« Now that's Entertainment! Tiger wins at Doral.Is Tiger Woods about finished? »

152 comments

Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
David, you're a little late with this blog. We've been thrashing this out on others for at least a week. It will be interesting to see how many hits you get.
02/27/06 @ 17:52
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex,

David thinks he has found a winning formula as far as attracting attention is concerned. I'll be waiting for "Women vs. Men, part III" now.
02/27/06 @ 19:05
Comment from: jon [Visitor]
Awwh... Come on guys... Without this topic, you would have nothing to talk about... It's not like we can talk about finer points of... Golf. ((Ducking))
02/27/06 @ 19:19
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, I have mixed feelings about sparring with the zanies on this board. At times it is entertaining; at other times I'm befuddled. Maybe you can answer these questions: Is it even remotely possible for people to be as clueless as these Wie Warriors are pretending to be? Are these guys allowed to drive cars and operate machinery?
02/27/06 @ 21:19
Comment from: David Meyers [Visitor]
Alex,
I know this is a little late given my part one, but I have actually been pondering this pretty hard for the last week.
02/27/06 @ 21:47
Comment from: David Meyers [Visitor]
Under Par,
I don't know if this will be flattering or not, but this blog was written especially for you. I could care less if I get as many comments as I had last time; I just thought hard about the topic at hand. With the responses I had, I had to sit back and contemplate if I was saying it for reaction. I don't think I was. I really think they are catching up in publicity at least.

And no, the play of Wie this weekend didn't provoke this blog. I just wondered how much strength actually effected the entire game. Eventhough, I couldn't find a direct coorelation, I think I found a pretty good argument.

I must admit, I have already considered a part III. Not because I am trying to juice every bit of enthusiasm there might be out there for the topic, but because there is so much to say on the topic, and I had already written quite a long blog as it was. I guess that is much like my reply is now. Oh well, I'll stop now.
02/27/06 @ 21:58
Comment from: John [Visitor]
Hi David,

If you go to the link above, you can find a statistical comparison of Michelle Wie's performance to-date in PGA Tour events vs the performance of Tiger Woods in his beginning years.

The chart shows the comparison three ways:

Once as an average of their first four years as a whole (Tiger aged 16 to 19; Michelle aged 13 to 16). Michelle appears to have better statistics in this comparison.

Then as a year by year comparison, Tiger at 16 vs Michelle at 13 through Tiger age 19 vs Michelle age 16. Michelle appears to have been better all four years.

Then as a year by year comparison dropping Tiger's first year and comparing across a 4 year age difference--Tiger age 17 vs Michelle age 13, etc. This is the one I find fascinating. Tiger is clearly better the first year, Michelle clearly better the second, even-stephen the third year and Tiger clearly better the fourth year (Note that for Michelle, this fourth year is still in progress and her results may change before the year is out).

So apparently the maturation factor between the sexes, at least between these two particular golfers is about four years. Given that Michelle's current year stats are only for two rounds, they may change dramatically for the better or for the worse should she play another PGA tournament.

And a foot note for the Wie-Nixer's. Nothing in this chart so much as suggests that Michelle will ever become as good as the fully mature Tiger. Nothing in this chart suggests that the level of play of either of these two young golfers was competitive against the standard today's PGA tour. It merely compares the developmental years of two golfers. And perhaps supports the suggestion that Michelle is on the verge of being able to make a PGA cut.
02/27/06 @ 22:01
Comment from: John [Visitor]
And BTW, I apologize for the width of the chart, you will have to use the zoom tool on your browser to get it up to a reasonable reading size.

Also and explanation for the columns of data on 2005 for Woods, Singh and Mickelson is provided in the foot notes. It is merely my attempt to sort the statistics into some meaningful order.
02/27/06 @ 22:10
Comment from: David Meyers [Visitor]
John, very interesting.

If nothing else, we can say that she is great for the world of the LPGA. She has brought much attention to the sport. Even the notion of her possibly making a cut makes people excited. I'm not even a very big fan, I just love the possiblities for women.
02/27/06 @ 22:13
Comment from: Gordon [Visitor]
You tell me, why do people think that men are so much better than women if strength has so little to do with golf?

Are you kidding me? You are now questioning whether or not men are better then women at golf. David, this has got to stop, I don't have time to give you an anatomy lesson or a lesson on the physics of golf, but let me point out that that measly 50 yards or 16% difference you were talking about equates to a 4-5 club difference, hardly insignificant. There are so many flaws in your reasoning and argument it is hard to focus my thoughts and attention on just one. First I must question the timing of this article, could it have been something you saw at the Fields Open which prompted you to write this piece. Was it the fact that it was won by a light hitting Korean girl, is she going to be one of the contenders for mens titles in the coming years, or was it a 3rd place finish by a long-hitting suspect putting girl who has yet to prove she can win on her own tour or make a cut in a men's tournament. Another thing I find extremely interesting is that in your world only the women are improving. Think about this, you have women's games growing exponentially, while the men's game remains stagnant. We all know this is not true, while the women are indeed getting better they are actually falling further behind, as the products of the Tiger Woods era are just now coming into full maturity on the men's side. Girls like Michelle Wie are already starting so far behind that by the time she matures and gets her total game together, the J.B. Holmes, Carmillo Villegas's and countless others will be light years from her, they actually already are. While the women are cheering one of their own who can drive the ball 300 yards, Bo Van Pelt and others are hitting 400 yard drives on tour. I think Michelle Wie will make a cut in the near future, but she will never contend for a PGA title. We have only scratched the surface of the flaws in your argument. Power is the least of these girls problems, there are short game issues, brought about by lack of control and development of the fast-twich muscles in the hands and wrists and there are issues regarding mentality--Morgan Pressel billed to be one of the great up and coming talents and a tenacious competitor cries like the school girl she is after every tough loss, can you imagine Ernie Els crying after a bad round during the interview, of course not. Michelle Wie is the same way, she does not have the killer instinct, or the mental toughness needed to compete at the highest levels of golf(PGA tour), she has not yet proven she has what it takes to win at her level, how is she going to compete at the next. My head hurts from debating this topic. There is no eveidence that you can show me that women are ready to truly compete against men in golf. You have your opinion(which you are entitled to) and little else. I have the entire history of mankind, science and guys like Tiger Woods and Ernie Els on my side. How do you like them apples?
02/27/06 @ 22:16
Comment from: David Meyers [Visitor]
Gordon,
Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel.
I am not saying that women will take over the golf world for goodness sakes. I am saying they are reaching similar popularity though. The argument about the difference in skill is not to say they will be competing in one tour or will they win anytime soon. The argument is that they are making strides. I was a biology major in college; you have no information for me that I am not already aware of. If you are not aware of the physiology of golf, this is your fault. Brute strength does not make a great golfer. Check the stats. With the exception of Tiger, very few big hitters have won a tournament!. I have included the links above if you do not believe me.

