Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Paul Richards on December 04, 2002, 06:05:45 AM
-
Woman golfer to make history
Whaley decides to play in men's Hartford tourney
By Bruce Berlet
Hartford Courant
December 4, 2002
Making history and maybe a difference were too much for Suzy Whaley to pass up.
For Whaley, being a pioneer and inspiration far outweighed any embarrassment from the bad scores she might shoot.
In late July at the TPC at River Highlands in Cromwell, Conn., Whaley will walk to the tee for the opening round of the 52nd Greater Hartford Open as the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event.
Whaley, a club pro from Avon, Conn., will compete against defending champion Phil Mickelson, the world's No. 2-ranked player, and 154 other males.
"A lot of things and time went into the decision," Whaley said before a golf magazine cover shoot in Orlando. She was posing with five other women, including LPGA superstar Annika Sorenstam and Martha Burk, chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations who is challenging Augusta National's exclusion of female members.
"I'm making history, and I think it's extremely special anytime you can say that," Whaley said. "I spoke to a lot of people who I respect, and they were all extremely supportive. I love golf, and this gives me an opportunity to play at a competitive level I've had the opportunity to play at before. I'm really looking forward to it. I think it's exciting."
Whaley, a 36-year-old mother of two, qualified for the GHO when she rallied to win the Connecticut Section PGA Championship on Sept. 17. She could have waited until a week before the July 24-27 GHO to make her decision. As it was, she said she wavered for weeks.
"It was a difficult decision initially because I was so caught up in performance that I was looking to plot a little on how exciting and how huge an opportunity it was," Whaley said. "But once I sat down and thought about it, talked to people I really respect and realized how much support I truly have, it was an easy decision.
"Being historic is important to me, but I think I'm more excited to go out and play, enjoy it and savor the moment. I don't think you get many moments that can compare to this."
Babe Didriksen Zaharias, an original member of the LPGA Hall of Fame, missed the cut in the 1938 Los Angeles Open, shooting 84-81. But she was invited to play, whereas Whaley earned her spot in competition. She will hit from the championship tees along with the rest of the field, playing a course that measures 6,820 yards.
"The course is a lot longer than I'm used to playing, but I'm just going to do the best I possibly can," Whaley said.
When she won the PGA Section Championship, she played at about 90 percent of the distance the men played, 6,143 yards to 6,843 yards the first 36 holes and 6,214 yards to 6,938 yards the final round. She shot 11-under-par 211 and won by two shots.
Whaley played four years at the University of North Carolina and was on the LPGA Tour in 1990 and 1993.
GHO tournament director Dan Baker called the decision "terrific."
"We anticipate tremendous media exposure because it's an international story," he said.
Breaking barriers
When Suzy Whaley tees off at the Greater Hartford Open next summer, she won't be the first woman to venture into an all-male sports world.
Shirley Muldowney and Janet Guthrie: The first women to venture into the world of auto racing. Muldowney was the first woman to win a National Hot Rod Association race (1976). Guthrie was the first woman to drive in an Indy 500 (1977) and the Daytona 500 (1977).
Diane Crump and Julie Krone: In 1970, Crump became the first woman jockey to ride in the Kentucky Derby. Krone retired in 1999 as the winningest female jockey in history.
Nancy Lieberman: Became the first woman to play in a men's professional basketball league when she joined the Springfield Fame of the USBL in 1986.
Manon Rheaume: Became the first woman in an NHL exhibition game when she played goalie for the Tampa Bay Lightning in 1992.
Ila Borders: The left-hander became the first woman to pitch in a men's college game when she took the mound for Southern California College in 1994, and the first to start in a minor-league game (1998).
Ashley Martin: When she kicked an extra point for Jacksonville State against Cumberland on Aug. 30, 2001, Martin became the first woman to play for a Division I football team.
-
Rheaume actually played Minor League Hockey in Indianapolis for our local team the ICE. I saw her play a couple of times. There wasn't a noticeable difference between her and the other goalie the team had at the time. At first many thought it was a publicity stunt to get her on the team, but she proved her worth.
Not that much can be said for the latest ICE acquisition in the last few weeks, Manute Bol. He retired before even taking to the rink because the laces of the skates hurt his feet.
::)
-
Imagine if by some miracle she wins. She would qualify for the Masters I believe. I wonder, would Martha still boycott? Would she pressure her NOT to play where she is pressuring to have women?
What a conundrum to root for!
-
Not that much can be said for the latest ICE acquisition in the last few weeks, Manute Bol. He retired before even taking to the rink because the laces of the skates hurt his feet.
::)
Chris --
For some reason, it seems I'll never forget this:
When Manute Bol was drafted by the Bullets, I was living in Washington and reading, religiously, The Washington Post.
Tony Kornheiser speculated (the next day, I think) about Bol's post-basketball prospects.
He guessed that when Bol retired, he'd become a speed bump.
-
Kornheiser and Philly's Jayson Stark are two of the best sports columnists I've ever read. There need to be more of them. I have a hunch that Mitch Albom in Detroit is good, too.
At least golf has Dan Jenkins and David Feherty.
Beside tending goal, Manon Rheaume is a knockout, too, not that that matters, right?
-
Over/under on Mrs. Whaley breaking 90 (or all four!) rounds??
-
Commentary in today's Chicago Tribune on the subject:
A BAD RULE LEADS TO 'HISTORY'
BY JEFF JACOBS
Jeff Jacobs is a sports columnist for the Hartford Courant
December 6, 2002
From the moment Suzy Whaley raised her arms to celebrate a victory that made her eligible to become the first woman to play in a PGA Tour event, there was no doubt the lure of history would be a powerful one.
After all, these are history-making times in the golf world, what with Martha Burk banging scalps with Hootie Johnson, the Archie of bunkers, over the all-male membership at Augusta National.
Whaley said she met Burk, the head of the National Council of Women's Organizations, for the first time this week. Now that she has made the decision to enter the Greater Hartford Open, Whaley is sure to meet many more famous people eager to--mistakenly--paint her as the next Jackie Robinson.
For any number of reasons, Whaley has gotten an easy ride of it since winning the 71st Connecticut Section PGA Championship in September.
Whaley is disarmingly charming and has followed the rules to the precipice of stardom. She has received some negative correspondence, but the majority urged her to play in the Greater Hartford Open. Support from the golf world, she said, has been overwhelming. Her family has urged her to play.
"We're so proud to have her as our champion," Connecticut Section PGA executive director Tom Hantke said. "She's a great player, a great mother and an exemplary golf professional."
A special guest at the annual meeting of the PGA of America five weeks ago in Philadelphia, Whaley received a standing ovation from the delegates.
"It was heartwarming," Whaley said.
But in the process of the growing national whirlwind, it's apparent some perspective may be lost. In the haste to yell, "You go, girl," we may end up--wink, wink--overlooking the competitive details of a spot absolutely ruled by competitive details. Any way you want to slice it, Whaley qualified by playing 90 percent of Ellington Ridge, site of the Connecticut section tournament. Her advantage from the tees as a woman did not make for a mockery, but there was some advantage.
She also followed the letter of the PGA of America rulebook and, thus, deserves to play in 2003.
What's disturbing is there appears to be no movement afoot to change the rules for 2004. In effect, whaley essentially qualified to run in the 26.2-mile Boston Marathon against the Kenyans with a 23-mile time.
Tournament regulations for PGA of America events are set by the national board of directors, Hantke said, and there are no changes in the wind.
"We did a study from all 41 sections subsequent and found there has been no woman member who has won any individual PGA member tournament of any kind, let alone a championship, since the regulation was put in place in 1994," Hantke said. "That's a great feat, and the purpose of the regulation is to encourage women professionals to play with their peers."
Whaley wants the rule to remain too.
The PGA Tour can choose not to extend an exemption to such qualifiers in the future, but the tour's feelings are evident by how thoroughly they have embraced Whaley.
It's fascinating. For Whaley to qualify for the PGA Championship, she would have to play from the same tees as the men through sectional, regional and, finally, national play in the PGA Club Professional Championship. Yet the same body stipulates that to get into Greater Hartford Open, she can play at a 90 percent distance.
At least she has to play from the championship tees in the GHO.
Maybe history is supposed to be written that competitive integrity doesn't matter. Maybe history is supposed to be written that women need a crutch. Maybe history is supposed to be written that the GHO isn't important enough in the golf world to make such an argument. But you won't find history being written that way in this space.
No matter how terrific a person Whaley is, no matter how "cool," in the words of Tiger Woods, it might be to have a woman play in the GHO, somebody needs to be brave enough to stand up and not let it happen again.
Whaley's husband, Bill, is director of golf at the TPC at River Highlands, Conn., and Suzy played from the championship tees twice in the last couple of months. Her scores?
"I'm not going to tell you," she answered.
-
I guess it's a good thing Mr. Jacobs doesn't work for the NY Times ....
:-X :-[ :-X
-
Some telling quotes:
> Her advantage from the tees as a woman did not make for a mockery, but there was some advantage...
>In effect, Whaley essentially qualified to run in the 26.2-mile Boston Marathon against the Kenyans with a 23-mile time.
???
-
Tell me where I'm wrong.
A 7200 yd course with a par of 72 equates to 100 yds per shot. She played a 6800 yd. course and received a 10% discount thats almost 7 shots per dieum or about 25 shots over four days. She won by two. Now I do think it's great that anybody can qualify for this goofy game but 25 shots seems like a lot.
phil-- I felt the way you did about women playing in the masters but after arguing with Sheryl last night over the "issue" it is about membership at ANGC, to them. To me it's about restricted covenants and free assoc. and the mere fact that it is televised has little in my mind to do with anything but in their minds it's everything. Go figure.
-
One of my new favorite people in the world is Michelle Wie, the young phenom from Hawaii. She has tried & will continue to try to Monday qualify for The Sony Open from the same tees as the big boys. She also stated one of her dream goals is to play against Tiger straight up from the same tees. Nice to see not everyone is looking for adjustments in the name of equity.
