Women vs. Men: the putting green is evening out.

Sorry, David, but the LPGA is still just the minor leagues. Look at the disparity in prize money, and the television ratings. I'll betcha more people know the names Reitef Goosen, Jim Furyk and Sergio Garcia then they do Lorena Ochoa, Catorina Matthew or Candice Kung. Aside from the women you mentioned above, nobody knows or cares much about women's golf. I don't even have to look over to the right to tell you that the majority of blogs are about Michelle Wie and the reason for that is her polarizing nature, not her golf game. The LPGA has a good base for the future, but equality I don't think so. As far as women playing with men, I'm all for it, but the gap between the sexes is as wide as ever

I just noticed that you predicted that women will be competing for wins on the PGA tour in the next few years. We have seen no evidence that a women can make a cut on the PGA tour, let alone compete to win. Michelle Wie is the only female to date who has shown even a hint of being able to make the cut, but she is a long way off from even that. She has not even shown that she can win on the LPGA tour. Have you seen the group of new players on the PGA tour, J.B. Holmes, Camilo Villegas, Nathan Green, Chad Campbell, not to mention all the already established players. You seem like a reasonable man David, surely you must admit that these guys play a different game than do the women.

I understand that there is definitely a gap, but that's not to say the gap isn't closing. I promise women can make cuts by the end of the year. I say "can" instead of "will" because I don't know when the novelty will wear off. I am surprised you don't think the popularity of women's golf is rising. The youth movement of the LPGA seems to be paying off. More fans than ever, are watching. Just look at The Big Break reality television show. People watch, and it is a hit with The Golf Channel.

So Kimo Sabi how do you explain the 20 to 35 percent rise in attendance and TV ratings when Michelle Wie enters a men's or women's professional event?

I doubt if the huge galleries following her around and the larger TV audience viewing the event are polarized much about Michelle. They want to see her play golf. Look at the attendance ratings on both fronts after she misses a men's cut.

Nike and Sony invested for her appeal to a market group that didn't exist before in professional sports. Crossover appeal.

Annika, Paula, Morgan, Natalie and Lorena all have fans; most of whom were fans of golf. Michelle has the same appeal Tiger had when he hit the PGA tour. The appeal to create new fans and new golfers and also raise the bar on prize money at events. When Michelle wins (and she will) interest in women's golf will go thru the roof.

When I play a round, I notice there are dozens of little girls, with their parents in tow out on the range practicing the Michelle Wie swing.

I didn't notice as many little girls practicing last year, did you?

First of all I don't look at
"little girls" like you obviously do. Second of all, my name is not Kimo sabe, and third where is all the prize money you speak of? There has been no noticable change. The only noticable change in money is in Michelle's pocketbook. Television ratings are not up in LPGA events, attendence may be up, but you are looking at events in Hawaii where Michelle is from, no suprise there. I agree there is more of a buzz around ladies golf, but my response was to Mr. Myers blog and his contention that women's golf was somehow equal to the clearly superior product that is the men's game. I also responded to his claim that women will be competing to win on the men's tour, which is ludicrous, and david you did say WILL. One-Putt your points are well taken, but in the future don't start off debates with name calling, thanks.

You want to watch the LPGA, I say more power to you three-putt, but I will watch the PGA when I want to see golf at it's highest level. David you mention the WNBA, the problem with that league is that men do not want to watch women playing below the rim, in essence playing the same game as they do(granted at a much higher technical level). The LPGA is essentially the same deal. I know what it feels like to hit an 8-iron 150 yards, I already know how it feels to hit a 270 yard drive, but I will probably never know the feeling of carrying my pitching wedge 178 yards like J.B. Holmes or hitting drives that fly 350 yards like Bubba Watson. When I watch golf I want to see the game played at the highest level, but that's just me. If you like to watch marginally atractive teenage girls play, that's your perrogative.

Do not turn this in to a perverted thing. These girls are good. Period.

Well guys I am a golf fan and I watch good golf played by anyone. Men's or Women's Amateur events, PGA or LPGA it doesn't matter to me.

I am just as interested watching Tiger, Phil, Fred, Vijay, Ernie, Retief, Sergio, Long John and Bubba as Annika, Paula, Christie or Michelle when they play hard and put forward their best effort in a match.

It all comes down to my being a fan of the game of golf (that I also love to play) and not the band wagon fan of the current long bomber to show up.

When Tiger's game is off and he somehow will place himself in a position to win at the end of a match, is far more exciting to watch than his winning by fifteen strokes. Dubai was a prime example.

Even though you haven't been paying attention to the TV figures and attendance increase at PGA or LPGA events Michelle plays in on the tour. I can assure you the bean counters at the Networks and within the Sponsor's boardrooms have not missed the numbers.

Why do you think Arnold Palmer's little network anted up $600,000,000 for the rights to broadcast golf events starting in 2007? The man with the Midas touch knows the figures and the potential for growth within the game.

David,

Sorry, but by so blithely stating that women will be competing for wins on the PGA Tour in a few years you've lost credibility. I hear Twilight Zone music playing.

Also, I have some food for thought. One-Putt said that he likes watching good golf played by anyone. Okay. Well, the men's Asian tour is better than the LPGA, so why not focus on it more than the latter? Why not focus on the Nationwide Tour or the top male amateurs more?

Let's face it: it's conditioning and hype that garners the women the modicum of attention they receive.

David,

There's something else. If women "can make cuts by the end of the year," they can do so now. After all, their capabilities won be changing much between now and then.

Secondly, there are no "women" who have a chance of making PGA cuts. Rather, there is one woman who has a chance to: Michelle Wie. Most of the other gals would have trouble breaking 80 on a PGA Tour layout, and even Sorenstam would have to capture lightning in a bottle to do it once.