It is not a sprint or a weight lifting competition, it is golf.
02/27/06 @ 22:27
Comment from: Gordon [Visitor]
OK, lets talk about the short game then. Name a women currently playing that has the type of game from inside 100 yards to be able to compete against the best in the world? There isn't one. Why are men's short games better, who knows but they are. How about depth of the field. On any given weekend there are perhaps 50 guys that can win a tournament, actually nearly everybody has the ability to win and the ability to go low, really low. Michelle on her home course can't string together 3 low rounds, at the Sony Open again on a very familiar course she was only able to put together one good round 68 to offset one extremely bad round of 79. This as you know does not make cuts, let alone contend in tournaments. With Michelle it is the exponential growth theory all over again. People assume that she will continue to grow and progress at a fantastic rate, challenging the laws of science and nature. I believe she will improve, but not to the necesary level. For the other women, no chance. You scoff at power, but surely you must admit you need to have some length to contend on courses which measure on average 500 to 1,000 yards longer.
02/27/06 @ 22:54
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Men are even better at putting.

Alex,

Not only are these folks allowed to operate machinery and drive cars, but they're even allowed to vote. Hence Lady MacBeth.
02/27/06 @ 23:27
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Hey u_p and Alex they even let some of us fly jets. Send me your GPS coordinates and the next time I'm on a run I'll turn on the lav overflow tube heater and drop a gift into your backyard.

Blueball away!
02/28/06 @ 06:37
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Gordon,
You make some very valid arguments, but also some flawed ones.

Your argument about the 50 yard driving average being too much to overcome is indeed correct.
However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that women who hit the ball around the 230 yard mark are going to make any inroads into the mens game.
It is only a small percentage of women who would have the physical ability needed.

The point is, as David Meyers said, golf is not a brute strength game. There are many issues involved.

Women's short games are far behind mens, as an average.
Putting is way behind also, as Under Par said.
However there is absolutely no reason why women should not be as good as men at putting.
The reason that they are currently behind is due to strength and depth. There are currently better structures for men, and more men playing the game.

In David's blog, he notes the increasing popularity of the womens game. This, in my opinion, will bring more women into golf and it is that, which will increase the strength in depth, and there will be a bigger pool of talent. Among these you are bound to have some longer drivers of the golf ball. They won't be topping the pga tour driving stats, but they will be very adequete, just like most pga tour winners are.

As regards the short game, it is again strength in depth. There simply haven't traditionally been the same opportunities for women. That is why they are behind in the game. I can tell you, having played the game for years, that when you get inside 100 yards there is no exceptional strength required as you suggest. At that point the game evens out completely between the sexes, but of course the men are better because there have been more of them competing at that level for longer.
02/28/06 @ 08:05
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Gordon said:
Girls like Michelle Wie are already starting so far behind that by the time she matures and gets her total game together, the J.B. Holmes, Carmillo Villegas's and countless others will be light years from her, they actually already are.
******************************

These guys are talented, but in 5 years they will be no further ahead of where Phil Mickelson is at the moment. So the mens game isn't really going forward as much as you may think it is.
02/28/06 @ 08:07
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
I agree with Norman, there are a lot more men competing at golf. My daughter's high school has an active golf program for boys, but none for girls. I think that's pretty typical. When you play golf, how often do you see teenaged girls playing?
02/28/06 @ 08:15
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Gordon said:
and there are issues regarding mentality--Morgan Pressel billed to be one of the great up and coming talents and a tenacious competitor cries like the school girl she is after every tough loss, can you imagine Ernie Els crying after a bad round during the interview, of course not.
*****************************

I don't think the 35 year old Ernie Els would cry after a bad round no. However, playing in the junior ranks there were many boys of 17 who cried after bad round.
Actually there is one quite successful professional, who cried after I beat him in a junior amateur competition.

People need to understand that there is absolutely nothing wrong with crying. Roger Federer, possibly the greatest tennis player of all time, regularly cries.

Morgan Pressel will probably grow out of it. She is only 17 years old. In any case, I don't think any of us expects her to try out on the pga.
02/28/06 @ 08:57
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Gordon said:
Girls like Michelle Wie are already starting so far behind that by the time she matures and gets her total game together, the J.B. Holmes, Carmillo Villegas's and countless others will be light years from her, they actually already are.
****************************

JB Holmes is nearly 24, and Carmillo Villegas is 24 years old.
You can be pretty sure, that theses guys have peaked physically.
Michelle Wie is 16 and it is likely that she has more physical improvement to come.

There are a number of things wrong with comparing her to them:
- Firstly these two guys are perhaps the most exciting talents to come through on to the pga tour in years. Why exactly does she need to measure up to the very best? Most of us are hoping she will be able to hold a tour card. Those guys should win many many titles each.
- Those guys have 8 years more experience. How was their form when they were 16 years old? How was it when they were 20 years old?
- In the next 8 years, whether you think Michelle will improve physically, surely you will admit that it is likely that her other play will improve. Her wedge play has improved dramatically recently. I think her putting is even getting a bit better, but she does have many little areas of her game that should improve with experience.
02/28/06 @ 09:07
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Gordon said:
I have the entire history of mankind, science and guys like Tiger Woods and Ernie Els on my side.
****************************

Actually Ernie Els thinks that Michelle will be able to compete against the men.
Tiger Woods says that she will be able too. Some people claim that Tiger Woods is just being PC, but I know for a fact that Ernie Els believes it.
02/28/06 @ 09:09
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, On another thread, John Neal was "hoisted on his own petard" when he was out-classed on the subject of English grammar. David Meyers came up with this gem on this blog:"I just love the possibilities for women." A few more comments like that and we might have to "hoist him on his own LEOTARD."
02/28/06 @ 09:30
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
That's the way Alex.
If you can't win the golf argument, make it an English language debate.
Unfortunately for you, this is a golf blog.
02/28/06 @ 09:55
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Norman, Who is trying to win any argument? I'm sort of like Michelle Wie, winning isn't that important. Who keeps score on the wins and losses on this board? No, Norman, I don't want to win anything, a few good laughs will do just fine.
02/28/06 @ 10:05
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex, LOL -- leotard.

Norman,

There's nothing wrong with crying -- how PC of you. Quite frankly, men should be a bit more stoic, especially in public.

Secondly, depth is a factor I have considered myself. And while it definitely plays a role, you're naive if you say that there's "no reason" why women shouldn't equal men in short game skills and putting. The fact of the matter is that the differences between the sexes amount to more than just muscle mass and bone structure. Men judge spatial relationships better, for instance, and this would help in the short game arena. Moreover, while the gap between the sexes varies from endeavor to endeavor, being great in some things and smaller in others, there are few areas in which the best men aren't better than the best women. As my girlfriend is wont to say (she's a woman who acknowledges reality): "A woman can do anything a man can do . . . just not as well."
02/28/06 @ 11:06
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, Our problem is that we just haven't accepted the 21st century role which has been assigned to men by the liberal establishment. Norman can be excused since he is a Brit and they have always been big on the touchy-feely aspect of things. As for David Meyers, he is probably just another of the guys who has taken the bait and become a feminized, boot-licking metrosexual. I was raised in a pretty tough neighborhood. We used to refer to guys with similar attitudes as having "sugar in their shorts."
02/28/06 @ 11:44
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
As the senior man posting on this board, maybe I can shed a little light on this subject. I've been married to a terrific woman for close to 53 years. I've raised to adulthood several offspring of both sexes. I have several grandchildren of both sexes and four great-granddaughters, so I know a few things about the differences between the sexes. Women are equal to and better than men at many things but sports of any kind are not among them. Women have what is without doubt the toughest job in the world, that of bearing and nurturing children. No man can ever do either thing with any success. Women also excel at tasks such as changing diapers, refereeing battles among siblings, knitting, crocheting, embroidery, and baking pies. On the other hand, men do much better at jobs like extinguishing large destructive fires, erecting the steel for skyscrapers and bridges, composing great musical masterpieces, conducting the world's premier orchestras, destroying the enemy in armed combat, and finally, Golf. There are things for everyone. Men and women will gravitate to those things they do best It can't be otherwise.
02/28/06 @ 13:06
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex,

I couldn't agree more. By the way, I was raised in the Bronx myself.