I also read in a fairly recent Golf Magazine article that Louise Suggs (?) beat some other big name pros straight up in the late 40s or early 50s on a par 3 course tournament. The article stated at that time that the LPGA played from the same tees as men. Anyone know any history on this? When did the different tee switch occur?
-
Good point about the Big Wiesy. Just making it clear - Suzy Whaley did not go out to qualify for the GHO from forward tees and never looked for any concession. She will be playing under sponsor's exemption.
(Untold in the media is that the event has had trouble finding a sponsor and her participation almost ensures near-record interest for the event that falls perilously close to the Tour's biggest summer tournaments.)
-
A few years back when Fred Couples used to have a charity golf tourney in Seattle, Laurie Davies teed it up from the same tee's as the rest of them and couldn't break 80. This was a time when she was still playing well and was a long as some men. I hope Whaley does well but I wouldn't have high expectations.
-
Dave:
I agree with your remarks regarding fairness.
John:
Your point is also very good. If the tournament wasn't having a tough time raising money and selling tickets, would they bother to give a sponsor's exemption to Mrs. Whaley?
-
I was very happy to hear Mia Hamm is getting married to a professional baseball player....a step back for the muffification of women professional athletes. I'm just not so sure how I feel about the equalization of standards among the sexes but I do know if given the choice...popping a Viagra hurts alot less than getting breast implants. It will always be most vital to let women have what the want as long as you give them what they need.
-
JakaB:
You NEVER fail to amaze me!
>popping a Viagra hurts alot less than getting breast implants
:o :-[ :-X :-* 8) ;)
-
Paul,
The GHO has always given a sponsor's exemption to the winner Connecticut PGA Section Championship. Sure it probably helped them to raise money, but it wasn't done strictly for that reason as you implied.
Adam,
Taking 10% off each hole would probably allow Ms. Whaley to hit the same clubs into the green as the men were hitting. On a 400 yarder, she probably hits her drive 25 yards shorter and the same iron 15 yards shorter which would make it fairly equal. If you've watched the Wendy's event each year, they usually set the course up so that the men and women are hitting roughly the same club into each green, which seems to work. Certainly if you took the same person playing a course that is 700 yards shorter your statement about playing a number of shots better would apply, but we are comparing peaches to bananas here. ;)
-
JohnV- Your reasoning is illuminating and the methodology seems sound and I know I know the gentleman who came up with those differentials. His son caddies at Spy & I think the name is Fishman(?) 3 tour challenge? I wonder if they have changed the ratio since the first three tour challenge circa 85'(?)
Also,
Does every hole have to have the ability to play exactly 10% shorter? and if not, do they build a new box?
-
Wonder if she will have to wear pants?
-
The GHO had no trouble raising all the monies needed to ensure its place on the Tour's rota. Our governor pledged state monies but businesses and the Canon co., former sponsors, made that unnecessary.
The Ct. section of the PGA seems to have little problem with her entry. The Tour raises no objections to how she qualified. What agenda does it serve to make a big deal out of it?
Accept it for what it is and let's see the results.
-
Jim: This is the elite Tour for golf in the world. It's not suposed to be a social experiment.
She didn't play the same course. 700 yards shorter is a not an insignificant difference. Guys would have shot 64 to qualify.
It's a farce. If the Tour wanted to invite her...fine, but she competed (so they say) and earned her way into the tournament.
-
There was an interesting situation in Virginia this year as a young lady won both the boys high school tournament playing from ladies tees and also the womens tournament. Really do not understand why she would play from the forward tees against the boys when there was a seperate tournament for the ladies.
-
Tony Ristola
I agree with you regarding making the golf tour as social experiment.
I just wonder what is going to happen when a struggling, young or older journeyman player that has been eliminated from playing ANY men's tour, decides that the only way he can make a living for his family is to qualify for the LPGA tour events. IF women want equality, then how can they deny him the right to qualify? If women can compete against men, then the opposite must hold true.
It would difficult for a man to "stoop" to this level and he would have to put his pride behind his need to feed his family.
With the amount of $$ the women are playing for, if just ONE man decides to test these waters, then I believe several will follow suit. IF that happens, this equality thing between men and women will suffer a severe setback. It will be interesting to see how the courts can wiggle out of that one.
This is not too far fetched, we are possibly heading toward this scenario, imho. :-/
-
Tony,
No one from the PGA, CPGA or Tour has expressed any negative thoughts about her playing. If this were a big issue to the people who matter, i.e.. those who actually work in this environment, that would be different. The only folks who are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill are those outside any of theses organizations.
commentary that has been read into this originates from fear masquerading as reverse discrimination.
Let the woman play without wrapping the moment in useless, paranoid and inflammatory rhetoric and see how she does.
-
Tony,
No one from the PGA, CPGA or Tour havs expressed any negativity about her playing. This is not a big issue to the people who matter, i.e.. those who actually work in this environment.
I have only seen negative comments coming from those outside of the aforementioned orgs.
Why not let the woman play without wrapping the moment in useless, paranoid and inflammatory rhetoric and let's just see how she does?
-
Tony,
No one from the PGA, CPGA or Tour havs expressed any negativity about her playing. This is not a big issue to the people who matter, i.e.. those who actually work in this environment.
I have only seen negative comments coming from those outside of the aforementioned orgs.
Why not let the woman play without wrapping the moment in useless, paranoid and inflammatory rhetoric and let's just see how she does?
-
JohnV:
I didn't imply anything. Just regurgitating what was written in the article above:
>The PGA Tour can choose not to extend an exemption to such qualifiers in the future, but the tour's feelings are evident by how thoroughly they have embraced Whaley.
-
Jim: I got the brunt of the facts wrong...I'll admit that. I came under the impression she qualified through a Qualifying Tournament for the Tour event. The timing of the event (months before) should have put up red flags as qualifiers are usually contested shortly before the actual event.
OK, she won the CPGA event and with it comes an invite to the tournament, but did she really win that event? In my book the answer is no. She didn't play the same course.
I don't know what you mean by inflamitory rhetoric. Allowing her to take a spot on the PGA Tour (by declaring her winner of the CPGA tournament) is a farce. That the PGA Tour or CPGA have said nothing, well that's their gig.
Perhaps the CPGA should have spoken with the LPGA Tour to get her into one of their tournaments instead, and thereby letting the real winner of the tournament, that individual who played the tournament course, to compete in the PGA Tour event.
What about the real winner of the tournament? The guy who played the real tournament course? A guy who may have had his only opportunity to compete on Tour washed away by a bogus winner?
-
Tony:
I have to agree with the gist of your last post.
To 'win' the contest, game, or tournament, everyone needs to be playing the same rules, the same field, and the same venue - NOT playing "at" the same venue, but actually playing the same venue. Ms. Whaley, despite following the "rules" of the event, didn't win from the tournament tees. That's not her fault. The real fault lies with the rulesmakers for the event who determined that some get to start from a shorter distance than others.
Ms. Whaley should be commended for her victory.
The people in charge of the event should be flogged for not making everyone play the same course and in the same event.
-
Tony,
You wrote:
[ "... and thereby letting the real winner of the tournament, that individual who played the tournament course, to compete in the PGA Tour event.
What about the real winner of the tournament? The guy who played the real tournament course? A guy who may have had his only opportunity to compete on Tour washed away by a bogus winner?"]
I must take exception to this statement. She did play the real tournament course. It was outlined in the rules for the tournament, for every eye to see, BEFORE ANYONE, man or woman struck the first ball, that if any woman entered the tournament, they would play from the tees set up for them.
Why is it that NO ONE complained about this BEFORE the tournament started?
Also, have you ever heard of the expression "local rules"? An example of this is when the PGA Tour will deem it necessary that a tournament must be played under "lift, clean and play rules" due to weather. This is then a "local rule" for the tournament. Another one is "designated drop area" designed for when one loses a ball in water (see TPC).
The point is that changes to rules and exceptions to rules occur all the time in tournament golf.
She won it fair and square, and deserves to play in the tournament. I'm actually hoping that some parting of the Red Sea miracle occurs and she wins it, thereby qualifying for a hopst of other interesting tournaments like, the Masters!
-
Phil:
Then we agree. She won fair-and-square by the rules.
The only problem WAS the rules.
The rules of a REAL competition should be the same for all competitors.
-
Paul,
We agree again.
The rules should always be the same for thosew who are competing against each other.
-
Tony,
Sorry for the multiple posts. I was in Toronto visiting friends and using an unfamiliar invention of the devil.
She won the section championship and the winner gets the invite. The only other players in this event are members of the CTsection & W Ma chapter. As Phil points out they all knew ahead of time that women in the section play and that they play from shorter tees. I haven't heard any grumbles yet and probably won't.
Remember, the PGA and its sections are private organizations and can do as they wish, especially in a tournament for their members. Anyone is free to grouse about this issue but these areprivate associations and can do as they choose.
We don't like to see people try and foist their personal agendas on private organizations, ala Ms. Burk and ANGC, so I wouldn't think it's appropriate in this situation either.
Let it run its own course without all the hoopla. She is a member of The PGA of America and as such I'm sure her conduct will be exemplary.
-
They may have known the rules beforehand but that does not alter the fact she played a different course. How can you say 10% is the correct distance, or 9% or 15%. It is impossible. She played her own little tournament, shorter holes, different angles and the section allowed it to count. They erred. In my eyes she won the Ladies portion of the competition, but not the competition the men were playing.
You cannot compare her playing a 600 yard shorter course to a local rule because local rules apply to all competitors. They stopped the tournament in Australia because they couldn't water the greens for half the field...she played a severely different test of golf.
It will stand and she will play, but I don't think it's proper. They should have found her a spot in an LPGA event.
Now if a sponsor invites Ms. Sorenstam, Ms. Webb or another dominator of the LPGA...hey, I"ve got no probs with that.