As far as Wie goes, I have said that she will make a cut eventually, however, she still doesn't belong on the men's tour.

You really need to get your medication adjusted.

You say she can, you say she can't. Make up your mind. She is a female, a LPGA member, and has an opportunity to make a cut. You prove my point.

Michelle is the only realistic one who has a chance of making a cut soon.

David Meyers said that women will be able to make a cut at the end of the year. It is absolutely obvious that Michelle is capable of doing this at the moment, so his statement is definetely factually correct.

However I think the sentiment expressed suggests that many women will be joining the pga, and I don't think this will happen soon.

It may well happen in a few years, because young girls watching Michelle Wie are probably realising that it is possible, and many should be inspired.

I think in the short term, Michelle Wie is the only pga prospect.
As Under Par said, most lpga women would struggle to break 80.
Wie is the exception.

David Myers also said that in a few years women will be contending for titles on the PGA tour, that is not only inaccurate, but bordering on delusional. Read Ron Sirak's article about the Tiger effect in men's and women's golf in the recent edition of Golf Digest or on-line. It is extremely interesting and talks about some of these very issues. We have seen a new young crop of talented female teen golfers who got their start post Tiger and probably were drawn to golf by Tiger. The new crop of men, athletes who would have played other sports but were drawn to golf by Tiger are just now emerging and coming into their own. Michelle wie and the other girls just developed faster and thus produced earlier results, thus their young age. Men mature slower physically and becuase of a deeper talent pool have taken longer to climb the ranks, but make no mistake they are coming and they are bigger, stronger and more physically fit then ever before. It is my contention that the gap between the men and women has never been greater and will continue to grow in the years to come. Michelle Wie may one day make a cut, but she will never contend in a PGA event, by the time she puts everything together mentally and physically she will be even further behind the curve then she is now.

Jackson,
I didn't even think about the physical maturation. That is a great point.

wtf is physical maturation?

Hold on.
It is actually a word.

I didn't think you could use it like that.

Back to the point, Jackson is right that it is unrealistic to expect lots of women to be competing for pga titles.
Michelle Wie is the only realistic prospect at the moment, and that depends on her continuing to develop her game as she has been doing.

david meyers - Were you being sarcastic?

Jackson's point is something I have pondered. The fact of the matter is that while everyone talks about how Wie may increase her distance through training, they overlook the fact that the men are getting longer too. If we see more Bubba Watson's entering the sport, Bubbles may not get any traction at all.

David,

That wasn't a very good try at a save. No, I refuted your point. Moreover, I have ALWAYS said that Wie "could" make a cut. However, I also believe that the odds are against her doing so at a given PGA Tour event.

Under Par,
I think that Bubba Watson and JB Holmes are exceptions.

Sure there will be a couple more, but I don't think there will be many guys like that. So I don't think length will stop Wie from competing out there.

I am not being sarcastic. Don't get me wrong, I know there is still the gap between women and men, but comparatively speaking, it is much closer than other sports.

Johnny N., you couldn't be more wrong in your assessment that Bubba and JB are exceptions. Two months ago I watched the last three rounds of the "Q" tournament in Orlando. JB was the medalist in spectacular fashion, but several guys in the 165-man field were bombing their drives similar lengths. On many holes JB was hitting FIRST after the drives. The other players didn't display the complete game as did JB but their length was something you don't see on the PGA tour right now. At least forty guys were hitting similar drives as JB. The women's game, including that of Michelle Wie, is slow-motion and pattycake by comparison. Unless some monumental physiological changes occur to the female body, which I'm sure would not be welcomed by the vast majority of women, the differences in the games will remain to perpetuity.

Well I guess you're right there David, given that it is a non contact sport.

I think the reason is simple enough. Strength isn't such a big issue, nor should it be.

In my opinion, they should do something to curb the length because it is ruining so many golf courses. Just how far can they keep pushing tees back.
If it keeps going, they will probably start providing bugies to bring the guys around, because it would take so long to walk. That or cut the number of holes. Or how about make them all par 3's. All 400 yard par 3's at that.

Alex,
Sorry if I suggested that JB and Bubba were exceptions.

What I actually meant was that they are exceptions at the top of the game. By the top I mean the top pga level and probably able to compete for some titles.
They still are nowhere near the big 5 as of yet.

I think many of the big hitters won't make it at all. In fact over the next few years, I expect the trend to continue of most people who qualify from q school, going back there at the end of the season. So I think the pga tour membership will have much of the same membership in 5 years time as it does now. There won't be that many big hitters who join and stay.

Also, there will be plenty of guys who hit it a decent length, but have the talent in the other parts of their games.

Johnny,

The point is that the game is becoming ever more competitive. Thus, over time, the length of the average drive on the PGA Tour will increase. I suspect that in five years you won't see players in the Pavin/Mize/Cook mold on the tour anymore. The average size on tour will also increase.

In other words, your going to see the ascendancy of players who have the kind of prodigious length we're talking about AND the rest of the game as well.

Johnny N., the premise of this thread is that the gap in playing ability between men and women is narrowing when in fact it is widening and will most probably continue to widen in the foreseeable future. A few years ago, I watch a men's tournament live (the Memorial)on one weekend and a women's tournament in Wilmington Del. the next. The difference in the type and quality of play was similar to that of children against adults in any field of human endeavor. And these events were golf at its highest levels.

Alex, Alex, Alex. To compare women to children versus men is rediculous. You wouldn't see women play any men's tournament if they weren't at least a little comparable. Remember bigger and stronger, does not always mean better. If it did, they guys from the Pinnacle Long Drive competitions would be on the PGA tour.

