If Danica Patrick can win in the IRL, a woman can win on the PGA Tour

I'm not saying racing isn't tough, but c'mon. You can't back into a tour win based on something like fuel mileage.

I think it could happen eventually too.

I believe the number one golfer on the LPGA Tour should be invited to at least one PGA Tour event each season. I think the Ocho could definitely make a cut, maybe not the first time, but the second or third.

Michelle Wie's abuse of the invitation shouldn't have made inviting women to PGA Tour events taboo. Inviting a TOP LPGA player is no different than inviting John Daly.

Since I know Wolfie's dumb but not this dumb, I'll assume he has issued this stupid piece to evoke responses. Auto racing is driving a car; golfing involves a degree of physicality. 'Nough said.

By Bob Margolis, Yahoo! Sports

Danica Patrick’s first IndyCar win in the Japan 300 was more a triumph in public relations than auto racing.

It didn’t happen as the result of a final lap, wheel-to-wheel battle, one that many close observers of the sport feel she will never win.

It instead was more a battle between the race engineer’s computers on the Andretti Green team and that of her rival Helio Castroneves’ Penske Racing team. It was a matter of who would get the best fuel mileage in the final handful of laps of the 200-lap race.

Both drivers had made their final pit stop on Lap 148, and when race leader Scott Dixon was forced onto pit road for a final splash of fuel, it became an opportunity for both Patrick and Castroneves to win – in a fuel mileage battle.

Castroneves is the IRL points leader and was racing with that in mind. Instead of gambling on running out of fuel or making a pit stop which would have had him finishing farther back in the field and scoring fewer points, Castroneves instead lifted his foot off of his gas pedal just enough to save fuel and reward Patrick with the victory.

The win was the result of a well-calculated move – pure and simple.

However, to her and her team’s credit, a win is a win no matter how you get it. And Patrick did execute the team’s strategy perfectly.

In a moment of postrace enthusiasm, team owner Michael Andretti, himself a winner in several fuel mileage battles over his illustrious career, referred to Patrick’s win as being the first of many.

Perhaps. Or maybe it will prove to be nothing more than an anomaly.

Patrick’s win came against a shrunken field of competitors, one which was devoid of the last two series champions (who both left the open wheel series to race in NASCAR), not to mention lacking any of the Champ Car drivers, who were in Long Beach, Calif., competing in Sunday’s finale for that series before the two – IRL and Champ Car – unite for good.

Only 18 cars took the green flag in Japan – six to eight fewer than will be competing when the two series are reunited at Kansas Speedway next weekend – and just seven were running on the lead lap at the checkered flag.

Despite her having only won in go-karts and not while driving in a professional auto race, Patrick has been able to command a legion of fans, perhaps for no reason other than she is a woman participating in what most regard as a man’s sport.

And after tiring of fending off questions about when she would win, she distracted her detractors by posing in swimsuits and making suggestive ads for her sponsors.

Patrick’s victory may temporarily quiet her critics, and likely will help draw much-needed attention to a sport that at one time in its history was more popular than NASCAR and didn’t have to rely on a pretty face to garner headlines or cash in on the notoriety of a driver who is known more for winning a dancing contest on television than his two Indy 500 wins (see Helio Castroneves).

To her credit, Patrick remains a model for young women everywhere. It may be a model of how persistence, a pretty face and the willingness to take the heat can pay off in the end.

Her skills and courage behind the wheel of an Indy car is not in question. It takes considerable amounts of both to enter Turn 1 at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway with your foot to the floor.

And cast no doubts about it. Her victory is the first ever by a woman in Indy cars.

But not the first in auto racing.

Women have been winning at the highest levels of professional auto racing for years.

Drag racers Shirley Muldowney, who is now retired, and more recently Melanie Troxel have shown that women can compete and win in what is presumed to be a man’s game – driving race cars capable of speeds well over 300 miles per hour.

For now, Patrick’s lone victory is more a marketing executive’s dream. She can now be identified in her product endorsements as IndyCar “race winner” Danica Patrick instead of just Indy car driver.