-
Tony Ristola, your constant failure on here to accept and endorse everything that today's women want and ask for is going to get you into a lot of trouble!
The Ghost of Bella Abzug is gonna get you Pal!
But I tend to agree with you! If "She" can fly an F-16 with Top Gun, if she's gonna get to play PGA Tour golf she should tee it up from the same markers as the Big Boys!
-
I don't know about you, but I find this whole NEED to make everybody equal and and have a fair shake at everything -- now including golf -- ridiculous. LIfe is not fair. The fairest part of life is that unfairness can happen to anyone. Deal with it.
Amen to that! Complete "fairness" is an unattainable goal, in life and in golf. No use whining if life isn't how you want it.
If the guy who finished 2nd has a problem with SW's competitive advantage, then he should look in the mirror first. From an article describing the final round: "Whaley started the day two strokes behind leader Bob Mucha, then fell three back when Mucha birdied No. 10. Mucha then made three bogeys and a double bogey over the final six holes to finish second at 213 [two shots back]."
3 bogeys and a double on the last 6 holes to lose by 2. 3-shot lead to 2-shot loss on the back nine. Even if the competition was unfair, the guy didn't close it out, so if you don't like the fact that SW won, get mad at him instead of trying to change the rules of the event.
The fact is that she is not taking a spot away from anyone else more deserving.
A la Dan King...
Baby if you can't change the world, maybe you should just change yourself...
--Tom Petty
-
I was very happy to hear Mia Hamm is getting married to a professional baseball player....a step back for the muffification of women professional athletes.
"Muffification" is absolutely the best word I've heard all year on this DG! I just wish I knew what it means! ;D ???
-
Gentlemen,
As one who has played in few section championships, I can tell you (and posted such on an earlier thread) that no one I talked to in my section has a problem with the women playing from shorter tees; nor with the fact that Mrs. Whaley won her section. And I certainly don't on both accounts.
Let me state this as best I can: The shorter tees do not give the women an advantage. Nor is that the premise behind them. It is to "negate" the inherent advantage men have vs. women in golf. It is to level the playing field, not slant it.
And the shorter tees do not, in my opinion, constitute a different golf course....it is an honest attempt to enable women to play roughly the SAME course as the men. Remember, the 10% "advantage" only applies on the tee shot. They don't play every shot from 10% closer than the men.
Suzy Whaley won that tournament because of her talent and skill, and putting ability and mental ability and all those other things that any competitor, man or woman, must have to win a tournament. The tees did not enable her to win, only to have a chance to compete fairly.
-
ChrisB;
You're so damned right about this odd inclination of so many people today to think that there's some "right" out there that should make people EQUAL!
It's the biggest fallacy of all. The great US constitution and Bill of Rights NEVER promised or even implied such a thing! All it did is try to create a governing guide line that people should have an equal OPPORTUNITY!
And in the context of his lady tour pro that would clearly be teeing it up from the same markers as everyone else! That's the sum and substance of what her equal opportunity should give her.
-
Tony,
You wrote:
"She played her own little tournament, shorter holes, different angles and the section allowed it to count. They erred. In my eyes she won the Ladies portion of the competition, but not the competition the men were playing".
I edit it as:
"She played her own little tournament, shorter holes, different angles and the section allowed it to count. They erred in my eyes. She won the Ladies portion of the competition, but not the competition the men were playing".
The section erred in your eyes, not theirs.
I think all players should qualify for a Tour event from the same set of tees. There are two-spot and four-spot qualifiers held in Ct. for this event. All hopefuls play from the same tees in these events.
There is some distinction between qualifying and earning a spot. She earned a sponsor's exemption, a perc, given to the member of the section, a private association, who wins the championship. Sponsor exemptions are handed out regularly, taking a spot from the field, and sometimes it comes into question whether or not the player, usually a man, should have been awarded it. She earned hers.
Wouldn't you rather see a Club Pro in the event intead of Mr. Uchida's nephew ???
-
TEPaul,
Remember that the fairness thing goes both ways, though. Those on one side (including the CPGA) say that SW should play from forward tees in a effort to level the playing field. Those on the other side say that the rules should be equal for all competitors in the competition. But underlying each argument is the assertion that everything has to be fair (whatever their definition of "fair" is), to which I say "Stop being obsessed with fairness!"
But if the CPGA wants to run a handicapped tournament, with women playing a shorter course, then that's fine with me--I don't see giving an inherent advantage to women anyway (only 1 woman has won the event to date and wasn't going to this year until the leader backed up); either way they can set the rules as they wish and the players can choose whether or not to play.
Now the BCS Bowl System on the other hand...
-
TE,
I have one question: do you or anyone else know of any instance when a PGA TOUR event allowed qualifying from different sets of tees for women, seniors or juniors?
I think the answer will be "no", so what the heck is the problem with Suzy Whally playing in this event on a sponsor exemption? There is only one set of blocks per day at the GHO.
Strip away the BS and look at the facts, this is a non-issue.
-
Golf really doesn't get into the concept of "fairness" except in an implied way in the Rules of Golf. And in many ways the Rules of Golf get into tournament administration (if the tournament and tournament committee cares to play by the USGA's Rules of Golf).
But the closest thing one can probably find to "fairness" in the Rules of golf would be found in the so-called Equity Rule (1-4).
The so-called "equity rule" basically countenances penalty situations, though, and is based on a single and rather simple PRINCIPLE, since golf, it's rules and administrators realize and understand that all situations cannot be monitored. And that application of "equity" is covered under the principle of "Like situations shall be treated alike".
Guess there's not enough there to get any guidance on the Whaley situation though.
-
Andy Hodson:
The arguments you have put forth are bizarre, more so, in my opinion, than any I have seen put forth on this site.
Tiger Woods makes more money playing golf than I do because he has more skill. Suggesting that a special set of rules should be made for me to "negate the inherent advantage" Tiger has over me, makes absolutely no sense.
-
Jim Kennedy:
I'm not aware of the PGA Tour using different tees markers simultaneously for any kind of competitors in a tour event.
To be honest, I haven't followed this thread or this Waley situation at all. But obviously she's about to tee it up from forward tees in the GHO right?
I can't say I agree with that but I don't have a thing against Waley or any women golfers when I say that. That just doesn't seem right under the Rules of Golf--period.
I think JWL> brought up a very fine point on page 1 of this thread. What if men pros wanted to play in a LPGA tour event. What if that went to court? How could anyone construct a logical reason to stop them if Waley can play a mens tour event? They couldn't.
But obviously a judge or LPGA tour administrator would put those men pros in an LPGA event off tee markers a lot longer than the lady pros! But how much longer?
After a while this entire issue gets nothing more than arbitrary for golf, golf rules and tournament administrators. And golf and tournament administrators really don't like to get arbitrary with their golf rules or the "conditions of competition", many of which are covered under the Rules of Golf.
It would be interesting to hear what the USGA feels about the GHO. Of course, they have no control over it but I've never liked to see the USGA and the professional entities depart at all from each other when it comes to the Rules of Golf--and certainly tournament administration and "Conditions of Competition" are covered in the USGA's Rules of Golf. Or put it this way, there are certain things that are not recommended with tournament administration if they don't comply under the USGA's Rules of Golf.
Is the GHO one of those instances? It's beginning to sound like it.
-
Jim Kennedy:
On second thought I think I have seen men and women compete against each other in a single tournament but I don't think it was technically a PGA Tour event (men) as is the GHO. But I have seen listings in the paper where men and women were listed down the column. I think they were pros but obvously that was some kind of mixed tournament and was intended to be. Probably one of those "funny" season events.
-
Tim
Don't confuse the premise here: Suzy Whaley was playing in a professional association event with her peers. She is a dues paying member of the association and as such should enjoy the same privileges as any and all other members. (I can hear the argument now:"Nobody is stopping her from playing in the tournament. Why should she get an advantage?" Save it.) The privilege is to compete...compete...in a section event where the outcome is based on skill (and luck, etc.) amongst her peers. From the same tee as the men play she would not enjoy that privilege...not because of her lack of skill (as you argue vis a vis Tiger) but because of the inherent disadvantage of being a woman golfer. The PGA of America, and specifically here the CT Section, is looking for a more level playing field for all of its members, so they may enjoy a benefit of membership in the association.
I'm still amazed at the outcry here and other places, and none of it is coming from any of the members of the CT section, or of my section, or from the general membership of the PGA as a whole.
Why does it bother you guys when it doesn't bother us?
-
To be honest, I haven't followed this thread or this Waley situation at all. But obviously she's about to tee it up from forward tees in the GHO right?
TEPaul,
She'll be playing the back tees with the rest of the field, which I think we all agree is the right thing to do.
-
TE,
As Chris pointed out, she'll be playing from the smae tees as everyone else.
I was referring to qualifying only. I don't think any PGA Tour event allows qualifying from shorter tees.
The PGA of America has a working relationship with the PGA Tour. PGA of A members are not classified as Tour players and not all Tour players need to be members of the PGA of A. Both men and women are members of the PGA.
The PGA Tour, The Senior(Champions) Tour, LPGA and development tour set their own criteria for membership. The seniors have an age minimum of 50 so if the LPGA has a women only requirement what's the rub?
I don't think the PGA Tour has a men only provision. They probably feel that if you are good enough to qualify, i.e., hit it a ton, know where it's going and can get it in the hole frequently enough to keep a scoring average of less than par, it doesn't matter what gender you are.
I see no problem with the way this all works.
-
Andy Hodson:
It sounds like you assume women golfers aren't offended by the way the CT section has handled this situation.
Not so with young women I've sppoken to who play golf competitively. They believe that each step along the way a woman golfer should play by exactly the same rules as men if they want to compete in men's events.
The whole notion of trying to negate the "inherent disadvantage" some athletes have is ridiculous when applied to formal competitive sports, especially at the professional level.