And those Brits . . . poor feminized saps; not as bad as the Swedes (I don't know if you're aware of the state of that sick nation), but they certainly could use a dose of testosterone. Have you ever noticed how many Englishmen have hyphenated last names? I don't think I have to tell you what that is indicative of.

It's a funny place, this world in which we live. There's no happy medium anymore. We have the Islamic world, where woman are treated like chattel, and then the West, where men wear rubber suits. Nowadays maledom willingly stands astride, doing its penance as it receives a collective boot in the groin from the malevolent feminists. Then, all it obediently says in reponse is, "Thank you, m'am, may I have another?"
02/28/06 @ 13:20
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par,
There's nothing wrong with crying -- how PC of you. Quite frankly, men should be a bit more stoic, especially in public.
*******************************

Whatever your personal views, they are just yours, but surely as a former tennis pro, you must admit that Roger Federer is certainly one of the greatest players of all time, and by far the best at this stage. I don't think his lack of stoicness has affected him too badly in his tennis career. Did you watch the Aussie Open winners ceremony?
Whether a sportsman cries or not has no effect on him being a winner.
02/28/06 @ 13:49
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
Men judge spatial relationships better, for instance, and this would help in the short game arena.
***************************

You are just generalising. It is said that women are better multitaskers than men & men are better at reading maps. Some of these can prove true in a majority of cases, but you should be careful to not generalise too much.
I don't think Annika for instance has difficulty judging spacial relationships.
02/28/06 @ 13:52
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex said:
Norman can be excused since he is a Brit and they have always been big on the touchy-feely aspect of things.
****************************

The Brits are actually much less touchy-feely than American. People in Britain are much less affectionate and people don't use near as many facial expressions as Americans do. There is a stiffer upper lip, don't show emotion mentality, so Under Par should be very much in his element in Britain.
02/28/06 @ 13:56
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Man, go to work for a little while and the world answers. Alex, your comments are appreciated for what they are, humorous. You are cracking me up over here. I couldn't be more manly if I wanted to be. I presently wear a beard, chew tobacco, curse, and slap women around for fun. You should join me, it's quite exciting.

In all seriousness there is nothing metro about me. I actually think men are by far the inferior sex physically. There is, and never will be any denying it. My argument for golf is different because it is not so much a physical game.
02/28/06 @ 14:01
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
John Z said:
Women also excel at tasks such as changing diapers, refereeing battles among siblings, knitting, crocheting, embroidery, and baking pies.
******************************

Actually men are just as good at any of those things.
It might be difficult for you to believe, but men do chance diapers these days, and do it just as well as women.

Men and women can be equally as good at any particular job, unless it is something where the male physical dominance is important.

As someone who has played golf for many years, there is an element of physical strength that can give some advantage, but it is primarily a game of skill.

In my opinion, men will continue to dominate the pga tour, but there isn't any reason why some women cannot break onto to tour.
02/28/06 @ 14:01
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
David Meyers said:
My argument for golf is different because it is not so much a physical game.
*****************************

That is the whole essense of this debate. If we were talking tennis, who would give women a chance?
But golf is different.
02/28/06 @ 14:04
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
I meant women were the inferior. Freudian slip?
Darn it all to the island of Lesbos...
02/28/06 @ 14:07
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
John Z,

I agree with what you say; we're usually on the same page. But I'll tell you something funny. You mentioned crocheting, and I told mentioned what my girlfriend said about men and women. Well, strangely enough, she was telling me about how men tend to be better at most things, and she mentioned a crocheting competition (I know, uncanny). Well, she said that the winning entry was a quilt made by a man.

Women are better at nurturing children, though.

02/28/06 @ 14:14
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
I picked up on that slip, David. Hmm, indicative of a fetish of yours perhaps? Do we have to start calling you David "Rubber suits and whips" Meyers?
02/28/06 @ 14:16
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Norman,
I wouldn't give women a chance in any other physical sport. Tennis is much more reliant upon physical prowess than golf. I have to say though, there is a girl who is going to State for wrestling at 165 lbs. This is one of the most difficult weight classes in Washington. Pretty amazing, if you ask me.
02/28/06 @ 14:18
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Under Par,
That's sick and wrong... Wait, let me think about that one.
02/28/06 @ 14:20
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Maybe that's just indicative of how poor the competition in Washington is.
02/28/06 @ 14:21
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Norman, Yes, I've seen all those tough guy Brits fluttering about in Piccadily Circus. You won't give one of them any sass unless you want to get hit with his purse. About the only masculine guys I saw or met with in England were Irish, Greek, Italian, Polish, or Spanish. The quality of virtually all sports in the UK at the secondary school and university levels has declined dramatically along with Britain's decline in patriotism and national pride. The way I saw it, the "stiff upper lip" has given way to the "limp wrist."
02/28/06 @ 14:59
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, I don't know about the rubber suits, but some of these Wiemen should live in rooms with rubber wallpaper. Norman, I don't know much about changing diapers, but since you are obviously an expert at that example of British masculinity, I'll take your word as gospel truth on the subject. Incidentally, how are you at baking Christmas cookies? Do you excel at petit-point?
02/28/06 @ 15:14
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Alex,
Why do you not want men to cook? Obviously you aren't aware that most of the best chefs are men.

As regards the British thing. I have stated on several occasions that I am not British. However as I am sure many other professional golfers could tell you, Britain is a good place to set up a base for yourself if you want to play on the European Tour.

As regards the whole gay thing. What country doesn't have gays in it? The USA certainly has plenty.

How about your recent Oscar nominated film that people are raving about. A film that I am glad that it's topic is known so openly, so that I can avoid watching it.

By the way, you think that Brits are weak. Then you think that golf is for strong people.
It might be worth noting, that for the Ryder Cup team that absolutely hammered the USA, 9 of the 12 European players were from Britain and Ireland.
02/28/06 @ 15:45
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Norman,

You said "You (Under Par) are just generalising."

I couldn't agree with you more. They are experts in generalizing everything.

We should send them money so that they could have opportunity to travel and meet people around the world to enlighten their narrow twisted mind. :)
02/28/06 @ 16:13
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Well, Brian, perhaps there's something you've overlooked. Norman has said on numerous occasions that men are superior to women in endeavors involving physical strength, which is a generalization. Moreover, we generalize all the time, and rightly so.

When white people or men are cast as having advantages in society, it is a generalization. (Men don't, by the way.) If you say that men are taller than women, it's a generalization, however, it's also true. (Note: intelligent people understand that there's an assumed qualifier there: "generally speaking.") And, if you say that certain neighborhoods can be dangerous, it's a generalization. But it's one you ignore at your own peril, as you'd learn if you traversed their streets at midnight sporting gold chains and flashing wads of cash.