Johnny,
There are other sports that are non-contact that women are much more inferior to men compared to golf. The stage here is geared more towards talent than strength. Check out Tiger. When he popped into the tour he was averaging 10-15 yards more on his drives. As he has aged he doesn't have the flexibility but has gotten better with his short game, and won at a higher rate.

David, an old-time sports wag, I believe it was Damon Runyon, once quipped "the battle doesn't always go to the strong, or the race to the swift, but that's the way to bet 'em." Similarly, bigger and stronger may not ALWAYS be better, just most of the time.

David,

First of all, Woods hasn't lost any flexibility. The reason why he's not hitting it as far is that he has tightened his swing for the purposes of increasing his control, and he has spoken of this on numerous occasions.

Alex,

While this doesn't relate to golf, it does pertain to widening gaps between the sexes. While doing research for an article on feminist junk science, I was investigating the progression of world record running times and learned something I didn't know. Namely, the gap between men and women in many events actually WIDENED during the last fifteen years (contrary to popular spin), perhaps because the women can no longer get away with using steroids.

Anyway, I'm pretty informed on these issues, but that was something that even I hadn't figured on.

David, In 1997 Tiger averaged 294 yards and never averaged over 300 yards until 2004. In 2005 he averaged a whopping 316 yards by far the longest of his career. The numbers prove that Tiger is not getting shorter, he is getting longer, much longer, the reason is his strength(benches over 300 pounds), his finally embracing the newest technology, and yes his flexibility and technique. Tiger can still fly the ball past 99% of the guys on tour--he is currently avergaing 306 yards in his lone PGA appearence. Remember his dual last year with Phil Mickelson at Doral, he routinely drove two par 4's including one that measured 378 yards. The term for what the guys are doing to the courses today is called "flogging" and Vijay Singh put it best when he said he would rather be in the rough 100 yards out then in the fairway 150 yards out. Hitting fairways is no longer at a premium on tour, being long is, and it will stay that way unless they grow out the rough 2 feet just off the fairway. No women in the forseeable future will compete to win tournaments on the PGA tour, end of story. Ever wonder why women never seem to have the short game that the men do? It should not be a strength issue. Stay tuned for my next lesson on fast-twitch muscles and why men have more touch, creativity and feel in their short games. The ladies play a great game and with all their rising stars they seem positioned to finally become a major sports draw, but the gulf dividing the men and the women is like the Grand Canyon.

David, in the final two paragraphs of your blog you mentioned four female golfers: Annika Sorenstam, Michelle Wie, Morgan Pressel, and Paula Creamer. You stated further that these women (16, 17, and 19 year-old girls are women?) are not anomalies or media creations but are excellent golfers and that in a "few years" they would be competing for wins on the PGA tour. These four can be reduced to "this one", namely Michelle Wie when referring to female golfers who insist on going against the guys. None of them has ever qualified for a PGA event, preferring the less strenuous method of sponsors' exemptions. Annika tried once and after missing the cut had the good sense to admit she couldn't compete with the guys. As far as I know, neither Morgan or Paula has ever expressed a desire to go against the men even with an exemption. Only Michelle and her myopic stage father won't admit the obvious, not even after seven missed cuts. Incidentally David, what do you consider "competing" for a PGA tour victory? To my way of thinking, competing would be playing in the final four or five groups on Sunday and being within five strokes of the lead at the start of the final round. If you really think that Michelle Wie or any other female golfer will be there within a few years, all I can say is "dream on."

Well I must first say that this article was really talking about the popularity difference, but since I opened a can of worms let me try and answer them.

Under Par and Ford,
I heard it come straight from Tiger's mouth that his length has been shortened by his flexibility by age. I don't know what else to tell you. His swing speed has decreased as a result. The stats Ford gave are interesting, but why would Tiger say that if he didn't see his length diminishing somewhat.

Yes, I know all about his workouts, they are becoming legendary. His strength is amazing, but this does not necessarily translate to distance. I am not trying to bring down Tiger, just pointing out that the girls are good.

Also, Michelle Wie hits over 300 regularly. Her strength is nothing compared to myself yet she does it. I average about the same, how does that make sense if I am much stronger? It is because of her amazing flexibility. Just watch her extension, it's beautiful.

Alex,
Maybe I am living in a dream world, but it is my world. It is quite possible, but I see women getting stronger and better. Michelle Wie hasn't even come close to her potential, yet she puts up numbers that make you think, "Yeah, she will probably make a cut this year."

If the novelty of women competing in men's events doesn't wear off, I don't see why she couldn't be in the top ten in a few years.

David,

I don't care what Woods said, he's not old and you don't lose flexibility at such a young age when you train. Don't you realize how much stretching these guys do?

Anyway, I suspect that you misunderstood what Woods was saying. He probably was referring to the fact that he had "tightened" his swing.

Ford and Alex,
If you guys honestly believe that women aren't catching men, I don't know what golf tournaments you are watching.

The reality is that Tiger a few years ago could have handled anyone playing the game now, including the Tiger of these days.

The mens game has gone backwards if anything, but Annika has obviously taken the womens game on.

Obviously Annika is well out ahead on the womens side we are waiting for all the promising young talent to catch up to her.

Another point is that people keep noting Annikas failure to make the cut at the Colonial as some sort of proof that women cannot compete.
Annika is obviously the best player on the lpga, but it is very obvious that Michelle Wie is far better than Annika on a pga course.

Michelle Wie certainly has plenty of potential to play well on the pga tour. Annika doesn't have the necessary assets to do this.
For women to compete on the pga tour, they need to be more like Michelle than Annika. Hopefully as young girls watch Wie's exploits, they will be inspired, and follow her lead.