I'm beginning to smell politcal correctness run a muck. There are several angles one might explore this story from, but I'm beginning to think the one Geoff Shackelford apparently took makes the most sense. As his heavily censored article in the LA Times points out, Whaley is not really making history. Babe Didrikson was about sixty years ahead of Whaley when it comes to being a women competing in male professional golf events.
Why everyone would applaud Whaley when Didrikson qualified the old fashioned way - from the same tees as men -strikes me as a bit scary.
The situation is a bizarre way for the PGA to feel good about itself.
-
Andy:
Look, I sort of admire the CT Section of the PGA of America (and the PGA of Amer. too) for trying very hard to be progressive and fair thinking in their tournament policies with this Whaley thing. It looks to me like they're going too far on this one though--particularly if their logic is exactly the same as your logic.
You said Whaley has earned the privilege to compete. I can sure buy that even if the only reason is she's a dues paying member of the CT section of the PGA of America.
But what do you mean by "compete"? What's the Ct Section and the PGA of America mean by "compete"? Suzy Whaley can tee it up from the same markers as the men and "compete" any time. But all that means is she's out there playing and competing in golf with men and she probably won't ever do very well on an equal footing against them! That's fairly obvious.
Or are you really saying the CT section is trying to figure out some way of giving Suzy a way to BE COMPETITIVE--maybe even to win? Are you trying to say the CT Section (PGA of Am.) are trying to figure out a way of getting Suzy to do better? There's a big difference in meaning there!
I guess that's exactly what you mean because you immediately following that sentence with, ".....but because of the inherent disadvantage of being a women golfer."
We all know that too, Andy. People have understood that since the world began. But you must realize that as far as some of us know no golf organization playing by the Rules of golf or tournament committee either has ever tried to figure out how to compensate for an individual golfer's "inherent disadvantage" (whatever it may be!) and thereby put that individual on a "level playing field" with the other competitors.
Universally, everyone just had to sort of hack it on their own, no matter what ailed them.
Certainly a case like Casey Martin was a departure from this but it wasn't the tour it was the court that defined and enforced that "leveling of the playing field". But don't forget Martin was the plaintiff here--he sued the Tour and forced the issue.
I don't mind admitting I was personally very opposed to not only that ruling but also what Martin did by bringing the suit. And my heart goes out to the young man because of the unfortunate condition he had that disadvantaged him from playing as well as he obviously could have otherwise.
Only if Casey had had two good legs--but he didn't! He's really no different than a lot of people through the ages that had something screw up their potential and plans.
But this is the first time I'm aware of, and I think a lot of others on here where an association and section that's supposed to adhere to the rules of golf are trying for the first time to adjust an "inherent disadvantage" for an individual player. And for being a woman of all things!
The world of golf has been just fine so far with women competing against women and men competing against men each competitor always being solely responsible for their own advantages and disadvantages with not a scintilla of help or adjustment for any advantage or disadvantage from a golf section, association or tournament committee.
And there was never anything wrong with that. Women and men are different in many ways and the CT Section of the PGA of America is not going to change that. And I'm sure you must be able to understand why some of us think there's no reason for the CT section to try to "level the playing field" to adjust for those differences.
Golf has never done anything like that. Why start now?
I'm not bothered by it either Andy. I just think it's a dumb thing to do that doesn't really need to be done. Golf has been just fine the way it was and is.
I don't really think this will go anywhere longterm anyway. What I'm about to say I mean in the finest sense and in the most sensitive way. I hope it doesnt upset you.
I don't think something like this is really any different than putting that little midget into a professional baseball game. It was nothing more than novelty. I have nothing at all against "little people" but could he really compete in every aspect of the game? If he couldn't because of some "inherent disadvantage" should baseball have "leveled the playing field" for him?
Not in my opinion--and this isn't any different, I don't think. Again, I admire you and the CT Section for tying to be fair and progressive--I really mean that. But this isn't the way to do it, I don't think. It isn't necessary. Men and women can live with the fact that they're "inherently different"--they always have.
-
I agree with much of what has been posted. Hodson is not off-base for sharing with us how he feels, and he is someone entitled to have an opinion.
FACT: Sponsors' Exemptions to the PGA Tour's events is entirely at the discretion of the sponsor. How many times has Gary Nicklaus teed it up? Mark Rypien played the event near D.C. JEFF JULIAN played in the GHO last year - now I want to hear any one of you say you have a problem with that. If you do, we would never be friends. (I believe Jeff received his full allotment of 7 exemptions last year and played the GHO for his final event of 2002.)
There is precedent for a sponsor's exemption to go to a non-competitive player. Why raise a fuss when it happens again? Curtis Strange, an ABC announcer, was afforded a very valuable invite to play at Disney this year. Could he have won?
I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, but there are certain times when what someone else does is their business. If the Section PGA wants to let some members use a forward tee, I'm sure they have their reasons. (In this case they do, as their aren't enough female members in most areas to have compelling competition.) Non-members[/i] think the policy should be changed? I don't have a vote in Mexican and Canadian elections and I certainly wasn't consulted when the Connecticut section made this decision.
The GHO wants to use one of their invites for a local pro? A lot of other events do this as well.
-
DMoriarty,
I'm becoming intrigued by the tone of those defending the PGA. It strikes me as surprisingly defensive, as if the organization now regrets what does appear to be political correctness run amuck.
You raise the issue of Augusta National in reference to the Whaley matter. Actually, I don't recall anyone who defended Augusta's membership policy say anything at all in terms of who the club invites to the annual Masters Tournament. What's the connection?
If you don't think applying some handicap to a professional sports event is bizarre, you are welcome to your view. Most folks I know think there ought to be separate tournaments for men and women.....or, in fairness, just one PGA with anyone eligible to compete as long as they play by exactly the same rules. Years ago Didrikson did it the old fashioned way: she earned it. Why not apply the same rules to Whaley?
-
John conley:
I skeptical about it being "their business". Literally speaking it is.
But, they seem to want to hold up what they have done as some ideal, some desirable way to achieve fairness. As long as they do that people will point to the Didrikson and question why the Connecticut section isn't following that example.
-
John Conley:
What're you talking about sponsor's exemptions for? Has any sponsor's exemption ever been compensated for from different tees because they were deemed to be "inherently disadvantaged? And who said Andy Hodson wasn't entitled to his own opinion? I hope you don't think disagreeing with him implies he's not entitled to his opinion.
-
DMoriarty:
What you call the "irrationality of my position" comes from young women I've spoken to who play competitive golf at the high school and college level. Without qualification they have expressed that there should be a single set of rules for all concerned at any level of competition.
Some of these young women attend high schools where there isn't a girl's team, unfortunately. At that case, they play on the boy's and play from the same tees.
One girl put it to me this way: "Suppose some guy who couldn't hit the ball as far as the other guys wanted to play from shorter tees. Nobody would take him seriously. The same rules should apply for girls."
I find her position quite sensible and am amazed anyone would think she is being "irrational". At the end of the day it makes sense to go in one of two directions: either have separate competitions for men and women or a single set of tournaments where everyone competes together under the same set of rules.
At schools where only one team exists, obviously the latter would apply. But, moving toward a situation where PGA events are open to both sexes, but the LPGA would remain only open to women makes little sense, in my opinion.
Regarding the sponsor exemption issue (whether at Augusta or elsewhere), I'm not sure what this has to do with the situation at all. Sponsors, as you know, have given exemptions for all sorts of reasons. But, usually they haven't attempted to blur what is going on. In the Whaley case, it has been presented as if she earned her way into the tournament a la Babe Didrikson. In truth. she did not. By contrast, when some past champion plays in the Masters or US Open (take the recent example of Palmer at Oakmont), it is acknowledged to be ceremonial in nature. No confusion. A very different thing. Palmer earned his ceremonial exemption;Whaley didn't earn the right to play as a genuine competitor.
Regarding the Augusta National situation, I am not among those who have argued that the club's membership policy is "none of Martha Burk's business". To the contrary, I have clearly stated Burk makes a solid case along the lines of "extension of the workplace". I happen to feel there is nothing inherently wrong with single sex sports clubs, but I'm just as adament that if a club decides to go this route all forms of corporate and business entertaining should be strickly forbidden.
It seems to me that Augusta has essentially accepted this argument. The club is filled with corporate types who want to use the club for business entertainment. Those guys want a change in the membership policy so they can go on with business as usual. There is another group who truly wants the club to be what Hootie Johnson expressed in his last Op-Ed piece, i.e., a place to get away from the world of work.
Augusta needs to decide what kind of club it wants to be: a corporate entertainment center where people of all demographic characteristics are welcome or a private club of like minded people who want to leave the business world outside of the gates.
My solution is to boot out all the corporate types who pretend to take the moral high ground and to invite real women golfers. If that makes me a "right of Rush knee jerk conservative", I'll make no apologies. I'd rather have people like Rose Cunningham, the delightful Secretary at Dooks than the Bill Gates of this world.
-
In any hot button topic, sometimes the issue at hand gets blurred or lost. This seems to be such an issue.
So, a question for all here: If the winner of the CT Section Championship did not recieve a spot in the GHO, would there be the discussion here? Meaning, would anybody care to take umbrage that Suzy won her Section Championship from 90% of the overall distance of the men.
And would we be having this discussion if a Senior won the Section Championship and thus was awarded (key word...awarded...not qualified) a spot in the GHO or any other tour event that follows suit. Because, at least in my Section, seniors play from a different set of tees as "regular" men.
My point being, the issue here, imo, is that Suzy Whaley won her Section Championship...a great accomplishment for any PGA member. IMO its the biggest event on our calendar. Did she win fair and square. I think so. Others don't. That is the issue here. Not whether she "qualified" for a PGA Tour event from the "red" tees. She didn't. And she is not taking anyone's spot in the GHO field. She is representing as her Section's champion. I happen to think that's great. Not because she is a woman, but because she did what it took to win an important tournament, and now reaps the rewards.
