If he were putting halfway decently, I'd expect him to be around 60 per round. There isn't that much trouble on the LPGA layouts and he'd reach all of the par 5s with mid irons tops. That's -4 right there. He'd be pitching into many of the par 4s, maybe reach 2 or 3... 62-63 per round at most.
Last edited by wazmankg : September 12th, 2006 at 01:04 AM.
The way things stand, there is in fact bias against men as far as golf goes. Up on the tours, women can play anywhere they like, men cannot. At club level, women are pushing for full rights which would mean that they can play any competition whilst men could not.
Going with the same logic, an able body athlete should be allowed to compete in para olympics.
There is no bias against men. Most people recognise that the average male golfer will be better than the average female golfer.
In the same way, the average 35 year old golfer will be better than the average 55 year old golfer.
That is why the lpga is there for women, and the champions tour is there for men over 50.
There may be the odd case where a man over 50, or a woman would be able to compete on the pga tour.
However that doesn't mean that the 35 year old guys should be able to go onto the lpga tour or the champions tour, and have a huge advantage over the vast majority of players and ruin those tours.
By the way as regards your statement:
It could easily be substitued for:
It is perfectly fine to have protection for men over 50 and for women.
However if the pga tour wants to claim it is the best, and it does, then it cannot exclude any players.
Ok...
Male golfer - PGA tours
Senior male golfer - Seniors and PGA tours
Female golfer - LPGA and PGA tours
Senior female golfer - Seniors, PGA and LPGA tours.
Now if you do the sums you will see that male golfers effectively have one choice, senior males 2, females 2 and senior females more. Thus, by the fact that 2 is a number bigger than 1, male golfers are restricted compared to the women.
As for it being the best, the inclusion of women on the PGA tours has uniquely managed to lower the quality of the golf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Putton
Going with the same logic, an able body athlete should be allowed to compete in para olympics.
Not the same logic... there is not a worldwide fuss to have a paralympic athlete competing against able bodied individuals. Even if there was and he/she was performing comparably to the golf case, no one would care because they would never make it to being 'seen' and thus no consideration of reversing the situation.
I really couldnt have cared less about where everyone played but the wacky fanaticism that I see has annoyed me soo much that I have taken side. I will not be alone in this and the blind faith of some is in fact creating even more opposition for them.
Male golfer - PGA tours
Senior male golfer - Seniors and PGA tours
Female golfer - LPGA and PGA tours
Senior female golfer - Seniors, PGA and LPGA tours.
Now if you do the sums you will see that male golfers effectively have one choice, senior males 2, females 2 and senior females more. Thus, by the fact that 2 is a number bigger than 1, male golfers are restricted compared to the women.
Why does it bother you? The LPGA and the senior tours exist so that less skilled people either because of gender or age (or I should say people with less physical ability) can make a living. The fact that a very small number people from the other tours get invited to the premier tour, shouldn't matter. What we should realise is that sponsors who pay their money often give invitations to people who represent their products.
It does not bother me and certainly the quality of a golf tournament is not diminished by a handful of seniors or a girl who get invited.
If he were putting halfway decently, I'd expect him to be around 60 per round. There isn't that much trouble on the LPGA layouts and he'd reach all of the par 5s with mid irons tops.
True, maybe even short irons on the odd one, because Michelle has mid irons on some of the them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wazmankg
He'd be pitching into many of the par 4s, maybe reach 2 or 3... 62-63 per round at most.
On most lpga courses he wouldn't be reaching any of the par 4s. The shortest are usually around 350 yards, and even if Tiger could reach it, he isn't very accurate with his driver.
Add to that, when there is a 350 yard par 4 on an lpga course, there is usual a severe dogleg at 250 yards.
You'd probably be surprised how many times all Tiger could do is take a mid iron off the tee, and not really gain much advantage on the tee shot over the other players.
True, maybe even short irons on the odd one, because Michelle has mid irons on some of the them.
I wouldn't go so far as to say she has mid-irons, particularly to a 480 yard par 5, for example, but on some of the shorter ones I could see Tiger hitting driver-wedge, driver-9 iron, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodney_c
On most lpga courses he wouldn't be reaching any of the par 4s. The shortest are usually around 350 yards, and even if Tiger could reach it, he isn't very accurate with his driver.
I'd be willing to bet if there were, say, 6 holes that were 350 or less, he'd hit one of them per round. Depends on conditions and layout, etc. He would definitely have a number of 50 yard and in approaches on par 4's.
I'd go Waz one better and say he'd crack 60 all four rounds (or 3, as the case may be) if he's putting well.
Add to that, when there is a 350 yard par 4 on an lpga course, there is usual a severe dogleg at 250 yards.
From what I've seen this is overstating it. I see several LPGA par 4s every week that do not have "severe doglegs" nor constrict the use of the driver. With the less severe rough on those layouts I suspect that it would be bombs away and a pitch for Tiger on most of them.
Why does it bother you? The LPGA and the senior tours exist so that less skilled people either because of gender or age (or I should say people with less physical ability) can make a living. The fact that a very small number people from the other tours get invited to the premier tour, shouldn't matter. What we should realise is that sponsors who pay their money often give invitations to people who represent their products.
It does not bother me and certainly the quality of a golf tournament is not diminished by a handful of seniors or a girl who get invited.
The golfers do not bother me, it is the fanaticism that surrounds. I am happy to see the golf, but when everywhere I look I see god worship of an individual who is actually failing, it just gets my goat. It really is that bad... it is a bit like arguing with religious fanatics!
Next we will be discussing how many tour wins and majors Tiger would win on the LPGA. What a nice philosophical topic. Again the answer to that is straight forward. He will be winning all the tournaments he plays unless of course some other men decide to join the LPGA tour which of course will no longer be called Lpga unless the men in question decide to depart with a certain part of their anatomy.
Let's face it - the minorities get liberties then raise a stink when the majority wants to do the same thing.
Men only golf clubs have come under pressure to accept female members and many of them have been forced to yield. Yet the LPGA is allowed to have "women only" in their rules. Why isn't this considered discrimination?
What is OK for one group should be OK for all groups. Anything otherwise only fosters further division and animosity.
For reference, the longest course on the ladies MAJOR circuit 2006 was 6616 yards. That is nearly 800 yards shorter than Medinah. It is also over 600 yards shorter than Hoylake where Tiger only hit irons off the tee all week.
Let's face it - the minorities get liberties then raise a stink when the majority wants to do the same thing.
Men only golf clubs have come under pressure to accept female members and many of them have been forced to yield. Yet the LPGA is allowed to have "women only" in their rules. Why isn't this considered discrimination?
What is OK for one group should be OK for all groups. Anything otherwise only fosters further division and animosity.
I guess for the same reason that we have womens athletics, womens basketball and football teams etc.
Not allowing minority or women groups a privelge that the majority or indeed men are able to enjoy is considered discrimination.
Because women can not physically compete with the men on equal terms, having a separate tour only for women, does not amount to discrimination. Simply that.
September 12th, 2006, 12:33 AM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