That is when David's prediction can most definetly come to fruition.

As regards Wie, whether she makes a mens cut this year, or whenever, it is pretty obvious that she has the game to compete out there.

You know he pulled out a 5-wood instead of an iron on a par 3 to win the playoff against Jose Maria right? He went on to say exactly what I explained earlier. I didn't misunderstand, but perhaps he was being modest. I don't know. You obviously know all.

Under Par,

Did you know that in the 1972 Olympics, women could only run something like 1500 metres. That was the longest race that they were thought capable of running in.

Obviously times have changed. Just because people at one time thought that that was their limitation didn't mean it was, and just because some people don't think they can compete against men at a high level in golf doesn't mean that is true either.

Johnny, couldn't have said it better myself.

David and Johnny N., you fellows are doubtless nice persons who mean well, but you both have taken convoluted, backwoods logic (or rather ILLOGIC) to new heights or perhaps, depths. There simply is no way to argue with such claptrap, especially that part about men's golf going backward and women's golf rapidly catching up. I'd like to think you guys are joking, but you seem so serious. In any case, you're both too much for me, so Under Par and Ford will have to take up the cudgel.

So Alex, who exactly at the moment is capable of beating the Tiger from the year 2000, who was winning majors by ridiculous margins?

Name one person please.

Johnny N., since you have asked a question to which there cannot possibly be an answer, I must refrain from continuing in any discussion with you. Your question has nothing to do with the subject of this blog and is just another example of the non sequiturs that you have been putting forth. I would respectfully suggest that you learn a few things about rational discussion and sensible debate. Meanwhile, please enjoy your day and have a happy life.

Alex, thanks for accepting defeat gracefully.

The question was very relevant in showing that the bar is not been raised at the top on the pga tour.

Tiger has come back to the rest, as opposed to them catching up.

Surely you know that Annika has dramatically improved the standard at the top of the womens game.
Of course that won't matter unless the girls catch her.

I think that they will and when that happens, if there is a female with Annika's ability, but with better length, then there is absolutely no reason why she can't make it on the pga tour. Or would you disagree that a longer stronger Annika would succeed.

Johnny N., You've convinced me! I humbly accept my ignominious defeat at your hands! Woods has been fading fast, as has Vijay, Phil and all the other has-beens. Pretenders like JB Holmes and Camilo and Sean will never be able to stand up against the likes of Michelle, Morgan and the Kims of Korea. And another thing: The price of fish in Bangladesh is way too high! Don't you agree? I anxiously await your words of wisdom.

I agree with you 100% Johnny! A longer, stronger, better Annika would absolutely make it on the PGA tour, in fact they make it on the tour every week, their called men. This argument would be better suited for a history classroom or perhaps a science class. Humans have been competing in tests of athletic ability since the beginning of time and in this history of man no woman has ever competed at the highest levels of a major sport against men and been succesful(I said major and with at least a hint of physicality so save the chess and dog sledding comparisons). Women have made great strides in athletics, who would have ever thought a women could dunk a basketball, or hit a serve 120 miles per hour in tennis or for the sake of this argument hit a golf ball 300 yards. These are amazing accomplishments, ones that seem to show that the gap is narrowing between men and women, but what has not been mentioned here is that we are NOT in a period of stagnation on the men's side. While the women make tremendous strides, the men develop further as well. While a handful of women on the face of the Earth can dunk, there are 7th grade boys who dunk with ease, 120 mile per hour serves by the most powerful of women are second serves for the top men and 300 yard drives still a rarity for the likes of even Michelle Wie are now routine 3-woods from the likes of J.B. Holmes and dozens of young male tour players. We are all in a way right on this issue, are women closer to achieving equality then they were say in Roman times, absolutely. Are they closer to beating men at the highest level of sport, not a chance. 8th grade physiology teaches us this simple lesson. The same points can be made about equality froma financial standpoint as well, women have made great strides getting equal pay more equal work, but are sadly not there yet, the same ids true on the LPGA purse money is still not where it sjould be in relation to the PGA.

I can name a sport where there are many women who can outperform all but the very best men--figure skating. Michelle Kwan is past her prime, but I am sure there are fewer men who could outperform her in figure skating than the number who could beat Michelle Wie in golf.
Indeed, when I watch pairs compete, it seems like it is the men who are more likely to screw up when performing the same elements than the women are. Only the very best men are really really good.

Holt,

I agree with most of what you say, but I have to correct one thing, something that you mentioned in passing. It's a myth that women don't receive equal pay for equal work. When the results of the sexes' different lifestyle choices (e.g., choosing to work fewer hours, declining promotions citing familial obligations) are eliminated from the equation, women earn almost as much, as much, or a bit more than men do, depending on which study you believe. This has been well established, by the way, although you'd never know it listening to the mainstream media.

There will be a narrowing of the gap between the sexes in golf. Morgan Pressel became a golfer when it became clear she would not be able to be successful in tennis. With the current attention on women's golf, athletic girls are more likely to look at golf as a first choice. For boys, there are many sports. For girls it is largely a matter of figure skating, tennis, basketball, or golf--and golf is now ahead of basketball as an opportunity for big money.

