

I'm curious to see what the future will bring re course set-ups on the LPGA tour. With the length she has now, and as she hones her skills, she has the potential to destroy every LPGA course. Unless something crazy happens to her during the next few years, ala Jennifer Capriatti (doubtful), my view is that the power's that be in women's golf will start to tighten up the layouts to keep the driver out of her hands as much as possible in an effort (probably futile) to level the field's chances week to week. I think lengthening the courses is out of the question. We'll see.

IMO, making the courses longer to reduce golfers like Michelle from dominating, will actually make it easier for her to dominate. The average LPGA player hits the driver in the 240 to 250 range, so making the course longer would make it even more difficult for the others to challenge her. Annika dominates because she is long and straight. To challenge Michelle, make the landing areas narrower, putting the premium on skill over power.

But here we are talking about power or distance off the tee. It means squat if your irons are ordinary and you are a mediocre putter. The reality is that those who win at most Tour courses, are those who have a good putting week, and not necessarily those who have a good ball striking week.

While Michelle drove the ball well last weekend, her ranking on the average length of putt per green in regulation was 143rd out of 143. She needs to iron out this problem first.

[Andy4Par]

I watched Wie play both days and I was almost mesmerized with how well she can play, not only the long drives, but the steady nerves needed to compete regardless if its against men or women or both. However, in the back of my mind I couldn't help but think that Wie played well on what can only be labeled her 'home' course. I often wondered how she would have faired on most other not so well known courses the PGA play. I hope she plays a few more events. One event per year by Sorentstam, Waley or Wie can not accurately determine if they can compete week to week on the PGA.

My opinion means absolutely nothing to the competitors on the PGA, LPGA tours, or the members here on this forum. The politically correct stance is to say I would enjoy watching a co-ed tournament(and I do) and support the winner that week for being the best player that week, however the hairy man in me also feels that two separate tours is the way competetive golf should be played.

[golfdoc]

So if you guys feel that Michelle Wie has the right to play a PGA event because she can compete at that level, does the opposite apply?

How many men would be allowed to play an LPGA event? What about those guys who can't make it in the PGA and struggle on the Buy.com tour? Could they try and qualify for the LPGA events? I realize not many guys would want to, but what if? Maybe that is the level that they can compete at...

So maybe they need to eliminate all the tours and simply have different tiers. No more mens and womens. Just Tier 1, 2 ,3 ,4 etc...

Michelle Wie is awesome for her age. Give her ten years, let her in some LPGA majors or bigger events and then let her compete.

Do I think a 14 year old boy should be given the same exemption? Would they ever allow a 14 year old boy to play an LPGA event?

[mr shank]

I want to watch the golfers who are playing the best that week. I can understand this point of view when it comes down to the back nine on Sunday afternoon, however, because you are not paying the bills and because you cannot always get your own way, you are stuck with having to watch the other 141 players in the field.

Does anybody think she, or any other female golfer has a chance to compete (Top 10) in a true PGA event? So in your mind the only true competitors are those who are in the top 10, week in, week out, and the other 140 or so are just weekend hacks. And just what, pray tell, is a "true PGA event?"

Does she have the ability to shoot low enough from the tips to compete in 4 rounds? Yes, and when that ability is further developed and if she wishes to do so, and if the reactionary forces of sexism, chauvinism and ignorance have not added an "M" to the PGA Tour by then, it will be interested to see what the she does.

I want to watch the best golfers available. And you do, each week.

Wow, what a hornets nest. Having stirred up a few hornet's nests over the years, the consequences are a little more painful than a few comments on this forum, however, I can understand how a comment like this "did you ever think... that these fields are dominated by men because they are smarter and/or work harder?" can be compared to a hornet's nest. It really stings and should raise the ire of most people. This, without question, is the most ignorant comment that I have ever read on this forum. Having worked with teenagers for all of my working life, there is no doubt in my mind that girls are as smart as boys and they work infinitely harder than boys, however, because they have not been given equal opportunity to use their skills by attitudes like the one above, the world is still dominated by men.

NO ONE thinks of themselves as a sexist, racist, etcWhile not sexist, racist, chauvinistic, I am biased towards providing members of both sexes equal opportunity to achieve.

The day a women comes out of Q-school with her tour card is the day pro women golfers will get the respect they deserve. Why do I get the feeling that the author of this comment is not likely to respect women for any reason?

