Women vs. Men part II

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.

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.

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))

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I meant women were the inferior. Freudian slip?
Darn it all to the island of Lesbos...

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.

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?

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.

Under Par,
That's sick and wrong... Wait, let me think about that one.

Maybe that's just indicative of how poor the competition in Washington is.

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."

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?

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.

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. :)

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.

Oh, Brian, I forgot to mention something. I agree with you -- you should send me money.

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."

You must have ignored ":)" on my post. :-)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

John,

Thank you for backing me and Norman. I couldn't have said better.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Under Par,

I have never heard of women having a lack of depth perception, where would I find that information? That is definetely interesting.

DAVID IS AN IDIOT

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

Norman, you said you're not English, but I can tell you're not American. Are you Australian or South African?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :-).

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?

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.

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.