Lastly, Brian, never forget that people never shy away from making PC generalizations. For instance, men are more violent, men are more likely to comit crimes, men cause more auto accidents, etc. You're young, so you should understand this: you're being played. You're living in the Matrix, and the liberals guard all the gates and hold all the keys. Take the pill.
02/28/06 @ 16:41
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Oh, Brian, I forgot to mention something. I agree with you -- you should send me money.
02/28/06 @ 17:50
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Under Par,

If you are intelligent enough to understand that "there's an assumed qualifier there: 'generally speaking'", you should also understand that "generally speaking" has underlying definition - range, spectrum. Got it?

Let me explain in detail just in case your feeble hard-wired mind cannot comprehend. :-)

For example, I can say "The Black are better basketball players than the White but I cannot claim that no white player is better than a black player.

So I am against those who claim that a woman cannot compete in the PGA tours based on "generally speaking".

So give me a reason why a woman cannot compete in the PGA tours without saying "generally speaking."


02/28/06 @ 18:13
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
You must have ignored ":)" on my post. :-)
02/28/06 @ 18:16
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, Brian asked on the other thread, why he was ignorant. I thought I had explained it adequately, but now I think I should elaborate. Brian, I believe your ignorance can be blamed on any of three things: Heredity, environment, and lack of education, or possibly a combination of all three.
02/28/06 @ 18:18
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
Alex,

You han't answered my question. I didn't ask what led me into my ignorance.

Which of my claim made you think I am ignorant?
02/28/06 @ 18:29
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Brian said:
So I am against those who claim that a woman cannot compete in the PGA tours based on "generally speaking".
****************************

Brian has stated it well there.
Generally men are better golfers, but that does not mean that there are not women who can compete at a very high level with the men.
02/28/06 @ 19:44
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Brian,

It seems as if you're having trouble categorizing issues in your mind. You didn't criticize me in your post on the basis that I was saying a woman shouldn't be on the PGA Tour. You condemned me for generalizing, plain and simple. Now, I'll be happy to move on, but first you'll have to be man enough (or boy enough) to cede the point in QUESTION and admit that you overreached. Tell me that you understand that generalizations are valid if based on sound judgement. Then, once you have shown me the courtesy of a response germane to the issue YOU raised, we can put it to bed, and then I'll show you the courtesy of going where YOU want to with the debate.
02/28/06 @ 20:56
Comment from: John [Visitor]
Under Par, you are the one who apparently has difficulty catagorizing issues. Let me review the steps of the argument for you.

You stated: "Men judge spatial relationships better, for instance, and this would help in the short game arena."

Norman responded: "You are just generalising." He then proposed Annika Sorenstam as an example of a woman who has no difficulty visualing spatial relationships in the short game.

Brian agreed with him stating: "I couldn't agree with you more. They are experts in generalizing everything.
"

So far we have a debate on the premise that top level professional golfers are not examples of the general population, but individuals whose abilities may deviate very significantly from those of the population in general.

It was at this point that you responded attempting to defeat their arguments by stating that generalizations are used all the time and trying to redefine the debate on grounds where you felt more secure, and then proceeded to demand that Brian concede the debate to you. Your strawman refutation won't fly.

Neither Norman nor Brian ever suggested that generalizations are not commonly, and effectively used every day when refering to large groups of people. They simply stated that generalizations never apply exactly to a given individual and that top-level professional golfers are top-level because they are superior to the general population at what they do. Yet you among others consistently try to prove that specific individuals can not exist because they do not fit the mold of the general population.

Neither Norman nor Brian need concede anything to you. However you may wish to concede to them that they, in fact, carried the day on the premise that was actually being debated.
02/28/06 @ 22:16
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
John,

Thank you for backing me and Norman. I couldn't have said better.
02/28/06 @ 22:28
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, Our friend John has evidently assigned a whole lot of cerebral, intellectual weight to the incoherent , adolescent ramblings of little Brian. He apparently doesn't realize that in the pecking order of Wie sycophants, neither Brian nor himself has a Chinaman's chance of making the first cut. He's going to have to show a lot more substance than his last post of gobbledygook if he wants to get in the club. U-P, don't you just love it? The Wiemen get more absurd every minute. These Wie kooks are a barrel of laughs.
02/28/06 @ 22:46
Comment from: John [Visitor]
Alex, am I to take it from the generally incoherent rambling of your preceding post that you are trying to find a way to graciously exit the field?
02/28/06 @ 23:01
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alan,

What I want to know is how many Alans will John be awarded? Also, does Brian qualify to compete for the Alan Cup, or is there an age restriction like in the LPGA?
02/28/06 @ 23:52
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
John,

You seem to have trouble following an argument yourself. Firstly, I never said what you attributed to me, namely,

"Yet you among others consistently try to prove that specific individuals can not exist because they do not fit the mold of the general population."

That was never my argument. I have said a number of things relating to this, and I'll enumerate the relevant ones for you.

1. I said that Bubbles has done nothing to deserve exemptions and shouldn't be granted them.

2. I have said that in a sane civilization women would not be encouraged to nor would want to compete with men.

3. I have made generalizations regarding male superiority in the physical arena.

Now, let's see if you can assimilate the following: I never used number three as a rationale to buttress numbers one or two. When making my most recent generalization (the one in question) I was responding to Normy's assertion that men enjoy no advantage in golf other than those relating to power, a perception that is completely erroneous. Thus, your point, John, amounted to a non-sequitur and has just been blown out of the water.

As for Normy's point about Sorenstam, he's displaying "female" logic, which is perhaps a symptom induced by residence in Britain. Even if Sorenstam were an example of a woman who was any man's equal in the judgement of spatial relationships, it would be nothing but anecdotal evidence. However, Sorenstam is no such thing. Although her putting and short game have improved, she may not even be the best on the women's tour in that department -- and she pales in comparison to scores of men.

Brian,

Again, I responded to your knee-jerk criticism regarding generalizations. While I don't blame you for such a misstep (modern schools don't teach students how to reason), it's nothing but a rhetorical device. So, I repeat, put that issue to bed -- which is only fair since you raised it -- and we can forge on.
03/01/06 @ 00:30
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, with all these newbies like Brian and John surfacing, the committee for the Alan Cup may find it necessary to upgrade the standards. We're finding that what was considered bizarre just six months ago is now mainstream with the Wie kooks. As for Brian and any other juveniles who might emerge, until his spelling and usage of punctuation improve, he will not be granted adult status, but will remain in the junior category indefinitely.
03/01/06 @ 09:01
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Where have all the defendable arguments gone? The reason for this blog was to get reasonable arguments from both sides of the spectrum. I'm right because...
03/01/06 @ 12:05
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Oh ya,
Is there anyone who disagrees with LPGA getting exposure, or is this now an obvious statement? In my last blog, people hotly disagreed. Now, it seems to be a moot point. Perhaps it is even overdone. If we exclude the infamous Wie, does the LPGA get comparable exposure?
03/01/06 @ 12:08
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
David Meyers,
Comparible exposure to what?
If you mean comparible to the pga, I think it doesn't.