In some ways, the pressure is off. Now Patrick can focus on scoring a more “traditional” victory and establishing herself as one of the series’ top drivers.

And if Andretti is correct, and this is her first of many victories, then her impact on the sport could be historic – especially if she can duplicate it in the Indy 500, when actual open eyes will be watching, not just the bloodshot ones that witnessed her graveyard hour win in Japan.

Until then, this win leaves itself subject to scrutiny.

Veteran motorsports writer Bob Margolis is Yahoo! Sports' NASCAR reporter. Send Bob a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.

Hehehe ....

1st Annika said she couldn't compete on the PGA Tour when she said "I know where I belong". She only beat a handful of tour players. I would love to see Lorena try to qualify for the PGA Tour but she won't given the gravy train she has on the LPGA. She would have had to finish T2 at the Verizon to make more money than she did at the Ginn. Now I ask you, which is harder to do ? Ochoa could accept a few sponsor's exemptions if she wants to try and prove something and it would be great for golf. My opinion is she would miss the cut but I could be wrong, she's mighty good.

you can't compare racing with golf, it's well known
that you don't need to be the best driver to win, but you have to have a good car, good strategy, good team,
etc. So, if you put a good driver (in this case
Danika) in a car with a good setting with a good team
your chances to win are high.

I'm sure Lorena can beat many men, of course, but to
win a tournament is very unlikely. She's in disadvantage with her driving distance. Her driving distance is about 275 and tiger's is 310, in the lpga she's the best, what number would she ranked in driving distance among men?

Justine Henin could compete among men? Im sure she coudl beat some of them, but not the top 10's

Omar,

I'll forgive you since you're a laymen, but you assessment of Henin is further off than you could ever imagine.

I'm a tennis pro (not active anymore), and I can tell you for a fact -- yes, a fact -- that the best female tennis player cannot beat the 500th-ranked man. In fact, the women can't beat the ranked junior boys and college players they practice with (they don't practice with each other generally).

I could say more, but I addressed this at length on these boards a long time ago and don't feel inclined to do so again. Suffice it to say, however, that the gap between the sexes in tennis is far bigger than most believe. (I'll do a search and see if I can find my little explanation.)

Omar,

I found my old post. Here it is:

Women's tennis is the BEST example of the phenomenon in question (I'm a tennis pro, by the way, so I know whereof I speak).

And I'll cut to the chase. You mentioned women's tennis precisely because you've bought into the illusion that they can hold a candle to the men, an idea that has been cultivated by the feminist enablers in the media. Now for a dose of reality.

The truth is that the gap between men and women in tennis is huge, perhaps greater than in most any other sport. Of course, as I said, the average uninformed person wouldn't know this, what with the media's bending of the truth.

Let's start the famed "Battle of the Sexes" between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. Most people know that she won but are woefully ignorant of the rest of the story. King was 29 years old and ranked two in the world on the women's tour; Riggs was a 55-year-old man who was between 20 and 25 pounds overweight at the time of the match. He hadn't competed on the men's tour in decades and only drummed up interest in the match because he desperately wanted to get back in the limelight, make money, and partake of the tennis boom that was occurring in the 1970s. Moreover, the year before he pulverized Margaret Court, the number ONE female player in the world, 6-2, 6-1, in a match dubbed the "Mother's Day Massacre."

Truth be known, Riggs wasn't even that much of a male chauvinist. When he first decided that playing the women would be a great vehicle through which to get publicity, he approached many of them and simply asked for a match, saying things like, "C'mon, you could probably beat an old man like me with one hand tied behind your back." But they wouldn't bite, finding him intimidating and not wanting to get involved. It was then that he started using the chauvinism ploy to evoke interest, realizing that with the feminist movement reaching a crescendo, he could play the public like a fiddle. And he did.

What you didn't hear about was that after the Riggs/King match, King played 35-and-over player Eugene Scott and was destroyed, despite having been given a huge lead.