Jim, what do you mean there WILL be a narrowing of the gap between the sexes in golf? Haven't you read this blog? According to David this process is well under way, and who would know better than he? Equality,i.e., parity will soon be achieved. Johnny N. goes a step further. He states boldly that while the PGA tour is stagnating and formerly great golfers like Woods, Vijay and Lefty are content with winning only six, four and four events each last year, the women and girls are shooting for the moon and are on the cusp of surpassing the boys in quantity and quality. And I couldn't agree more! The FACTS and the PROOF that Johnny N. has presented have made a believer out of me. On another thread, several Neanderthals have suggested that the PGA should retain its mundane and outdated provisions of players actually QUALIFYING for a spot in a tournament and EARNING exempt status on the PGA tour. I'm sure that any fair-minded person would agree that such stipulations have no place in 21st century society. Women should be in the field of EVERY PGA event without exception, period! And not just a token but at least 20% of the field for starters. They've earned it with their obviously superior play. Don't take my word for it, just ask Johnny N.or David.

Johnny N., it was nice of you to accept my acknowledgement of defeat, a defeat which I have readily stated on this board. However, I didn't accept it "gracefully" since with my "football knees" and advancing age, I'm no longer as light on my feet as I once was. Thankfully, my parents and mentors did teach me to accept defeat "graciously."

Wow, when you don't post here for a few days you sure can miss lots of interesting stuff!!!!

Firstly in the Alex versus Johnny N argument, I think it is pretty obvious that the Tiger of 2000 would beat anyone playing the current game easily. And yes that includes the Tiger of 2005.
However, even though the very top player has gone downward, I think the standard of the overall tour has probably gone up, although not that much.

There is no doubt that the lpga is catching the pga. However, in my opinion that is only because the lpga is starting from such a low base in comparison.

Huge numbers of men have been playing the game of golf at the highest level for many years. It is very different for the women.
At the moment you have some very good professional players in the womens game. However the standard below them isn't that high. You don't have strength in depth.

On the mens side there is a much better infrastructure and the strength in depth is massive.
That is part of the reason why you have good female players breaking through at young ages, because the overall standard of the tour is not that high.

There was a very similar situation in womens tennis a few years ago, where many top young players came through very quickly and got to the top of the game. Martina Hingis was world number 1 at 16 years of age in tennis. However, as this crop of youngsters matured they stayed at the top, and these days there are very few youngsters breaking through to the top of womens tennis.

I predict that womens golf is going through a similar phase and that in a few years, youngsters will find it much harder to break through to the top levels of the lpga.

Why is this important?
Because when you have a bigger quantity of women at the top level of their potential ie. women who train properly, eat properly and get the relevant coaching from a young age and these women mature, then there will be more strength in depth on the lpga.

At that stage, you would have more women at the golfing level that Annika is currently at.
When you have more women at this level, it is only the law of averages that some of them will be stronger, as Wie is.

What does that mean?
That means you have women players who would certainly be capable of competing on the pga tour.

Tiger of 2000 verus Tiger of 2005:

Wins:
2000 = 9 from 20 events = 45%
2005 = 6 from 21 events = 28%

Top 10 finishes:
2000 = 17 from 20 events
2005 = 13 from 21 events

His winning percentage is 28% versus 45%. That is certainly a decline. It is still great, but it is certainly a decline from where he used to be.

Hold said:
A longer, stronger, better Annika would absolutely make it on the PGA tour, in fact they make it on the tour every week, their called men.
*******************************

The fact is that a woman can achieve what Annika has as regards accuracy and putting etc.
The fact is that Michelle Wie has the extra length and strength.

Therefore, if you put these two things together, then you have a woman who is capable of competing on the pga tour.
In my opinion, that is only a matter of time. In my opinion, Wie is the best current hope of doing this since she already has the necessary strength, if she can develop some of the parts of her game which lack in comparison to Annika, then Michelle will have absolutely no problem in either getting or keeping a pga tour card.

Norman, there is no dispute between Johnny N. and me. I AGREE wholeheartedly that the girls are on a big upswing and the boys are in a free fall. Since Michelle Wie would certainly have no problem in getting and retaining a PGA tour card and all her fans realize this fact, why can't the dinosaurs at the PGA realize it also and forgo their archaic rules and just award her a PGA tour card? I know, some of the aspiring male pros might object, but as soon as she starts racking up her inevitable wins that will be a moot point. After several PGA wins, those good ole boys at the Masters' will HAVE to invite her. Go Michelle!

Pros complained when Mickleson skipped last year's Tour chanpionship at about the time a new TV contract was being negotitated--because they felt his absence hurt them in terms jof the money that would be in the new contract. Pros also complained about exemptions being given to Michelle Wie. If pros had ahd their way on both of these issues, would the TV contract have been more or less generous?

Guys, further PROOF that the men on the PGA tour are simply afraid of competing against the girls happened just last week. A lot of fuss was made over JB Holmes winning by seven strokes at Phoenix. But who did he beat? Oh, I know there were five of the top ten in the world in the field, but these guys are has-beens as Johnny N. has said. They are going backward. They are on the downhill drag. Were there any women in the field? No! The powers that be won't let them! They have these silly, out-dated rules about qualifying! Earning a PGA card, earning exemptions, and qualifying are Soooo 20th century! If the men weren't afraid of playing against the women they would try to get on the LPGA tour. I know, I know, they have rules against it on the LPGA tour, but a class action lawsuit would surely find for the men. They are quite simply AFRAID to be defeated by a woman. JB Holmes! Hah! What has he ever accomplished compared to Michelle Wie? Has he ever signed a multi-million dollar endorsement contract? Has he ever traveled across the Pacific in a private jet to a tournament where he was paid one million dollars for missing the cut? Has he ever cried real tears on television while wearing long, dangling earrings? No! So guys, let's put first things first! The girls are on the march! To resist is futile! JB might have smoked a tough field by seven strokes, but MICHELLE RULES!

Alex, your sarcasm is getting old.

Reading through the text a couple of times, I'm having trouble finding where Johnny N. said that the guys game was in freefall.