The lpga is improving in exposure, and it is improving in play quality. However it is starting from a low base.

I think the standard of the best women in womens golf will improve over the next few years in a similar fashion that happened in tennis. The big difference is, no matter how skillful the women tennis players get, they have little chance of a career with the men. In golf, when there are a few women of Annika's skill level, then some of them are bound to have the required physical attributes that will also make them ready for the pga.
03/01/06 @ 14:17
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
However, Sorenstam is no such thing. Although her putting and short game have improved, she may not even be the best on the women's tour in that department -- and she pales in comparison to scores of men.
*****************************

You also stated: "Men judge spatial relationships better, for instance, and this would help in the short game arena."

Under Par,
When you refer to spatial relationships I assume that has much more to do with approach shots. With a wedge in hand, Annika would be one of the best players on the pga tour. I would count her certainly in the top 20.
Her difficulty is in getting the ball to such a point where she can use her wedge often enough.
03/01/06 @ 14:22
Comment from: Dylan [Visitor]
The LPGA is certainly getting exposure, but on par with the PGA, not a chance. All one has to do is look at television ratings, sponser money, prize money, endoresments(you did want to exclude Wie) and off-field earnings. There are currently only 3 women in the top 50 money earners in golf that is on course and off-course money earned. Looking at these criteria I would have to say that the playing field is leveling ever so slightly, but still a long, long way to go. As far as your claim that women will contend in three years on the PGA tour, I have to beleive that you are simply writing that staement to elicit readers. The only current women's player is struggling to win on her own tour right now. I think it's safe to say that if she can't currently beat a light hitting former future's tour player, then she's not ready for the men.
03/01/06 @ 14:31
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Dylan,
Great comment. That's what I'm looking for. You have great points and facts to back them. I understand that the viewership is not very close (which should be the criteria), but what about the buzz surrounding the support. Do you think this counts for popularity at all? Trully, I'm not sure myself. It is definetely worth conversation.
03/01/06 @ 14:43
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Norman,
Are you counting viewership solely? I think I showed that interest is there simply by showing the number of sites that pull up their names. I do, however, acknowledge they have suffered on the television side of things. Do you think this will change?

Dylan,
I also wanted to mention that I don't think they will be winning any time soon, but the possibility for making top tens might be in the near future. Don't get me wrong. The LPGA is still far off the PGA, but I really do think the gap is narrowing ever-so-slowly.
03/01/06 @ 14:48
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex,

Yes, the level of the competition has improved markedly. And we can't attribute to changes in the equipment, either. Unless the human is undergoing cellular alteration.
03/01/06 @ 15:19
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman,

No, the ability to judge spatial relationships has little if anything to do with hitting long wedges because, as you know, being a golf pro, they become grooved shots where you know exactly how far a given wedge will travel with a given swing. I was referring to shots hit from around the green, where one has to improvise, look at the green and pin, assess the distance the ball needs to travel, and then hit the shot based on feel. Sorenstam is at best mediocre in this area by PGA Tour standards.
03/01/06 @ 15:27
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Man, I don't know how I left out two words when posting this initially.

Alex,

Yes, the level of the competition has improved markedly. And we can't attribute this to changes in the equipment, either. Unless the human brain is undergoing cellular alteration.
03/01/06 @ 15:30
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, Not only has the level of competition improved markedly, the depth of the field has increased exponentially. Some of these Wie Warriors are stretching imbecility to the limit. Their cluelessness knows no bounds. Brian, for example, is a shining example of the effects of the new math, word-sight reading, and outcome-based education.
03/01/06 @ 15:49
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Under Par,

I have never heard of women having a lack of depth perception, where would I find that information? That is definetely interesting.
03/01/06 @ 15:51
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
DAVID IS AN IDIOT
03/01/06 @ 16:35
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
David, the biggest flaw in your argument is that women peek in athletics at 18 so there is very little room for potential for Wie. Men stop growing at 21 so your comparison with Woods and Wie at 15 is frivolous.
03/01/06 @ 16:38
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
David M,

I didn't say that women lacked depth perception, rather, I mentioned spatial relationships, which they don't judge as well as men. And, although I do view many of these pronouncements with a suspicion, this is something that seems to be well established and it certainly has long been claimed.
03/01/06 @ 16:53
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Mike,
Thanks for the compliment. Someone who has no idea what they are talking about and then insults me, makes me feel better. Had you insulted me, and then made some type of sense, I would be more worried that I was off base. If you read any of my blogs, there is no such comparison. I think it disrespectful to Tiger to compare him to an underaged girl with much to prove. I have an idea. Read before you comment, research before you make judgement, and most importantly don't make yourself look dumb.

I have always believed "you are not ignorant until you open your mouth and prove it."
03/01/06 @ 17:18
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Mike said:
David, the biggest flaw in your argument is that women peek in athletics at 18 so there is very little room for potential for Wie.
******************************

We are so lucky that Mike has informed us of this.
Perhaps it would be nice if Kelly Holmes had been aware of this information and quit her athletics career years ago.
Instead she pointlessly continued until she was 35, when she won her first olympic gold medals. She won the 800 metre and 1500 metre double.

If only Mike could have informed her of his information, maybe she wouldn't have bothered.
03/01/06 @ 18:12
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Under Par said:
as you know, being a golf pro, they become grooved shots where you know exactly how far a given wedge will travel with a given swing.
***************************

If only it was that easy.
But okay but I think you agree on the distance control that Annika is up there with the best men.

As around the greens, she has improved and I'd mark her as above average on the pga, although not much. It is her accuracy with short iron and wedge play that I would consider outstanding, and is much better than the average pga tour player.

The spacial is something I don't really know much about. I don't particularly think there is any reason why a woman can't be as good as men around the greens.
Feel is gained by practice, practice and more practice in my opinion.
03/01/06 @ 18:22
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Norman, you said you're not English, but I can tell you're not American. Are you Australian or South African?
03/01/06 @ 18:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, Your treatise on spatial relationships as relates to women is reasonably accurate. However, at the risk of being deleted or banned from this blog, I will say the main dimensional problem with women's perception is not spatial but linear. You see, the wives and girlfriends of the Wiemen on this thread have been conditioned to believe that three or four inches are actually six or eight.
03/01/06 @ 18:40
Comment from: John [Visitor]
If anyone wishes to study the issue of spatial relationship abilities differing between men and women, a good starting point is the article referenced by the link above. It reports the work of a team of scientists the the Johns Hopkins Institue.

They report that the area of the brain responsible for processing spatial relationships is on average 6% larger in males than in females and most likely accounts for the observed difference between the sexes in males innate spatial relationship skills.

They conclude:

"To say this means men are automatically better at some things than women is a simplification," says Pearlson. "It's easy to find women who are fantastic at math and physics and men who excel in language skills. Only when we look at very large populations and look for slight but significant trends do we see the generalizations. There are plenty of exceptions, but there's also a grain of truth, revealed through the brain structure, that we think underlies some of the ways people characterize the sexes."

In other words, there is a difference, however it is very small and hard to detect. Other studies also show that after a training course in spatial relationship techniques, the initially percieved difference vanish.