More recently, Kaarsten Braasch (ranked 203 in the world at the time), a German player, played one set against each of the Williams sisters down in Australia, annihilating both while playing at 50 percent. Then we had the handicapped match where Jimmy Connors played Martina Navratilova. He gave her half the doubles alleys and was allowed only one serve, and he still beat her in straight sets, despite choking badly (he really did).

Of course, people like myself, who are in the know, understand that female pros lose to male college players and highly ranked teenage boys all the time. Who do you think they practice with, my friend? Not with each other, I can tell you that.

I myself used to be a sparring partner for a women ranked between 20 and 25 in the world when I was a teaching pro (many moons ago). I had a bad back at the time, and, still, she never took a set off me. By the way, she was a gal who had wins over women like Pam Shriver and Gabriela Sabatini.

There are probably 10,000 guys who could beat the best female player, and that, folks, is no exaggeration.

The operative word in Wolfie's whole post was "someday". BTuck, smart boy that he is, picked up on that. Oddly, I find myself agreeing with the Wolfman on this one.

There may very well be a time in the future when a woman does win a sanctioned PGA tournament. I do think that a woman will probably make a cut at a PGA event long before one ever wins, though.

Who will it be? That seems like it would have been a much more interesting subject for a blog than 'will someone ever'.....but then, that's our boy Wolf. ;)

BV,

That "someday" will never come. As for making a cut, I myself have said that if you give any good player enough chances, eventually he will make a cut -- even if "he" happens to be the best female player in the world.

However, making the occasional cut doesn't constitute competing on a tour. It's meaningless, except to those with little understanding of golf.

By the way, Tadd Fujikawa finished 20th in that Sony of a year or two ago, yet it can't even be said that he is competitive on the PGA Tour.

Oh, and I suggest that you men get your testosterone levels checked. Continue in this vein, and soon you'll be Swedish.

Lorena has no desire to "play with the boys." She is really in her comfort zone and presently there are only six to ten players that have any chance of beating her.

You will never find a sports writer say that she wears her skirts too short since she never wears skirts. Unfortunately Ms. Wie has not learned anything from Lorena and has no desire to learn from her in the future.

Far be it from me to disagree with such an exalted personage as the Judge...but in this one specific instance, I do think he's wrong. And only in stating a female-type person will not or cannot win a men's PGA event.

There are any number of 'weak field' PGA tournaments where a highly skilled female athlete (Lorena or Annika for example) could SOMEDAY conceivably grind through 4 days and win.

This is one of those 'agree to disagree' discussions...I don't think there are any "real facts" that would prove or disprove either position...

I think a big point in this discussion concerning women competing with men in golf depends upon the course. Lorena Ochoa would have a much better chance of making a cut or competing against the men on a shorter (LPGA) course. If you put her on a long course, like the one where the 84 Lumber tournament was played last year, I do not think she would fare to well. But on a shorter course, she would probably hang in there ok.

BV and Lance R,

It is axiomatic that the strongest indication of a certain occurrence taking place is if that occurrence has ever happened previously.

Since no female, even the best in the game, has ever won a PGA tournament, or even made a cut in a PGA tournament since Babe Zaharias more than a half century ago, it is safe to assume that it will never happen; that is, a female winning a PGA event.

Wishful thinking will not make it happen, nor will ridiculous arguments such as those proposed by Wolfie do the impossible.

In another vein, but nonetheless pertinent to the subject, perhaps those of you who remember July 20, 1969 can relate.

On that memorable date, Neil Armstrong first step onto the sutface of the moon. Exhilaration swept the world and especially the US. Even scientific magazines were gushing that by the year 2000, space travel to the moon and beyond would be commonplace. So where is it? It would appear that the world has once again come down to earth. Even the Concorde has been scrapped. Supersonic air travel has been abandoned indefinitely.

But I'll tell you what: Whole cities will be transported entirely to the outer reaches of the galaxy in giant flying saucers before ANY woman ever wins a PGA tournament.

Alex USMC 1969-73

ummm, Judge....you MAY know a bit about the inside of sports BUT I hope you'll accord me the same latitude in speaking as a person who has worked at 6 different NASA sites over the past 18 years: the "real reason" we haven't gone anywhere other than to the Moon a few times is strictly political.