Thanks jeffc and Rough Stuff for your reasonable responses. While it is painfully obvious and sad that some of the above bolded comments are "a mile wide and an inch deep," I hope that most reasonable golfers can see that what Michelle did on the weekend was outstanding and the accolades were richly deserved. While I agree that she is not yet ready for prime time, she at least deserved to be where she was last Thursday and Friday, and many of us will follow and wish her success in her quest to be a star performer, at whatever level she gets to.

I am still in awe of two things: (1) how anyone could have deliberately hoped for Michelle to fail, and (2) that in the negative comments about her, there have been no legitimate or practical reasons as to why she should not have played in the Sony. None.

step off the soap box anytime...the women of the world don't need (or wouldn't want) you to defend them.

[Kilroy]

Ok, that's enough.

Stop the sexist crap or I will close this thread. Stop the bickering immediately. Discuss the issue in a non-offensive politically correct manner or take it elsewhere.

[Colby]

So if you guys feel that Michelle Wie has the right to play a PGA event because she can compete at that level, does the opposite apply?

How many men would be allowed to play an LPGA event? What about those guys who can't make it in the PGA and struggle on the Buy.com tour? Could they try and qualify for the LPGA events? I realize not many guys would want to, but what if? Maybe that is the level that they can compete at...

So maybe they need to eliminate all the tours and simply have different tiers. No more mens and womens. Just Tier 1, 2 ,3 ,4 etc...

Michelle Wie is awesome for her age. Give her ten years, let her in some LPGA majors or bigger events and then let her compete.

Do I think a 14 year old boy should be given the same exemption? Would they ever allow a 14 year old boy to play an LPGA event?

The LPGA has a bylaw that states, if I remember this correctly, that you have to be born a woman to compete on that tour. The PGA Tour is nowhere near as limiting as it represents the best golfers in the world, of any sex, of any race. The LPGA needs that bylaw so that the women on the tour can compete at some professional level. The golf isn't the same caliber and the sponsorship dollars show that. I agree that most of the men on the lower half of the tour could finish higher on the LPGA tour than on the PGA Tour, but who would want to?

There were only 5 players on the LPGA Tour last year who finished with over $1,000,000 dollars in earnings. On the PGA Tour there were 72 players with earnings of over $1,000,000 in 2003. Plus what kind of respect will you get for doing that, would the small amount of money, if you earned it, be worth it? And what happens if you don't win? The biggest piece of the pie is the PGA Tour.

But that piece of the pie comes with a price. Sponsors aren't there just to hand out money to guys who want to play four or five rounds a week on national TV. They are in it to make money. And as long as Annika, Michelle or Prince William might want to play golf in one of their tournaments, if they can make money off it, they'll give them a sponsor's exemption to get in.

Already, Michelle is getting offers from other tournaments. The old Kemper Open is about to ask her to play, and I think over the next few months she'll get other offers, some which she will probably accept.

[natgolfer]

So if you guys feel that Michelle Wie has the right to play a PGA event because she can compete at that level, does the opposite apply? To add to your list of like questions you might want to add, (1) Is she not too young? (2) Is she not too tall? (3) Is she not of the wrong sex? Credit Scott Hoch for that one.

Stop the sexist crap or I will close this thread. Stop the bickering immediately. Discuss the issue in a non-offensive politically correct manner or take it elsewhere.

If you are suggesting that one has to respond to this OFFENSIVE, politically INCORRECT, sexist comment, "did you ever think... that these fields are dominated by men because they are smarter and/or work harder?" in a "non-offensive, politically correct manner," then it's either time to move on and shut down the thread, or conversely, allow it to continue, to give the original offender more opportunities to worsen the condition of the foot in mouth disease from which he suffers. I am also surprised that he was not taken to task by the moderator, immediately after the comment first appeared. When I was critical of the greens at Stonebridge, an opinion which is almost universally accepted, I received a private email telling me to cool it. IMO, my comments about Stonebridge were far less offensive than the sexism exhibited above, and worthy of at least, a similar email.

If any part of my last paragraph is politically incorrect, then, "Au revoir."

[Kilroy]

Please don't continue to stir this pot. The direction the thread has taken is offensive, and I do not enjoy closing threads or editing posts at all. It always upsets people. I have asked nicely, so that should do it. I'd appreciate it if we can move on.

[Rough Stuff]

Well, since you invited pot-shots, here goes; did you ever think - heaven forbid - that these fields are dominated by men because they are smarter and/or work harder?

Got any scientific facts to back this up?

Because there are about a million indication to back up my statement, yet when I hear people make yours, I rarely see any proof come with it....