So when neophyte golfer approachs a green for the first time, males will have an advantage over females in determining what shot or putting stroke to make, after a short period of instruction from a qualified instructor this innate difference will vanish and they will be essentially equal in their spatial relationship skills.
03/01/06 @ 20:02
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
Norman wrote "Perhaps it would be nice if Kelly Holmes had been aware of this information and quit her athletics career years ago.
Instead she pointlessly continued until she was 35, when she won her first olympic gold medals. She won the 800 metre and 1500 metre double."

This was against women and you are completely ignorant about body development. Women start growing before boys at the age of ten and stop growing when they are 18. Men catch up to women in their early teens and continue growing till they are 21. What part of this don't you understand? You are putting men on the same growth scale as women. Why don't you get your head out of your politically correct ass?

David wrote "No one is ignorant till they prove it opening their mouth"

Such as yourself.
03/01/06 @ 20:16
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
John,

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to your analysis, regardless of whether or not it's symmetrical with that of the article. The fact of the matter is that the study of sex differences and the relation of the findings are virtually ALWAYS colored by the feminist spirit of the age. (I have written articles on this very subject.) In other words, whenever it's found that men are superior in an area, it's always diminished or rationalized away. If you don't realize this, you'll simply be played like a fiddle by the propagandists who, by the way, toil away feverishly.

Alex,

Your thesis regarding the endowment of the Wiemen and their women's perception thereof may warrant grant money and further study. However, perhaps Wiemen are very adept at creating optical illusions. After all, illusion certainly seems to be their stock in trade.
03/01/06 @ 20:30
Comment from: John [Visitor]
Mike, re: "you are completely ignorant about body development. Women start growing before boys at the age of ten and stop growing when they are 18."

Thank you for clarifying that! I was under the mistaken impression that both boys and girls began growing shortly after conception and increased quite noticeable in size prior to their 10th and 13th birthdays.
03/01/06 @ 20:49
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par,

Why, you are such a stubborn goat! :-) Where in this board did I post my "criticism regarding generalizations itself?"

You must be too old to remember how to reason you learned at old schools :-).

03/01/06 @ 21:14
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par, said : "The fact of the matter is that the study of sex differences and the relation of the findings are virtually ALWAYS colored by the feminist spirit of the age. (I have written articles on this very subject.) In other words, whenever it's found that men are superior in an area, it's always diminished or rationalized away. If you don't realize this, you'll simply be played like a fiddle by the propagandists:

******

You are using exactly the same strategy you accuse the "propagandists" of using. Anything that contradicts your preconceived notion you dismiss as "colored" without arguing it on it's merits. Sounds like you are the propagandist?
03/01/06 @ 21:19
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par

You always pretend to be intelligent and glib but your shallowness is beyond imagination.

You said "Sorry, but I don't subscribe to your analysis, regardless of whether or not it's symmetrical with that of the article."

Yeah, right. How convient it is to say that! Sorry, but I don't subscribe to YOUR irrational argument( bull shit in your term.)

How low it is to say that everything you disagree with is "virtually ALWAYS colored by the feminist spirit of the age."

For god's sake, back up your argument with objective facts, please.

You virtually always say something like 'my girlfriend is wont to say (she's a woman who acknowledges reality): "A woman can do anything a man can do . . . just not as well" in order to prove your point.

Looks like you are the feminist.
03/01/06 @ 21:44
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Brian,

First of all, I'm young enough so that I can probably still beat you in a race, just so you know, kiddo.

Secondly, I'll post what you said about generalizations:

Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
"Norman,

You said "You (Under Par) are just generalising."

I couldn't agree with you more. They are experts in generalizing everything.

We should send them money so that they could have opportunity to travel and meet people around the world to enlighten their narrow twisted mind. :)"

So, I take it then that you agree with me on generalizations.

Lastly, I'm sorry, but I can't refute the claims of feminist-inspired junk science on this board and do the matter justice in the time I'm willing to devote to posting. If I was willing to divulge my identity, I'd refer you to the articles I've written on the subject. However, while I can understand why you might not be aware of the phenomenon I'm speaking of, owing to your youth, I'll be harder on John. If he would get his nose out of the sports pages and read some good social commentary, he'd stand a better chance of having his finger on the pulse of our culture.

I will tell you this, though. A columnist named Carey Roberts (No, he's not me! And, unlike me, he IS old) has written scores of great articles about feminism. And while I think it's safe to say that he has never exposed feminist junk science the way I have (no one has), his work can enlighten many minds. Put his name into a search engine and you'll find him easily.
03/01/06 @ 22:03
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Paul W.,

You sound like a liberal, in which case reasoning with you will be fruitless. You have a spiritual disease.
03/01/06 @ 22:31
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, perhaps it is fruitless to argue with a liberal, but, nonetheless, this blog is full of fruits. U-P, has the tenor of our repartee escaped the notice of the geniuses on this board?
03/01/06 @ 22:46
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Under Par, I'm a moderate, but I'll take being called a liberal by you as a compliment. Maybe you should stick to journalism where you don't have to deal with people you don't accept your pearls of wisdom.
03/01/06 @ 23:00
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
Alex, Under Par and you are a riot, you remind me of Ralph Cramden and Ed Norton.
03/01/06 @ 23:04
Comment from: David Meyers [Visitor]
Mike,
Again, thank you for proving my points. Ignorance has a way of pointing itself out. Very intelectual banter, "Such as yourself." What is that? What you say bounces off me and sticks to you? Please... Also, if you are going to use quotes, quote them correctly.
03/01/06 @ 23:12
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Alex,

I think our tenor has escaped them.

Paul,

A moderate is usually just a liberal who doesn't know he's a liberal.


03/01/06 @ 23:20
Comment from: John [Visitor]
As did your soprano, alto and bass.
03/01/06 @ 23:28
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Alex,

You haven't answered my question yet.
03/01/06 @ 23:54
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par,

I assume you are a conservative.
03/01/06 @ 23:57
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Folks,

Sorry about sidestepping from the topic - GOLF.
03/02/06 @ 00:01
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
No, Brian, I'm not. I'm a radical.
03/02/06 @ 00:07
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par,

  • I sincerely apologize if I said insincerely and rudely on my previous messages.
  • I understand your stance without necessarily agreeing with you.

03/02/06 @ 01:21
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par

You said: you might not be aware of the phenomenon I'm speaking of, owing to your youth

You should be old enough to grasp my point I am referring to.

03/02/06 @ 01:41
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
I think Michelle Wie is the best female golfer of her age at present time.



03/02/06 @ 02:46
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
That's quite okay, Brian, you seem like a nice kid. How old are you, by the way?
03/02/06 @ 03:13
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par

i aM 11 yEaRs oLd. hOw olD ArE yOu, sIr?
03/02/06 @ 04:08
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Alex

You said: "You see, the wives and girlfriends of the Wiemen on this thread have been conditioned to believe that three or four inches are actually six or eight"


Since the Wiemen don't believe that "the dimensional problem with women's perception is not spatial but linear" and you seem to have known that FACT for long time, you must be the one who have been conditioning your wife and girlfriends to believe that (YOUR) three or four inches are actually six or eight.

Alex, now would you please be kind enough to provide us with your tips on how to condition them to believe that three or four inches are actually six or eight.