It has ZIP to do with the technology or the desire/courage of the astronaut crews. It's liberal weasels like Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee (D, TX) who gutted the space program to fund touchy-feely hand-out programs. She went on record as saying the government should 'close the NASA sites and use the money to build homes for poor people' ... and her district includes Houston and the Johnson Space Center! ;)

Got to say though...."because someone has never done something" is a 'fact' supporting "that person CAN NEVER do something" is specious logic. Learned that in Philosophy 201.

BV,

It seems that you have mistaken me, Alex, for my comrade, Judge Smails.

My statement was that the "strongest indication of an occurrence is if that occurrence has happened before." That is more than obvious.

My reference to the space program was parenthetical.

I agree that Sheila Jackson(D)TX is a moonbat of the first magnitude, but her monumental stupidity had nothing to do with the grounding of the Concorde.

Alex USMC 1969-73

BV,

I am mystified as to why an otherwise astute and intelligent fellow such as you would continue to cling to an untenable position like the possibility of a woman being competitive and even winning on the PGA tour. Has the political correctness epidemic been that successful?

There are literally thousands of things that women will never accomplish. No female will ever climb K2 wearing a bikini and flip-flops. No woman will ever swim the breadth of the Atlantic Ocean towing an aircraft carrier. All right, that's being silly. But getting more realistic as concerns the world of sport, here are just a few accomplishments achieved by men that women will surely never emulate.

For instance, no woman will ever run 100 meters in ten seconds or less or 200 meters in twenty seconds or less or one mile in four minutes or less. No female will ever polevault twenty feet or more. No woman will ever hit for a .350 average or pitch a no-hitter in the Major Leagues. No woman will ever lead the NFL in tackles while playing middle linebacker. No woman will ever lead the NBA in blocked shots. And no female will ever become the middleweight boxing champion of the world.

The reasons that these things are unattainable for the fairer sex are obvious. Why then do you and others insist that something at least as far-fetched, a woman winning on the PGA tour, is within the realm of possibility? I await your answer and your reasoning.

Alex USMC 1969-73

Alex,

I was going to mildly interject with the obvservation that it would also be a bit far-fetched to suggest that a man could give birth ..... but there you go - another American first.

Thank you - I can now add "moonbat" and "wingnut" to my vocabulary.

Wendy,

For once, you are correct. And as far as I know, no man anywhere would at all care to usurp from women their most sacred trust and duty, that of giving birth. There is a very good reason why Divine Providence has seen fit to populate the Earth with more than trhee billion women.

We do have our share of colloquialisms and jargon on this side of the pond, just as the English, Irish, Welsh, and Scots have theirs.

I am particularly taken by the jargon of the Irish, especially that of the Western counties.

Alex USMC 1969-73

Alex,

Not your usual sharp-tongued response - but perhaps you were missing my point that it was more far-fetched to think a man could give birth than for a woman to win a PGA - until
Thomas Beatie of Oregon, USA, begged to differ?

Despite having an Irish grandfather from Cork (doesn't everyone?) I am not familiar with Irish jargon. Whilst he may have used jargon with his military comrades, I cannot recall him ever doing so at home.

Wendy,

We seem to have gone pretty far afield from golf or sports in general.

But since you initiated such a titillating discussion, I'll put in my bit.

The Thomas Beattie to whom you referred seems to have a rather unusual physiological conformation. Also, his chromosomal makeup may also be in question.

To put it in the vernacular of the northside Chicago neighborhood in which I was raised, "he's more girl than boy," and "he has a little sugar in his shorts." In Land's End, he would be referred to as "a bit of a pansy."

As far as it being an American thing, I've seen a few technically male Brits fluttering about in Picadilly Circus and also Leicester Square. They seemed to have more than a little "sweetener in their briefs."

Alex USMC 1969-73

Alex,

I assure you that I was commenting on which story one would find MORE far-fetched - a man giving birth or a woman winning a PGA tournament, so I thought I was on subject. I'm sorry you didn't find it funny. Nationality didn't come into it (and Tim thinks I'm the one who is paranoid) - I just thought as he was American you would have at least heard the story, whereas if it had happened in say, Sweden, it may not have made the news Stateside, and you wouldn't have recognised the reference.