And I don't think anyone is trying to make a statement here. The PGA is not cueing up Helen Reddy here at all. The Section held a tournament and recognized a winner. From there it is in the GHO and Tour's hands.
BTW, Tom and Tim. Keep disagreeing. Or agreeing. Its all in good nature, and what makes this board so great. I would be surprised if no one took the other side. And Tim, I laughed out loud when you said my logic was bizarre. You're in good company there. And not alone. ;D
-
Andy:
If a Senior had won and was awarded an exemption to the GHO, I doubt anyone would have said anything. It just wouldn't have been a story.
The fact that Seniors play from different tees is probably not known by many people. I certainly didn't know. Now that I do, I would also argue that it makes no sense.
I'm not opposed to sponsor exemptions or even the practice of PGA sections being able fill a spot at a local tournament. Actually, I like the idea.
I just think the way your Section has done it makes no sense.
As for laughs, I get them here as well!
-
Tim,
You've said
In the Whaley case, it has been presented as if she earned her way into the tournament a la Babe Didrikson.
I live in Ct. and am in this section. No one here is presenting this in the light you suggest.
TEPaul,
You've said
What're you talking about sponsor's exemptions for? Has any sponsor's exemption ever been compensated for from different tees because they were deemed to be "inherently disadvantaged?
Sponsor's exemptions are compensations by there very nature. They are awarded to players who did not "qualify" for an event. PGA Tour events can award 10 sponsor's exemptions but they must follow some guidelines.
Two of the "invitations" can only go to previous q-school grads. Two are reserved for players who are exempt for the Tour but didn't qualify to play in the event. Four have no restrictions and a tour event can also ask the Tour for two exemptions for foreign players.
So, basically four of the ten exemptions can go to any otherwise unqualified player and two can go to any otherwise unqualified foreign player.
Tournament directors hve their own guidelines for awarding exemptions, not the least of which is ticket sales.
-
Jim Kennedy:
I believe it is happening elsewhere.
-
Tim,
There have been misleading headlines but all the articles I've read eventually get it right about the fact that she won the section championship from tees set at 10% less than the other competitiors thereby earning a sponsor exemption.
-
DMoriarty:
The young women I spoke to perceived the CT event to be a competition to earn a place in a PGA Tour event. They felt that eveyone should play from the same set of tees. The CT association may disagree, but I'd hardly call the views of these young women golfers "irrational".
By any level of competition, these women include qualifying rounds. I'm sure they would have no objection if Whaley did what Didrikson accomplished years ago. In that case, nobody would complain about her competing against Tiger Woods.....as long as male golfers were also entitled to compete in LPGA events playing from the same tees as all women competitors.
As for this press coverage of this matter, I tend to agree with Jim Kennedy. Initially, some were inclined to portray this issue as a case where a women had earned her way into the tournament. Those were the headlines. Before long, however, other journalists felt compelled to spell out the fine print that, in fact, Whaley had not accomplished what Babe Didrikson had done many years ago.
Your local PGA section can do what it wants, but again, I just think applying the Didrikson standard would provide more credibility.
As for Jack Nicklaus winning the Masters in 1986 or, perhaps more impressively, beating Tiger Woods in 1998, I don't think anyone would suggest he shouldn't have been given the green jacket. Nor would anyone object calling Whaley the winner if she prevails playing from the same tees as other competitors.
You can question tournaments giving ceremonial exemptions. It sounds like Augusta is sort of moving in that direction or at least placing an age limit. Honestly, I don't have strong feelings either way on that, but a limited use of this practice probably makes some sense.
If you really don't believe Arnold Palmer earned a ceremonial exemption for the last Open at Oakmont, I won't even bother to lay out the case. I can assure you, however, that many people in Pittsburgh and elsewhere felt differently.
-
As one of the prime defenders of Augusta, I feel the need to defend myself from the implied criticism from Andy & DMoriarty. :)
I fully support the right of the PGA, the CT section of the PGA or whoever to set up the rules of their tournament however they see fit. I also fully support the right of the tournament to extend the sponsor exemption to whomever they choose. They could give one to good 'ole former President Bill for all I care, it's their tournament.
I do disagree with the logic behind the "levelling" of the playing field. It is nice to see that some organizations are at least consistent in attempting to apply this logic to seniors as well, even though I again disagree with the logic. They are plenty of distance challenged men that can't hit it as far as Laura Davies or even Anniker (preferred British pronunciation:)).
Disagreeing with the logic and believing that ALL golfers in a tournament should play under the same rules & conditions is not inconsistent. There is a fundamental difference between arguing a "right" and arguing what is right. For instance, I would argue that discrimination on the basis of gender or race alone is wrong, but I support an individual's right to do so if they are in fact that stupid. To do otherwise would mean to me that I support the thought police.
I would prefer to see the prevailing rules under last year's club pro PGA championship, which, if I'm not mistaken, allowed a female member (might have even been Ms. Whaley, I can't remember) to compete in the championship from a different set of tees, but stated that only those playing from the regular tees would be eligible for the top 25 exemption into the PGA. A nice compromise, IMO.
As far as why no one in the competition or the regular tour is complaining, you've got to be kidding me! Who, after seeing the continuing onslaught of Augusta, would have the guts to speak up against this policy? Not many, that's for sure. All I ever do is try to speak up for individual rights & I generally get labelled as some right wing Rushophile who can't come up with an original thought.:) I wouldn't expect anyone involved to put themself in the firing line, so to speak, so I certainly wouldn't draw any inferences from the lack of outcry.
It is extremely disappointing to see how many media outlets have stated that Ms. Whaley is the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event, but what can you expect from the liberal & intellectually lazy media. ;D
Anyone read in Golf Magazine a few months back how in the 40s or 50s a woman, I believe Louise Suggs, from the LPGA beat many PGA pros straight up in a par 3 competition? She & Big Wiesy remain my gender neutral heroes! :)
I wonder what would happen if a few male pros offered to play the LPGA on courses setup 10% longer than the ladies...
I sense a lawsuit...:) ;D
-
Tim,
You state:
.....as long as male golfers were also entitled to compete in LPGA events playing from the same tees as all women competitors.
The PGA Tour has divisions. The Champions Tour is "exclusionary" as it has a minimum age requirement of 50 years. The regular Tour and the LPGA have minimum age requirements also, no one under 18 can be a member but this doesn't preclude Tour events in either of these divisions from extending sponsor exemptions to juniors.
How do you come to the belief that a private association such as the LPGA Tour can be forced to accept men players when we have the Champion's Tour, another private association, that doesn't allow players under 50 years old? They set these guidelines so they can compete amongst their peers, much like the divisions in boxing.
DeLaHoya is no less a talent than Ali.
The big boys also have membership guidelines but they don't need "protection" as it consists of men at the top of the "peer" food chain. These are men who aren't threatened by anyone except Tiger. You make it on their turf and you belong, but no one gets there without initially qualifying and no one stays there unless they earn it.
-
I just can't see what the big issue is here with those who say everyone playing in a specific competition should play from the same tees. That's the way tournament golf has always been. It's just a matter of everyone playing by the same rules.
Again, I haven't really followed this issue or this thread but before the last post or so I did not realize Whaley won the CT Section Championship playing from a different set of tees. I think that's just as wrong as her doing the same in the GHO. This has nothing to do with exemptions or anything like that, only the rule of golf that EVERYONE play the same golf course.
If someone is thinking about Super Seniors on the Senior Tour playing from forward tees, that's simply because they're playing their own competition within the regular one. They're not competing against those players playing from longer tees. There's a regular Senior division competition and Championship and a separate Super Senior competition.
The CT Section of the PGA of America is simply trying to figure out a clever way of "handicapping" a golfer--in this case Suzy Whaley--for the first time I've ever heard of in a scratch tournament event (no handicapping) which of course all pro competitions have always been. As far as I know that's NEVER happened before in professional golf. But the PGA of America and the CT Section is now trying to do that for the first time ever! Why?
So why do some of you think it's irrational for others of us to disagree with that? Again, it has nothing to do with exemptions or any other form of entry into a competition--it only has to do with ALL competitiors playing by the same rules which of course fundamentally involves playing the SAME golf course--SAME TEES. None of us have a problem with Suzy Whaley doing that!!
But the CT Section is trying to handicap a golfer in a pro tourney for the first time ever. This is really no different from just giving Suzy 2-3 shots a side per round against the field and putting her on the same tees! Why don't they just do that?
Probably because it would be too damn obvious and basically seen to be the joke it is! Playing from different tees in the same compeitition is no different, it's handicapping or it's not playing golf by the same rules--Is that the example the PGA of America and the CT section wants put forth--is that the precedent they want to set--to allow a competitor for the first time to compete and not play by the same rules as every other competitor? Is the day of "handicapping" pro scratch tournments now upon us with this? I guess so.
I can hardly see why anyone would say someone who didn't agree with that is irrational! Is the way tournament golf has always been played suddenly becomre irrational? I hope not.
-
Jim Kennedy:
I still sense an effort to earn political correctness brownie points. Prior to this incident, people were comfortable with each Tour having its own set of rules.The problem comes when special rules were made for Whaley (and other competitors) trying to qualify for a PGA Tour event.
You are correct that the Champions Tour and the LPGA are allowed to discriminate on the basis of age or gender because this means establishing a competition between "peers".
But, the whole notion of providing some kind of handicap to "negate an inherent advantage", runs contrary to the very logic of competition between peers.
This incident is political correctness run amuck. George Pazin is right. The Augusta matter has made people invloved, e.g., competitors, very reluctant to state the obvious.
-
Tim;
As you say, this is crazy.
However she got there, she IS there, so now just let's Ms. Whaley play from the men's tees and let's just see if she can be competitive from the tournament tees.
-
I'm getting confused by all this--which tees is Suzy going to play from in the GHO? Is she playing from the same tees as every other competitor? If so, than big damn deal, no problem at all as far as I can see--except she should have done the same in the CT Sectional Championship or whatever it was that got her into GHO!