I can't wait to practice your expertise.
03/02/06 @ 04:33
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Alex,ne more thing, I will gladly secede from the Wiemen if you allow me to become your apprentice in ... well, you know what I am talking about, don't you?

Please, please, please.
03/02/06 @ 04:45
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Brian J, Is there snow on the ground where you live? Can't you go out and play in the sandbox? You know, BJ, the juvenile drivel you post is hard enough to decipher without you exascerbating the situation by using a variety of type. Maybe your garbled nonsense might get a few comments when it's written as grafitti over the urinals in the school latrine, but on a board frequented primarily by adults it is boring. I really think that eleven is not your age but your IQ.
03/02/06 @ 09:13
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Under and Alex and the rest of you,
Are there any more comments about golf? Not to be a prude, but I'd like this to be a forum for golf enthusiasts. There are many great political sites I can refer you to if you'd like. Also, I hate it when Alex refers to my IQ score like it is a bad thing.

Funny, ha ha?
03/02/06 @ 10:27
Comment from: Stacy Solomon [Visitor]
Perhaps as the women gain in popularity the purses will gain in strength.

It would be nice to see the LPGA top prize be on par with at least the Champions Tour dollars.

It's unfortunate that these same women golfers must journey over to the PGA Tour in order to get recognition, but that will change as articles such as these continue to be written.

Keep spreading the word David!
03/02/06 @ 11:33
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
David, The title of this blog 9s "Women vs. Men part ll. Several posters here have tried to inject some common sense into the discussion but to no avail. You and others like you simply cannot rid yourselves of the unreasonable notion that girls, lanky spindly girls, will someday soon be competing successfully on the PGA tour. You refuse to even consider the obvious differences in physique, strength and stamina. When told of these obstacles to the quixotic misadventures of Bubbles, the reply is frequently along the lines of, "Why do you hate Michelle?" It is difficult for a mature person to maintain a civil attitude in the face of such intransigence. You have seen fit to chastize UnderPar and me. It would be wise for you to peruse some of prose put forth by Brian J and others and then issue another scolding.
03/02/06 @ 12:08
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Alex,
There is no scolding going on here. I actually enjoyed the banter. Didn't I make the tongue touching my cheek obvious enough. Refer back to my IQ, you'll know what I mean.
03/02/06 @ 12:34
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Stacey,
Checked out your swing, and your right. That is a pretty good swing.
03/02/06 @ 12:42
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Alex,

I am so sorry, Alex. I must have estimated your IQ too high. Since your IQ is not so high enough to decipher my previous comment, I am going to decipher for you.

You said: "You see, the wives and girlfriends of the Wiemen on this thread have been conditioned to believe that three or four inches are actually six or eight"

Since the Wiemen don't believe that "the dimensional problem with women's perception is not spatial but linear" and you seem to have known that FACT for long time, you must be the one who have been conditioning your wife and girlfriends to believe that (YOUR) three or four inches are actually six or eight.

Alex, now would you please be kind enough to provide us with your tips on how to condition them to believe that three or four inches are actually six or eight.

I can't wait to practice your expertise.

One more thing, I will gladly secede from the Wiemen if you allow me to become your apprentice in ... well, you know what I am talking about, don't you?

Please, please, please.
03/02/06 @ 13:50
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
david meyers,

I apologize for my insistence on going off-the-topic with Alex. I promise I will stop after Alex enlightened me on ... you know what.
03/02/06 @ 13:58
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
No problem, by all means. But I have to say, this game of inches is a new low on any of my blogs. Still entertaining, though.
03/02/06 @ 14:06
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Brian J, If you want to be a stand-up comic, you should try to think up your own lines. If you want to keep choking your chicken, feel free to do so. It's quite normal for adolescents. David has instructed that we should write about golf. Do you know ANYTHING about that subject?
03/02/06 @ 14:08
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Brian,

Like Alex, I do find it hard to believe that you're eleven. But if you are, then I suppose I'm thirteen.
03/02/06 @ 15:38
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Is Under Par and Alex the one person?
I wonder if Alex is just someone Under Par made up to back up everything he says or is Alex just a facinated kid who think Under Par is cool and wants to be noticed by him.
If anyone reads these comments frequently they should notice Under Par saying something, then quickly Alex comes up with something like "hey Under Par arn't all these Wiemen really silly", "hey Under Par how many Alans do you think this guy is worth".
03/02/06 @ 15:42
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Johnny,
I think they enjoy the same opinion about women. Because of this, they are usually in the same ballpark about comments.
03/02/06 @ 16:19
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par,

I am actually forty years old. How old are you?
03/02/06 @ 16:25
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Brian,

Forty? Really? If true, that's a coincidence because I'm forty also.
03/02/06 @ 16:52
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Gordon said : "On any given weekend there are perhaps 50 guys that can win a tournament, actually nearly everybody has the ability to win and the ability to go low, really low"

Hmmm, that means if We makes a cut on a PGA tour then, I guess, she has the ability to win and the ability to go low, really low according to Gordon's theory.

"Hooray" It is really fantastic news for fans of Wie because wining a PGA tour seems as easy as making a cut.

Well, Gordon might say "I didn't say 'ALL' but 'NEARLY EVERYBODY'," but I am sure he will have to pinch his brain really hard in order to come up with another theory that Michelle cannot belong to "NEARLY EVERYBODY" when Wie actually makes a cut.
03/02/06 @ 16:57
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Brian J, Hey dummy! Yeah you, Brian! The number that make the cut on the PGA tour is 70 and ties not 50, so Gordon is right! Brian, get back to your coloring book.
03/02/06 @ 19:04
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
An open declaration to all Wie Warriors: Brian J is one of yours. He is on your side. He and others like him will lead you on to ignominious defeat. You should all be proud. Brian is a microcosm of the future of American liberalism.
03/02/06 @ 19:25
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par,

I am glad we have something in common. Well, maybe we might have more in common than I think. :-)

I have also noticed that you have something Alex lacks - CLASS.

As you and I know, you get wiser as you get older IN GENERAL but Alex proves that the generalization doesn't work for some individuals.
03/02/06 @ 20:24
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Brian J, your post is at odds with one of your other numbskulls. Your pal Johnny N thinks that UnderPar and I are the same person. Can you folks possibly be that clueless or are you just pretending?
03/02/06 @ 20:40
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Alex,

You said: "The number that make the cut on the PGA tour is 70 and ties not 50, so Gordon is right!"

Who said that the number that make the cut on the PGA tour is 50? Please quote me on that.

You are now starting to show a symptom of CDS(comprehension deficit syndrome). Please see your doctor.
03/02/06 @ 20:47
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Alex,

I don't agree with Johnny N about you and U_P being the same person.

Even though I don't agree with Under Par on many things, he has class and much higher comprehension skill.
03/02/06 @ 20:54
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Wie Warriors is a new term and I like it. If thinking she has a chance to make a cut makes me a Warrior, so be it. Let's get'm warriors!
03/03/06 @ 11:37
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
I acutally don't think Alex and Under Par are the one person.