I don't agree with him that the mens game as a whole is going down, but certainly he is right that the standard of the best player is by far gone downward.

As regards JB Holmes, I can tell you from personal experience that if he persists with his style of swing, none of the other players will have to worry about him very much, because he is heading for lots of injuries and some serious time out. My old swing was very similar to his, well it put pressure on similar parts of the body. His body may hold up to it for a year or two. He is only 23, but it catch up on him.

Alex said:
Since Michelle Wie would certainly have no problem in getting and retaining a PGA tour card and all her fans realize this fact, why can't the dinosaurs at the PGA realize it also and forgo their archaic rules and just award her a PGA tour card?
*******************************

Because Michelle would only have no problem getting and retaining a pga tour card if parts of her game get to Annika's standards.

That looks likely, but is not a foregone conclusion, but if her general game improves to that of Annika she won't have any problem getting that tour card.

So Alex, have some patience.
Bubba Watson qualified for the tour for the first time as a 27 year old. Michelle has lots of time to develop her game.

And by the way, Michelle will only get her tour card by qualifying.
Be that doing it the Tiger way or going through q-school, the nationwide or some other tour.

I don't think anyone has argued that they should be given a free pass. It is simply my opinion that she will succeed.

Norman, I'm not being sarcastic. Johnny N. has convinced me that the men are going backwards, just as he stated. Haven't you ever changed your mind about anything? And of course, there is no comparison between the myriad accomplishments of Michelle Wie and the skimpy resume of a guy like JB Holmes. What has he ever done besides beating a field of has-beens at the FBR? Some think he should get a lot of credit for being the medalist at the "Q" school and scoring six rounds in the 60's to do it. Big deal! If he was that good he wouldn't have been at the "Q" school in the first place. Besides, how do we know how difficult those courses were? Michelle and probably some other girls would have done just as good as JB if not better. Arron Oberholser just won at Pebble Beach by five strokes. The next thing you know some of these male chauvinist dinosaurs will be claiming that Arron is a better golfer than Michelle despite all the evidence to the contrary. Thankfully, later this year when Michelle makes the cut in that high level men's event in Japan all this foolish talk will be put to rest for good. Norman, you are absolutely correct when you predict success for Michelle and a multitude of injuries and ultimate failure for JB. Such results are obvious from their performances to this point.

Back at the Sony Open, many people made a big to do about David Toms shooting a 61. That was a pretty fair score, but they forget that just the previous day, Michelle had a spectacular 68! All she needed to do was score seven more birdies and she too would have rung up a 61. Five more birdies and an eagle would have done it too.

Alex,

I'm glad you've finally seen the light. It just goes to show you, there's hope for all of us -- maybe even me. After all, my thinking has started to broaden, meaning, I now am more partial to the broads.

For instance, some have correctly pointed out that Woods' results now pale in comparison to those of 2000. Of course, there are those who would say that his competition might have gotten better, but we all know that such reasoning is completely illogical. Some might also say that his 2000 was a banner season, one of those rare years that even one of the greatest will only enjoy once in a blue moon. But we know that such folderol shouldn't even be dignified with a response. I mean, if Woods weren't in a decline, he'd win nine times every year.

We also know that men as a group are in steep decline and we are witnessing the ascendancy of Femaledom. Men's genes are becoming degraded, and in a couple of generations even the best of us will have been reduced to cretins rocking back and forth in rooms with no sharp objects.

So, I agree with you, Alex. Your thinking has evolved so rapidly that you've transcended even the ethereal-minded Norman. The student has become the teacher. We really should cut to the chase and award the top ten women PGA Tour cards. Why, it is obviously ridiculous to try to stave off the inevitable, for the wave of the future cannot long be resisted. These superior creatures called women are finally spreading their wings, and it's time for us Neanderthal men to recede and fade into the sunset. Ahh, resignation can be so liberating, don't you think?

Alex, I think that you and I have finally attained enlightenment.

Under Par, congratulations on your enlightenment. Now we've got to bring Holt into the fold. Tiger was a major disappointment last year, but this year he is REALLY in decline. While he is 2 for 2 this year, he was forced to win twice in playoffs. And against two real has-beens, although some misguided folks probably think Jose Maria and Ernie are still worthy opponents since they were multiple major champions. And how about Vijay? He really went into the tank, winning only four times last year after nine wins in 2004. He definitely should retire before he embarrasses himself further.

Alex,
I am speaking from personal experience in discussing JB Holmes. Trust me, he is putting too much pressure on his lower back and if his he doesn't change his swing, he is heading for plenty of time on the sidelines.

Also, your naming of the latest winners shows just how poor your arguments are. Anyone can name the winners over the last few weeks.

Perhaps you should remember that Sean O'Hair had a great season last season, and he only missed 4 cuts in 29 events.

So far this year he has missed 4 cuts in 4 starts.
He also played the Mercedes where only Jason Gore's four round average of 80 finished behind him.

I hope Sean does well this year. He is a good guy, but it just shows that you shouldn't get too cocky about the latest winners.

By the way JB Homes is a fine player and one of the best prospects around. He not only showed his stuff at q-school, he has also shown it in each event since then and he has the general golf game to be a very top player. I still think he needs to address his swing though, which is great, but too punishing on his body for the good of his career.

Alex said:
Back at the Sony Open, many people made a big to do about David Toms shooting a 61. That was a pretty fair score, but they forget that just the previous day, Michelle had a spectacular 68! All she needed to do was score seven more birdies and she too would have rung up a 61. Five more birdies and an eagle would have done it too.
**************************

Actually the conditions were far better in the 3rd round. The best score in the 2nd round was 64.
Michelle's performance can only be measured against that, not a 3rd round 61 in easier conditions. It cannot be measured against a day that she was not playing.