Go for it Suzy--chip and putt those animals to death and win the tournament--nothing I'd like to see more! Don't anyone ask me to put any money on her though!
-
Tom:
Yes, Mrs. Whaley is playing from the tournament tees during the GHO next year.
The controversy is all because she qualified to play the GHO from tees that were much shorter than those used by other competitors.
Hope that helps.
-
Tim,
Brownie points?, we don't need no steenking brownie points ;D
I have yet to see reporting from any sources that has questioned the rights of each Tour Division to conduct its events as it sees fit.
If you have seen such commentary I would suggest it spewed from someone with no understanding of how she got to play at the GHO.
Suzy Whaley did not qualify, she got her spot as a sponsor exemption, no more, no less. As we all know, the only woman to date to ever qualify for a PGA TOUR event is the Babe.
The CPGA conducted their championship in the manner they saw fit and Suzy Whaley won a prize that in no way jeopardizes golf or how competitons will be conducted.
-
Paul:
Thanks for clearing that up for me! Then I don't think Suzy Whaley really did qualify in that CT tournament she got in from--not under the Rules of Golf anyway. She didn't play the same golf course her fellow competitors did! She didn't play by the same Rules of Golf her fellow competitors did and it shouldn't be assumed she qualified in that case.
I sure don't blame Suzy for teeing it up from where they let her in the qualifier. I think the tournament committee of that qualifier just wasn't thinking very clearly, association or whatever they call themselves.
If they want to give her some special exemption into the GHO then do it but don't say she qualified for the GHO in that tournament when they let her play a different course than her fellow competitors. The CT Section of the PGA of Am. let someone compete in a fashion that is not within the Rules of Golf and that's just wrong--there's no question of that in my mind. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact she's a woman.
-
JimK:
The way you explain this the issue here doesn't seem to have much to do with Suzy Whaley. But do you really think a division of the PGA of Am should be conducting a professional sectional tournament in a manner that's other than in compliance with the Rules of Golf?
-
Jim Kennedy:
Apparently Suzy Whaley herself doesn't agree with your suggestion that she "did not qualify".
In fact, Whaley describes herself as "the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event". She goes on to say "I have a chance to make history, that's huge. Any time someone can be the first at something it's special".
Special for Babe Didrikson, but not for Whaley. The political correctness is overwhelming in this case, even to the point of denigrating Didrikson whose accomplishments go far beyond those of Whaley.
-
Question with no point attached, just curious if anybody knows:
In the Callaway Pebble Beach Invitational, the tournament held at Pebble in late November with PGA, LPGA, and Senior players in the same field, do they all play from the same tees, or do the women play shorter tees? How about the seniors?
Juli Inkster won the event in 1991, and is the only woman who has won the tournament.
-
TEPaul, Tim, Paul: I really do not understand why this is so difficult.
She did not qualify. She did not play in the qualifying event for the tournament against tour pros trying to make the field.
She was given a sponsors' exemption. This is a gift, an invitation, an undeserved present, a method by which tournament officials can capriciously invite unqualified golfers into the field. It happens every week. The actual "qualifier" likely has not even happened yet. If she or another woman played in the actual qualifier, that woman would have to do so from the tour tees. And rightly so. But Mrs. Whaley need not, because she received a sponsors' exemption, an invition to play regardless her qualifications.
By the way, if the man who was leading at the beginning of the final day had not given Mrs. Whaley the tournament, he would have received the sponsors' exemption, despite the fact that he had never proven himself on the same course, on the same day, from the same tees, in the same tournament, against real tour pros trying to qualify. How fair is that? He wins in a tourney against a bunch of golf instructors and gets to play in a PGA event, while much better golfers have to play against tour pros in a real qualifier and end up staying home. If he had won, would any of you guys be complaining?
Certainly winning in your own little tournament where the real competition is excluded is not what you guys consider "qualifying" for a PGA event.
Tim,
I did not call the your female friends' argument irrational. I have never discussed the issue with them. I called your argument irrational, and still beleive it to be so.
In that case, nobody would complain about her competing against Tiger Woods.....as long as male golfers were also entitled to compete in LPGA events playing from the same tees as all women competitors.
Please Tim, ask your female friends what they think of your position. Ask them if they agree that the only way a woman should ever be able to play on the PGA Tour is if men were allowed to compete on the LPGA tour. I dare you.
I just think applying the Didrikson standard would provide more credibility.
By 'Didrikson Standard' do you mean that all golfers should qualify on their golfing merit and skill, either by their current standing on the tour or their performance in an actual qualifier played against the entire field of aspiring qualifiers? If so, then I am fine with this standard applying to Mrs. Whaley . . . just as soon as it is applied equally to all the males who play without qualifying -- the seniors, big wigs, money makers and nostalgia picks that receive meritless sponsors' exemptions every week.
If you really don't believe Arnold Palmer earned a ceremonial exemption for the last Open at Oakmont, I won't even bother to lay out the case. I can assure you, however, that many people in Pittsburgh and elsewhere felt differently.
First of all, if Arnie plays in any tournament he could theoretically win, his exemption was not ceremonial. Throwing out the first pitch, hitting the ceremonial first drive, or driving the pace car before Indy is ceremonial. Actually taking a spot in a competition is not.
Arnold "earned" the right to play? This isn't the same "earned" that you are requiring of Mrs. Whaley. You know you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here, don't you?
Why does Arnie get his own special qualifying standard?
Because, long ago, he used to be the greatest golfer in the world? Because he is a sentimental favorite in Pittsburgh? If Mrs. Whaley was real popular in Pittsburgh, would that have qualifed her for Oakmont?
Palmer gets to play whether or not he wins an actual qualifier. Whether or not he is good enough to contend. Pardon me if I don't accept the sentimental view of the people of the great city of Pittsburgh as a objective mechanism for picking a golf field.
Tim, I am in favor of sponsor exemptions, even for Arnie. I think they are good for golf. I just realize that sponsors' exemptions aren't about qualifications. It is inconsistent and hypocritical to require Mrs. Whaley's sponsors' exemption to be about qualifications when other golfer's exemptions are not.
-
DMoriarty:
The problem is Whaley herself claims to be "the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event". Whaley didn't say she made it by a sponsor's exemption. Rather, she talked about her chance "to make history".
There is doublespeak going on here, a bizarre form of denial. Some people, perhaps the CT section included want a politically correct story even to the point of obscuring the truth.
I think you underestimate the young women I spoke to. In fact, they did express that if women were allowed to play on the PGA Tour, men should be allowed to play on the LPGA. Pretty fair and reasonable of them, don't you think?
Like Tom Paul, I think the idea of handicapping a professional sports event makes little sense. My very feminist mother called the whole idea "strange". That must be where I got my "irrationality" from.
-
I fail to see why some people are so bent out of shape by this. Other than possibly the guy who blew up and fell to second behind Whaley, who should conceivably have a problem with this?
Everyone has followed all the rules and traditions as they have previously existed. She played in a tournament that specified she could play from shorter tees, she won under those rules. The sponsor always invites the winner of that tournament to play in the GHO under a sponsor's exemption, so she's doing so. Whining about her saying she "qualified" if you think what she did doesn't meet your personal definition of that word is pretty stupid, how is she hurting anyone? The tour loves it, the sponsor loves it, I'm sure the network will love it as well (at least whichever cable network gets it on Thurs and Fri) If you think it is wrong that she won playing from shorter tees, fine, but you don't get to make the rules for that tournament.
So what if she shoots a couple rounds in the 80s and misses the cut by a couple dozen strokes? Do you think the guy who placed second to her would have made the cut? Or allowing one more "legitimate" Monday qualifier instead of her? Don't fool yourself thinking they had any chance either. If the tour was truly concerned with having the best possible field for every event, they'd require everyone to qualify before the tournament and do away with the top 125 exempt thing.
Hootie ought to invite Annika Sorenstam to play the Masters next year, just to fuck with everyone on both sides of the Burk and Whaley issues...
-
My goodness, golfers sure have problems accepting women now don't we? But this has gotten out of hand. You guys are wasting precious ink on this thread when there hasn't been a word written about me here all day. Enough already. Let's focus guys. Let's focus. Back to Augusta. Thank you kindly.
-
Tim and Tom,
Suzy Whaley may think she qualified due to her win at the section championship and that is her outlook. She is the recipient of a sponsor exemption given to the section by the tournament director. I think that there is no question she played under the rules of golf in this sectional event but she did play from different tees.
Here's a little spin for you: Suzy Whaley is the first woman to play in a PGA Tour event since the split with the PGA of America happened in 1968.
Babe Didrikson was named by Bobby Jones as one of the top ten golfers that he had ever seen and her lifetime accomplisments were amazing.
I said earlier that Babe Didrikson qualified for the LA Open. Some further research makes me question my remarks. When she played in the 1938 LA Open she was the only woman in the field but she needn't have been. The tournament was an Open event and there was nothing banning a woman from playing. She played in a group with George Zaharias (future hubby) and Reverend C. Pardee Erdman. Does anyone know if this wrestler and minister were on the tour at this time or perhaps Babe and others just ponied up an entry fee and played?
This from Tim:
I think you underestimate the young women I spoke to. In fact, they did express that if women were allowed to play on the PGA Tour, men should be allowed to play on the LPGA. Pretty fair and reasonable of them, don't you think?
No, I don't think it's reasonable nor is it fair nor do I think these youngsters have lived long enough to have a true understanding of why they have their present day opportunities.
As I said earlier, the Tour divisions exist so players can compete with their peers. This is no different than weight classes in boxing with the PGA Tour as the heavyweights.
There is no reason to limit anyone's aspiration to try for the top rank if they are up to the task but there is good reason to limit particpation on the reverse side of the equation for the same reasons we don't let 14 year old boys play in Little League Baseball with the 10-12 year olds.