I merely suggested that they might be because Alex was licking up to Under Par so much.
03/03/06 @ 12:04
Comment from: david meyers [Visitor]
Believe it or not, I am but one man.
03/03/06 @ 14:12
Comment from: Paul W [Visitor]
I'm not sure Alex is a person at all. I think of him as Under Par's loyal lap dog.
03/03/06 @ 14:32
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
The story with Alex and I is nothing more than great minds think alike. We also understand that it's a little strange when grown men start to worship a teeny-bopper.
03/03/06 @ 16:24
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
I should have said, "Alex and me."
03/03/06 @ 18:13
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Well said Paul W.
03/03/06 @ 21:45
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Under Par said "We also understand that it's a little strange when grown men start to worship a teeny-bopper."

I realize that it's even more strange when grown men start to aberrantly accuse a teenage girl.
03/03/06 @ 23:44
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
UnderPar, your characterization of the Wiemen as grown men is way too generous. Aside from Brian J who is obviously a semi-literate teenager, the rest of that bunch could be better described as limp-wristed, effeminate metrosexual pansies.
03/04/06 @ 08:59
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
It is very strange that mature men would be so infatuated by if not enamored of a sixteen year old girl. She is as much a matinee idol to these birds as Betty Grable or Lana Turner was to the GI's overseas in my day. They probably have that SI picture of Michelle scotch taped to the walls of their bedrooms. Maybe they also like to loiter around the schoolyard when the girls are having recess.
03/04/06 @ 11:06
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
John Z said "It is very strange that mature men would be so infatuated by if not enamored of a sixteen year old girl. She is as much a matinee idol to these birds as Betty Grable or Lana Turner was to the GI's overseas in my day. They probably have that SI picture of Michelle scotch taped to the walls of their bedrooms. Maybe they also like to loiter around the schoolyard when the girls are having recess."

His remark seems to come from his own experience.
03/04/06 @ 17:17
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Brian J, When are you going to start using your own material? Maybe try drama class. Public speaking. Creative writing. Brian, try learning SOMETHING. In your case anything would help.
03/04/06 @ 18:03
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Alex,

Did you forget to take your pill or to see your doctor?

I don't think you are in a position to advise someone. Cure yourself first before spitting out your nonsense.
03/04/06 @ 18:33
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Alex, there isn't a thing wrong with Brian J that a good,tough Marine drill instructor couldn't fix in three months of boot camp at Parris Island, SC. All that sass would be gone and he might even learn respect for his elders and those who are a lot more intelligent than he is. Brian J, when you're old enough you might try enlisting in the corps. I've seen several smart alecs like you turned into real men with the right guidance and discipline. Semper Fi!
03/04/06 @ 19:27
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
John Z,

I just realized that John Z is the alter ego of Alex.
03/04/06 @ 20:04
Comment from: John Z [Visitor]
Brian J, you're not even close. I was born on 13JULY1930. I think Alex is around 60 years of age. I worked as an ironworker for all my laboring life. Alex is still a practicing attorney. You should read these threads a little closer. You guys are really funny. Another Wie fan had Alex and Under Par down as the same guy.
03/04/06 @ 21:28
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
John Z,

You said:
  1. "Brian J, you're not even close."


LOL, I thought that Alex is the only person who suffers from CDS(Comprehension Deficit Syndrome) on this board but you just proved me wrong.

You should be old enough to be able to read between the lines. Why do you think I said that?

  1. "I was born on 13JULY1930. I think Alex is around 60 years of age. I worked as an ironworker for all my laboring life. Alex is still a practicing attorney"


Thank you but no thank you for divulging your personal history for me, which I could care less. You have not shown me any credibility so far for me to believe your personal story. However, I am always willing to accept your sincerity but I think you should try a little harder at this juncture.

  1. "You should read these threads a little closer. You guys are really funny. Another Wie fan had Alex and Under Par down as the same guy"


Well, what can I say? I hate to copy your animadversion but here you go: YOU should read these threads a little closer.

Johnny N said "I acutally don't think Alex and Under Par are the one person.

I merely suggested that they might be because Alex was licking up to Under Par so much."



03/05/06 @ 01:31
Comment from: Brian J [Visitor]
Alex licking up to Under Par and John Z licking up to Alex. What's next? Well, maybe Under Par will be licking up to John Z next time.

I think they must have indulged themselves too much in a moive called "The Three Musketeers"
03/05/06 @ 01:50
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
John Z, you nailed my age pretty good. I'll hit the big six-0 on Sept 16. Yes, I am an attorney in corporate law here in the Chicago area. I have two, maybe three years until retirement. For twelve years I've been a member of a private golf club in Barrington Hills. That will probably send some of the posters here into a tizzy. I don't get to play much, maybe 20 times a year. Most of this has been already mentioned in passing on these blogs. I think that the reason our young friend, Brian J, thought that we might be the same person is that we both have made references about the Marine Corps in the past. I believe your service was in Korea. My service didn't begin until 1967. I was 18 months in country in Vietnam with most of the heavy stuff being around Hue and ,of course, Khe Sanh. Semper Fi! Brian J, God bless you, son.
03/05/06 @ 09:49
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
David Meyers,

Are you happy with the discussion on your blog.
It's not so close to the original blog, is it?
03/05/06 @ 11:24
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Johnny N, if you want to know how this blog got off subject, check out the post I made 03/02/06 at 12:08, and the one you made at 15:42 on the same date.
03/05/06 @ 14:27
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Actually Alex, go between those posts and it is already getting off topic.
Sorry if I offended you, I just thought you were looking to Under Par for reassurance, a little too much in your comments.

As regards the women versus men thing, men will dominate the top level of golf. There are very few women capable of playing the game at that level.
Furthermore, at my local club, men far outnumber women, so that simply stat displays how difficult it is for women, not to mention physical disadvantages.

There may be some women on the pga tour at some stage, but probably not that many.
As regards competing for titles, that sounds ambitious.
03/05/06 @ 18:26
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Johnny N, There is only one thing on which we differ. In your opinion, there are very few women who can compete with men on the highest levels of golf. In my opinion, there are no women who can compete with men on the highest levels of golf. That is a minor difference of opinion, but it is significant nonetheless. I will go further and state that barring a major miracle, no one alive today will live to see a woman compete with men on the highest levels of golf.
03/05/06 @ 20:17
Comment from: Under Par [Visitor]
Johnny N.,

What you've observed is that Alex and I have directed comments at each other, and why shouldn't we? Common sense is very uncommon, and the few people who possess it will have a tendency to gravitate toward each other.

What fellowship hath light with darkness?
03/05/06 @ 22:51
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
Golf doesn't take any physical skill. A baseball weigh's 5 pounds while a golf ball weigh's 1.3 pounds. So a baseball that is hit 400 ft(5 div 1.3)=1538/3 with wood is the same as hitting a golf ball 512 yards. Next a golf shot is determined where the ball rolls to and not where it lands. So hitting a golf ball with the same but opposite formula as above is the same as hitting a baseball with wood at 234 ft on a roll, so these golfers are not super athletes.

Finally, getting into professional golf tournaments requires nothing more then a $3,000 entry fee. So this is not like Arod joining the Yankees.
05/04/06 @ 12:53
Comment from: Amelia [Visitor] Email
mike, you're wrong. golfers are athletes. there's no comparing golf to baseball
im terms of the weights of the baseball and the golf ball.
10/11/06 @ 11:51

Comments are closed for this post.