As regards even measuring her against even the best score 64 on day 2, you can do that because you hold her in such high esteem.

Us normal Wie-fanatics, would rather measure her against the field as a whole, where she shot a better score than 126 members of the field, was equal with 6 players and only 11 players shot a better score than her. Now that impresses most people, but maybe for you isn't quite enough.

Norman, I am not disagreeing with you! I repeat, I am not disagreeing with you. For lo these many months and even years you have been singing the praises of Michelle. Due to my misguided chauvinism, I wasn't able to see the error of my ways. But now, due to the logic of your arguments and those of other astute observers of the game like Johnny N., I've come to the conclusion that you have been right all along. Under Par also admits to his former recalcitrance and I'm sure that some of the other stone-age characters like Holt and Ford won't be far behind. The very idea that such a mediocre newcomer as JB Holmes could ever do anything to compare with the extraordinary achievements of Michelle is laughable. As you have said repeatedly, Michelle Wie , with her beautiful long, fluid swing is the future, the very salvation of the game of golf. She and she alone is capable of competing with and soundly trouncing the men on the PGA tour. And I agree! On the subject of the rapid decline of the PGA tour golfers, Woods has of course experienced a dismal 2005 and a shaky 2006 thus far.Vijay has similarly hit the skids. It has gotten so bad that some of Singh's apologists actually referred to the fact the he had 18 top ten finishes in 2006, as though that was some sort on accomplishment. What they didn't say is that those finishes were done against fields of has-beens and mediocre rookies and plodders. Vijay has been even worse than Tiger this year. Imagine, losing in a playoff to a pedestrian Aussie like Stuart Appleby! Other than that, all he has to show so far are a couple of those overrated top ten finishes, whereas Michelle has that memorable 68 where she only missed the cut by four strokes. I'm afraid we are witnessing the demise of men as far as the game of golf is concerned. Thank goodness that the women will be here to save the sport. Thank goodness for Michelle Wie!

Alex,

That you for your knowledge.
It is nice that you have informed us that Vijay Singh has had 18 top ten finishes in 2006.
I think this is an absolutely remarkable achievement, particularly when you take into account that there have only been about 5 events. 18 top 10 finishes in just 5 events sure is something to be proud of.

On the other point, just because Michelle Wie is capable of becoming a pga tour player doesn't mean that everyone else is useless.

JB is likely to more wins on the pga tour than Michelle in my humble opinion. I guess that maybe Alex will probably make a 17 pga wins in a season prediction for Michelle though.
So that will probably be quite hard for JB to beat or get close to.

Norman, my mistake: 2005. Check the first word of your post in which you see fit to ridicule my obvious error. Why are you making sport of me? We're on the same side!

Actually 61 was what Michelle Wie said she had to shoot on Friday after her 79 on Thursday.

Norman, I've re-read several of your postings. In them, I've noticed several errors. With all due respect, I don't believe it is a good idea for any person such as yourself to engage in ridicule of anyone posting on this board with regard to minor errors in grammar, spelling, syntax or use, misuse, or non-use of punctuation or juxtaposition of dates. Now, back to golf. When do you think Michelle will win her first PGA major?

Alex,
I didn't mean any ridicule, I merely meant jest.

As regards pga majors, I think Padraig Harrington will win a major pretty soon.
There are some other guys in there with a good chance also to win their first majors.

I don't rate Michelle as a contender for a pga major in the next 5 years. If she were to qualify for one in that time, I would be pleasantly surprised.

I do think she will win an lpga major before or at 20, and I'd be very hopeful of her winning one before or at 18 years old.

I don't particularly like predicting major win timeframes for people who have yet to make a pga cut.
I do think she will make a cut soon enough though, and if she plays the allowed 8 sponsors exemptions on the pga in a full season, that will leave people in a much stronger position to predict just how successful she can be. For the moment, I predict that she will make pga cuts and can qualify for the pga tour within the next 10 years or so.

David, In this my final post on this thread, I'd like to request from you some clarification. In the final segment of your blog, you stated unequivocally that "these" women, presumably the four mentioned, were not anomalies or media creations but awesome golfers. Fair enough, that is your opinion. I agree that they are excellent FEMALE golfers. Awesome is debatable. Then you said that in a "few" years these women would be "competing to win" on the PGA tour. What you need to explain to some of us is what in your opinion are a "few years."
Also, would "competing to win" be playing in the last four groups on Sunday within four strokes of the lead? Now, what really needs needs explanation as far as I'm concerned is how these four females and possibly others as well are going to be able to play on the PGA tour in the first place. Sponsors' exemptions will only cover a few spots on the tour in a year, and from what I've heard , the executive committee of the PGA is loath to make a "traveling circus" of its tour. David, putting all joking and far-fetched speculation aside, how are these things that you predict ever going to come to fruition? And particularly in a "few years"?

Alex,

I really tend to doubt that David actually believes that there's a handful of women who will be in contention in PGA events in a few years. Rather, I think it likely that he simply is trying to be controversial for the purposes of attracting attention and evoking responses. People in the media are infamous for such practices.

Under Par,
I think it is pretty obvious too that there won't be a handful of women competing on the pga in a few years.

Wie is the only realistic chance and she has work to do.

Yes, Norman, despite our disagreements, I knew that you would recognize the inanity of that claim. But again, the man is just trying to attract attention.