This should be as simple to understand as 1+1 ='s 2. ???
-
The problem is Whaley herself claims to be "the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event".
Tim, funny how your problem keeps reinventing itself. If Mrs. Whaley really thinks she qualified in the same sense as the other qualifiers, then she is wrong. I agree that the "first woman" business is misleading and unfortunately ignores a truly great golfer's accomplishments. But in a technical sense Mrs. Whaley is correct. As I understand it she is the first since the current entity controlling these tournaments was formed (1986?). A Bulls--- way to look at it, but technically true.
There is doublespeak going on here, a bizarre form of denial.
I couldn't agree more about the double speak, but I do think you misidentify the speaker. I don't understand your obsession with turning this into yet another anti-political correct diatribe. Is everything you don't agree with political correctness run amuck? Talk about conspiracy theorists!
I think you underestimate the young women I spoke to. In fact, they did express that if women were allowed to play on the PGA Tour, men should be allowed to play on the LPGA. Pretty fair and reasonable of them, don't you think?
If these women really said this then I overestimated them, not underestimated them. Perhaps you should invite them all to post on the issue so we can explore their enlightened perspective.
Like Tom Paul, I think the idea of handicapping a professional sports event makes little sense. My very feminist mother called the whole idea "strange". That must be where I got my "irrationality" from.
Well, we've come full circle at least twice. I will not go full circle again. Your irrationality (and TEPaul's if he agrees with you) is that you are treating a member's tournament of professional association of golf instructors as a "professional sports event."
My very feminist mother called the whole idea "strange". That must be where I got my "irrationality" from.
You talked to your mother? Well, then everything you've said must be entirely correct. I know my own mother is never ever wrong.
Seriously Tim, I am finished. I just can't compete against someone who bases their arguments on the opinions of a slew of unidentified competitive female golfers (with whom you seem to have spoken for hours on the issue); the sentiments of the entire Pittsburg sports fan community, and your dear old mother.
Have a nice week.
-
Tim Weiman:
If I were you I'd just let that discussion with DMoriarty go! It's beginning to look like a debating society out of control.
I don't even know anymore how Suzy got into the GHO--nor do I think I care. But if she, in fact, got in through that tournament, that qualifier, whatever it was and whatever anyone wants to call the people who run it--an association of members, a group of friends, whatever, that tournament was not played under the Rules of Golf and it should have been.
That's about the only issue here, on this thread that I can see of significance. If that tournament had nothing whatsoever to do with Suzy's entry into the GHO then there's no issue here I can see, except of course to wonder why some professional tournament (that CT section qualifier, or whatever it was) would think to conduct a professional tournament other than in compliance with the Rules of Golf!
If DMoriarty doesn't think it's unimportant that that tournament was not played under the Rules of Golf--then fine, let him have that opinion!
I don't agree with it and I don't think you do either--but big deal, there're all kinds of opinions out there and there always will be.
-
Tom Paul:
I understand your suggestion. Like Doug Siebert, I fail to see why some people "are bent out of shape" and so obsessed with maintaining the party line. But, that is common with many issues when political correctness is introduced.
Jim Kennedy/DMoriarty:
I think we are finished with this topic, but just a little background on young women golfers in my area. What impresses me most is how dedicated they are, perhaps I should say young golfers, both male and female.
I see them practicing year round at a local driving range. Both the boys and girls believe practicing nearly everyday all year round is mandatory to be competitive. What is truly amazing is that these aren't just high school juniors or seniors but also kids in junior high, even grade school to my amazement.
Not long ago I met a women who teaches golf. It turns out she is the women's coach at a local high school and, by coincidence, a teacher at the primary school where my fourth grade daughter goes to school.
Seeing that her father had a love for golf, this women wanted permission to talk to my daughter about the high school girls golf team. My God, I thought, my daughter is in fourth grade and already a high school coach is trying to start recruiting.
In a very serious tone this women stated that if her program was going to improve and grow, that is the kind of thing she needed to do. She also felt the only way my daughter would ever be competitive would be to start working on it now. Further, she pointed out how many grade school kids, both boys and girls, already had instructors they saw once per week to help them learn and be successful later.
One of the young women I spoke to was in eighth grade and already hitting 200-300 balls a day and she said "the really good kids are hitting more".
All in all, the young people I met seem to be a very nice group of people, very hard working and have set high goals for themselves. My only worry is whether they will get burned out and not enjoy golf so much in their later years.
But, as it relates to the Whaley matter, you can easily see how they have adopted an ethic that says you have to work and earn success. I think they oppose handicapping a la Whaley because they aren't being denied the right to play and instinctively believe people should only get what they work for. People like that are likely to feel "if women can play in men's tournament, then men should be able to play in womens.......but the entire thing doesn't make sense".
Call that "irrational", but I see these young people as pretty impressive.
I grew up trying to sneak on the golf course and stay away from grumpy adults who didn't think young kids had any business on the course. These kids are growing up in a very different world.
DMoriarty:
One last thing. I'm aware that it sounds strange to quote one's Mom, but I like to touch base with her on such matters. She has far better feminist credentials than I do.
-
Tom Paul
You're hitting it right on here, with the issue being whether one agrees or disagrees with the way the sections of the PGA administer their tournaments. Its not whether Suzy "qualified" , or whether a woman should be allowed in a PGA Tour event when there is the LPGA, etc. I happen to disagree with your view on this issue, but let's remember that is the heart of the matter.
BTW, the South Texas section has a member QUALIFIER for two spots in the Shell Houston Open (I believe most tour stops do this for their respective sections). Everyone plays from the same tees for that qualifier. The section championship that Suzy won is not seen as a qualifier for a Tour event, rather its just a section event that all members can play in. And the PGA and its sections have determined rules to make it more equitable (critics don't jump on that word) for all. Agree or disagree with that.
-
Tim:
Isn't it true on this entire issue and this thread and discussion regarding some of the things you've said in the last few posts about what you've observed from the kids you speak of that they're content to and accepting of the fact that in a golf tournament ALL competitors, either men or women, if they are competing against each other within a single golf tournament, should PLAY BY THE SAME RULES and that those rules should be THE RULES OF GOLF? Playing from different tees is not playing by the same rules in the context of a scratch tournament!
Isn't that the only real issue on this discussion? I can't really see why anyone would suggest it be otherwise!
They're talking about things like "leveling the playing field" but there's only one way to "level the playing field" in the context of golf at scratch and that's ONLY that EVERYONE play be the same rules! That's certainly clear in golf's unified rules book!
But they're talking about things like "inherent disadvantages" of individual golfers! My God, I used to have to tee it up in tournments played at scratch under the rules of golf against people like Jay Sigel! I could probably claim that I always had an "inherent disadvantage" against him, a lot of us did, but so what?
If it were otherwise how would we ever know that he was one of the great amateur golfers of modern times? How would any of us know how we compared to him at any time. The only way is to play under the exact same rules from the same tees with no consideration other than that given to "leveling the playing field"--which is nothing more than playing the same course (same tees) by the same rules!
-
TEPaul, specifically what Rule of Golf was broken by the tournament where Whaley qualified?
Dan King
If your adversary is badly bunkered, there is no rule against your standing over him and counting his strokes aloud, with increasing gusto as their number mounts up; but it will be a wise precaution to arm yourself with the niblick before doing so, so as to meet him on equal terms."
--Horace Hutchinson (Hints on Golf)
-
Tom Paul:
Jay Sigel has an "inherent advantage" over me too.
But, let me respond to your earlier comment about a debating society.
During my years at Princeton I was quite fortunate to be a student of Professor Suzanne Keller, one of the most respected academic feminists of the 1970’s. Keller taught a course on sex roles in society. The course, as you might imagine, was dominated by very bright women who felt quite comfortable in Keller’s class and usually intimidated the male students.
Believing that it was better to engage than sit on the sidelines, I often found myself at the middle of debates on various topics that Keller would introduce to get the dialogue going. While I didn’t mind the discussion, over time I noticed it became adversarial to the point of being unpleasant.
So, one day I decided to keep my mouth shut and listened for about 45 minutes while one point of view was being repeated without debate. It seemed that my silence had the effect of shutting down other male students who apparently had no desire to debate - and be portrayed as dinosaurs - on their own.
Shortly, before the class ended for the day Professor Keller, always one to encourage her students, had enough. “Tim”, she asked, “why are you sitting quietly?” Duly provoked, I launched into a diatribe on why I disagreed with the many single minded points that I heard expressed.
I’ll never forget Professor Keller smiling when I finally finished.
“You really wanted to sit quietly, didn’t you?” Keller said.
“Well, yes, I did”.
But, Keller would have none of that.
“Tim , I don’t want people sitting quietly in my class” she said, expressing a higher loyalty to being a teacher than being a feminist.
Other than Fouad Ajami, the well known Middle East expert who served as my thesis advisor, Keller emerged as my favorite professor at Princeton, a woman I thought the world of. Though very feminist, Keller abhorred the politically correct feeling it had no place in her classroom or in any other discussion. So, years later I have little concern about expressing unpopular views some find “irrational”, thanks, in part, to Professor Keller.
The young women I've met dismiss the idea of anyone being allowed to play from different tees in competition. I have a feeling Professor Keller would view them as her kind of feminist.
-
Andy Hodson:
Thank you for clearing that up. I've been a bit slow on the uptake on this thread because I came on here late and I still haven't read all of the previous pages and I never had followed the Suzy Whaley issue other than on here.
But you've outlined the issue very clearly! I believe that in any particular competition that is being considered let's say a "scratch" one that everyone should play by the same rules even if that happens to be a woman. I believe that all golf should be played by the same rules to the maximum extent that golf organizations can get golfers to do that! I believe the game is simply more understandable and enjoyable that way and I think that's been well proven for a very long time.