I'll skip on these particular phrases in the Chicago vernacular, thanks all the same, although I have made a note of "scuttlebutt" from one of your previous posts. I did have a wonderful visit to Chicago many moons ago, but can't remember any particular jargon, colourful or otherwise.

WKW, BV, Lance R, et al,

If any of you people still believe that a female will ever win a PGA event, perhaps these figures from the recently completed LPGA and PGA tournaments will enlighten you.

The SemGroup was played on a course 6,602 yds.long. The Wachovia was played on a course 7,442 yds. long, 840 yds., almost one-half mile longer.

In the LPGA event, only two golfers scored under par, each by two strokes. None scored even par or even one under par. Even Lorena Ochoa, the number one female, could do no better than three over par.

In contrast, 48 golfers shot par or better in the PGA event, with the winner going 16 under par on the longer course, one known for tough greens and many hazards.

Now, the two who did break par on the LPGA course were not a couple of upstarts who just got lucky. No, they were the numbers four and nine players according to the latest rankings. One was a veteran member of the LPGA Hall of Fame, and the other was the first-ranked young star on that tour.

Lorena's three over got her a tie for 5th, while a three over would have gotten a tie for 55th in the PGA event.

Granted, the ladies played their first two rounds in strong winds, which hampered scoring. But the winds subsided a lot in the third round, and conditions could have not been more benign on Sunday. Yet, the two top ladies could only muster a combined score of even par, which was still good enough to get them into a playoff. No other woman could muster any challenge.

No woman could get on any of the relatively short par 5's in two.

Now, really, guys, do you actually think that any woman will ever win a PGA tour event?

If you do have any such delusions, please supply your rationale. Thank you.

Alex USMC 1969-73

I wish they WOULD beat us arrogant dudes (I'm no jock.) in a meaningful tennis match. But why do you suppose they lose?? Is it speed, brute strength? There are plenty of women who could outsquat and out bench press Mcenrue or Agassi. There is a difference in fast muscle fibers and also lung and heart capacity. Maybe give the ladies the new 2 pound oxygen tanks during the match. Tennis players are NOT gorillas folks. ebettman@yahoo.com

Thad,

Your post is far too confusing for me to decipher, but I've got to tell you, this thread is about golf, not tennis---or weightlifting---and why would you like to see a woman beat a man in any sport, especially since you aren't a jock.

Alex USMC 1969-73

Alex,
Parts of my response were directed to Judge Smails, and indeed parts (esp the space section) were in response to yours - should have separated them for clarity. My bad!

I certainly CAN see a woman running a sub-4 mile, and possibly achieving the other 'track-related' objectives. Human physiology IS changing...and since we've not set any time limits on these....well, you see my point.

It's seriously doubtful a woman will achieve anything in the NBA or MLB - since they are effectively excluded from participation at present and for the forseeable future...

As regards the 'round-by-round' breakout of two matches on the same weekend...recall what I said about a woman competing in a 'weak field' PGA event. We could surely make other round-by-round comparisons that would show one winning at such an event...*S*

I believe I said at the end of my first post that this is one of those areas where rational folks just 'agree to disagree'.

BV,

For a woman to run a sub-four minute mile, you could put a time limit of 10,000 years on it and still I'd be safe. The same goes for the other athletics related subjects.

My guess is that you have at least one daughter or female relative who excels in sports, and your thinking has become skewed on the subject after watching her compete.

Track and Field is a sport at which I would probably qualify as an expert, having competed on the college level and while in the military service. But don't take my word for it, just ask anybody who has coached the sport or even been a spectator at elite competitions. Track and Field News has an excellent website.

Although female human physiology certainly is changing, it hasn't affected the performances of women in the sport in question. In fact, times and distances have actually regressed for the ladies in the past ten years, especially at the high school and college level.

Most of the women's world records in the sport are at least ten years old, with several 20 to 25 years old.