Alex,
I am being serious. Do I think they will win? Probably not any time soon. If the trend continues though,(giving exemptions for women to enter men's events) I think there will be a women within four strokes at the end of the final day. My guess would be within the next 3 years. I understand all the arguments against, and I think they are a bit arrogant and ignorant. The sport of golf really does allow for a more even playing field. This is not a sport where brute force is necessary. Yes, it is a portion, but not the end all. Throwing around insults and sarcasm doesn't interest me. I see what I see. As a coach who is hired out to help highschool golfers with their game, I see that girls without brute strength can play with boys. They rely more on flexibility, and score pretty well.

My question for the world is: Why not?

People think Wie is the only one with a chance against the men.
I admit that it might be this way at the moment.

But a couple of months ago, I said on these blogs that Paula Creamer was working on her distance over the break. People ridiculed me at the time, but if you check out recent articles, it is there in black and white. I was right, that she had been working on her distance.

This will help her on the lpga tour next season, and will bring her much closer to Annika. How close is hard to predict.

But I think she will continue working on her length and instead of one of those Japanes womens events that she wins with ease, I think she will enter a mens event in Asia. But she will enter when she is able to compete and really able to make an impression.

I'm not sure about a 3 year timeframe, because she wants to dominate the lpga first, before beating the top men out of it.

David Meyers, thank you for your reply. I will catalog your reference to three years from this date as the day that a woman will be within four strokes of the lead in a PGA event on the final day. I will take your "guess" as a committment to that date.If you think that I have used insults or sarcasm, I apologize categorically. You say to the world "why not?', I say "why?'

Do we really think that the future of golf and the only women in the entire world with the ability to play against the men is a tall, skinny, slightly gangly island girl? Women's athletics have taken great strides in recent years, the caliber of athlete has improved dramatically, but guess what so has the quality of the male athlete. In the end golf is still a physical game, one which requires strength, timing, eye hand coordination, muscle memory and control over nerves and emotions. Women will always be at a genetic disadvantage, one which we have seen no evidence that they will ever overcome(20,000 years and counting). Also a point here which I have not heard is the mental side of things, world class male athletes are mentally stronger then their female counteparts, call it what you will, but these are the facts and unless women are suddenly going to evolve into a stronger, faster, larger and more dominant species the world of golf just like every other major sport will be dominated by men. David we can revisit this argument in three years at which time I will laugh as you try to explain that Michelle Wie finishing 56th at the Greater Hartford Open shows that women are truly making strides.

A woman finishing within four strokes of the lead within three years . . .. Would you like to place a wager on that, Davey Boy?

I wonder what your response will be. After all, that's how you separate those with conviction from those who just blow smoke.

Norman mentioned something about a 7 event possible exemption thing in the one season.

If Wie takes that up in the next 3 years, then David has a chance of being right. But she delays longer than that, then David's prediction is highly unlikely.

If you were to give any of the top men just 2 or 3 events on the pga in a season, how many of them would be within 4 shots of the lead on the final day?
Very few I would think, probably Tiger and a couple of others and that would be it.

I admit it all depends on the exemptions and the novelty of it all.
DM

I think you're over-estimating her potential.

David

So I guess your answer means you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Under,
I have tried to ignore ya, but since you are so persistent:

There would have to be stipulations. As long as women continue to get the opportunity and continue to try, I would then put money on it. Because there is no guarantee to this, how would the bet be made?

David,

Interesting, you didn't qualify your initial prediction. So I guess you're just blowing smoke.

You tire me.

Under Par,
In fairness to David, I think his conditions are very fair.

If someone were not to play in an event, how could they compete for it?
I think Wie is very likely to play in events anyway, so Under Par, the stipulation that David is asking for, is pretty much a given to happen anyway.

Norman,

My point is that David didn't mention that condition in his piece. If you make an outrageous statement and are serious about it (as opposed to blowin' smoke), you mention all the conditions upon which its verity rests so as to not end up with egg on your face.

David,

Yes, you're tired. You should take a break from writing.

Under Par,
I recommend therapy. You obviously have far too much anger stored up. At the slightest hint of an argument, you take it to the extreme. No worries though, I'll still love you.

Norman,
Thanks, you understand what I am getting at. Have a good weekend.

David,

There's no anger with respect to this at all. I don't think you're a bad guy nor do I feel any hostility toward you, and, really, it's just a trivial matter. However, when someone makes an outrageous statement and implies that my opposition to it is misguided, I, out of a desire to illustrate where the truth lies, will challenge him to put his money where his mouth is. The fact that I'm willing to tells astute observers that I have good reason to believe my position is correct. Moreover, if the other fellow isn't willing to pick up the gauntlet, those same observers will conclude that he doesn't really believe what he is saying.

I love you, too (in a Christian sense), and I hope you have a great -- and truthful -- weekend.

Under Par, I tried to make a bet with a lot of similar conditions and stipulations at the race track last week and the mutuel clerk told me to get lost.:-)

Alex,

I'll have David and Norman talk to that clerk . . . just as soon as I get that therapy that David has prescribed for me.

Under Par,
For David's bet, he simply wants to say that if he is betting on something, that his chosen competitor competes or he doesn't lose the bet.

With the bookmaker I use, if I bet on a race and a horse doesn't run, then the bookmaker gives the money back.
Alex, if your bookmaker doesn't give you your money back in that case, then perhaps I could give you the name of mine.

Bad analogy, Norman, because we're not talking about a specific event. Again, David was just trying to evoke reponses, which he has done.

It's just amazing first is was anika then it was wie, the fact is that men are barred from the lpga because they would dominate the league so the excuses keep coming from white middle aged liberal sports writers who hope to find that one female who can compete with the men. so wie thinks she is equal to tiger an vj fine then she should be bared from playing in the lpga just like the guys. let the games begin.