I hate to see golfers not play by the rules but if for some reason doing otherwise makes them happy, that's fine. However, I see no need, no reason for any club, organization, association to get into proposing that golf should not be played in compliance with the rules.
It would seem from what you've said that some may have done that possibly for various reasons of "social engineering" or whatever, and I think that's wrong and unnecessary. But these associations or whatever are certainly independents and can do what they want--but I still think it's wrong for golf and ultimately golfers to fail to play under the rules of the game.
Of course I would never propose that men tour players play in LPGA events! That simply makes no sense to me. But if for some reason a woman believes she can play in a men's tour event, and she manages somehow to qualify on an equal footing, there's no reason I can see to exclude her provided she plays under the same rules as everyone else in all competitions that have anything to do with each other.
"Handicapping" is a well known element in golf but scratch golf and scratch tournaments are the complete antithesis of handicap golf and those distinctions should be kept crystal clear now and in the future as they have been in the past.
The various forms of golf are just part of what makes the game more fascinating and they should never be skewed and made to combine, in my opinion, and it would seem that the CT section and maybe some others have started to try to do that in some ways and I definitely disagree strenuously with that.
But if you agree with it then you do--and even your reasons I can certainly understand although I do not agree with them either as I think ultimately it just weakens the good things about golf.
But the game will hopefully survive regardless of whatever each of us thinks. There has been plenty of diversity of opinion in golf before and it has continued to survive.
-
Tim:
Great post on Professor Keller! I love stuff like that on here!
I only made the remark about the debating society out of control because I was reading DMoriarty's reponses to the quotes he inserted of yours.
With many of his responses, for me anyway, it wasn't a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing with what he was saying--I just thought he was all over the place, bringing apples into an orange discussion and whatnot. In a debate, a formal one anyway, it's sort of important to stick to the subject of the debate and not to bring points or things into that subject that don't relate, and to say at the same time that he doesn't even know why he's posting (or debating) as the whole thing seems ridiculous to him anyway.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me--anyone can have any opinon they want to as far as I'm concerned.
Now, I'll probably be roundly taken to task for acting arrogant and opinionated and irrational for making a post like this! Oh well, all things pass!
-
Tom Paul:
Professor Keller probably accounts for my views on the Augusta matter as well, the fact that (a) I see nothing wrong with single sex sports clubs but (b) were it left to me, I would boot out all the male corporate entertainers and invite real women golfers in their place.
Professor Keller would probably be happy, but somehow I don't think Martha Burk has such a solution in mind.
-
And I'm sure Professor Keller would probably account for your views too on ANGC if they happened to be the opposite of what they are!! That's important!
Professor Keller probably approves of Martha Burk's ability to express how she feels about ANGC too although Professor Keller herself might not agree with her!
I think Professor Keller would probably approve of DMoriarty's expressing of his opinions too although perhaps she might say to him;
"Mr Moriarty, express away but would you kindly try to stick to the subject of the discussion here, instead of informing us how irrational someone's opinion is and the fact that you feel you'd rather not be here?"
-
Tom Paul:
Keller might account for my views but that certainly doesn't mean she would agree!
Were we to discuss the matter, I'd want to take her to Ballybunion first. There one can find (a) a club which doesn't discriminate, (b) a tendency for men and women to voluntarily play only with members of their own sex and (c) a general absence of corporate/business entertainment.
Of these characteristics, I'm partial to "c", the kind of get away from work environment that Hootie Johnson alluded to in the Wall Street Journal.
The problem is Augusta actually welcomes the corporate entertainers, where Ballybunion doesn't have that as part of the club culture.
Friends of mine who do a lot of business entertaining don't see how you could ever have what Hootie claims. Hence, they don't like my view that if you want a single sex club, keep business at the gate.
But, I think it is a cultural thing. A club can truly be a place to relax, play golf and get away from it all. Both the men and women at Ballybunion prove that.
-
If we didn't keep score, we would not need the Rules of Golf in general. And we wouldn't have fourth graders being pushed to hit 200 balls a day by a high school math teacher. And I dare say, Hootie would not bother changing Augusta's architecture and frustrating GCAers everywhere.
Hey Tom--I like your enthusiasm. But I wonder, have you rubbed off the exclamation mark on the exclamation mark/number 1 type key yet???!!!!
-
John Conley:
What're you talking about sponsor's exemptions for? Has any sponsor's exemption ever been compensated for from different tees because they were deemed to be "inherently disadvantaged? And who said Andy Hodson wasn't entitled to his own opinion? I hope you don't think disagreeing with him implies he's not entitled to his opinion.
Tom:
I'm talking about sponsor's exemptions because Suzy Whaley is receiving one.
Do you know who has been awarded sponsors' exemptions in the past? Mark Rypien won the Celebrity Tour event one year in Tahoe and was playing at Avenel the next. (Sure, he played the same tees as everyone else IN THAT EVENT, but any serious golfer knows an under-par score in a CPT event was not the same golf as a PGA Tour member who misses a cut and was under par for 36 holes.) The GHO regularly awarded a spot to a AJGA player because of Canon's sponsorship of both. Local tournaments will sometimes use a spot for a player who recently was a college standout.
Is course setup for junior and college events the same as it is for the PGA Tour? Obviously not, so why should success in one of these lower areas lead to a free pass to play in the big league? (I can answer this if you can't figure it out - In return for ponying up millions of dollars, the sponsor is allowed to invite a few people that may help generate interest and attract fans to the event.)
The criteria for a sponsor's invite is very generous. That the GHO, a tournament really struggling for funding, didn't rescind the invitation (a long standing tradition) to a Section player who happens to be female is not a surprise to me. I don't know why it is to so many others.
-
John Conley:
I'm not talking about the issue of sponsor's exemptions at all--zippo! If you are or that was a point of discussion on this thread, then I'm sorry, I missed it--I should have read this thread more carefully.
All I said was I don't care who gets into a particular tournament like GHO or how, once they tee it up they do so under the same rules as every other competitor--end of point!
At first, I thought Suzy was going to play from different tees at GHO, but apparently not.
But I do question why the CT section of the PGA would want to play any tournament they run with competitors playing under different rules which includes from different tees, no matter who they are which includes a woman.
That was all. Sponsor's exemptions have nothing to do with any point I was trying to make.
-
Tom:
You pretty much agree with me then. The PGA of America allows its female members to play from a forward tee - and I'm sure they have their reasons. (They do, and I have not heard of many PGA of America members that disagree.) The PGA Tour does not allow participants to play from a forward tee - and I'm sure they have their reasons.
Some people want to twist this and say it isn't right that she qualified. The media uses that word often and Miss Whaley has used it herself. If you take qualified to mean advanced through a qualifier (as I do), she DID NOT qualify. She won an event that qualified her to receive an invitation.
If you say she qualified for the GHO, then you have to say that Don Pooley qualified for the U.S. Open when he won the U.S. Senior Open. If that person is a "qualifier", what is someone who advanced through Local and Sectional Qualifying? (The USGA considers Pooley "exempt from qualifying", which would seem to make him something other than a qualifier.)
I don't consider "earning an invitation" to be "qualifying" when there are tournaments called QUALIFIERS for these events. If you'd like to, the GHO will have a Monday 4-spot qualifier just prior to the event. And I'm certain all entrants will play from the same set of tees.
Where was all this outrage when Suzy Whaley missed the cut at the CPC this summer? There she did play from a forward tee.
-
Card and pencil:
Admirably, you have tied the matter back to architecture.....far better than I have in this discussion.
But, I agree with you for other reasons. My nephew is a junior in high school and plays on the basketball team. He would also like to be on the school's debating team, but is prevented from doing so because he plays basketball.
Amazingly, the school doesn't feel a student can do both. They want each student to focus on one activity so they can excel and the school is positioned to win competitive events.
Crazy in my book, but real. That's the world young people, including young women golfers, are growing up in.
John Conley:
I appreciate your effort to clarify matters that have been blurred in the press and by Whaley herself, but wonder why you use the word "outrage". Does disagreement mean outrage?
-
TEPaul writes:
Of course I would never propose that men tour players play in LPGA events! That simply makes no sense to me. But if for some reason a woman believes she can play in a men's tour event
Just to make one thing clear, the PGA Tour is not the Men's Professional Golf Association. There is no sex restriction in the PGA Tour bylaws (there was many years ago.) The PGA Tour is the tour for the best players playing in America (who are over 18.) If a woman played well enough to qualify for the tour, there is no restriction on her becoming a member.
TEPaul, I'm still wondering what Rule of Golf is being broken by the Ct. PGA when they allowed men to play from one set of tees and women from another. I've skimmed the rule book and can't find the specific rule. Please help.
Dan King
"We played all our competitions off men's tees. We played country matches off men's tees, we played our county championship off men's tees, we played our championships off of men's tees. What do they do now? They play from the up women's tees. Today they say, 'Oh, we can't make it too tough, otherwise people won't want to play.' It's easy to drop standards and it's hellish hard to get them up."
--Enid Wilson
-
Dan King:
Interesting points you raise.
Are you saying that the PGA Tour does not discriminate on the basis of gender but the LPGA does? If that is the case, isn't it time to eliminate sex discrimination on the LPGA Tour?
Martha Burk points to Augusta and raises the "extension of the workplace "argument, correctly, in my view. But, the LPGA goes even further than Augusta: it's not an "extension", it IS the workplace.
Second, I'm no expert on the rules of golf, but you appear to be saying that nothing in the rules prevents a man from teeing off from a different (and shorter) set of tees than fellow male competitors.
Is this permitted in the US Open? Is this a loophole that needs to be formally closed?
-
Tim,
Please, give it a rest. :o You know exactly why the Tours have divisions, so peers can compete with peers. I don't think that the menat the top of this chain worry about women somehow taking over their turf, do you ???
-
John Conley:
I appreciate your effort to clarify matters that have been blurred in the press and by Whaley herself, but wonder why you use the word "outrage". Does disagreement mean outrage?
Tim:
Now we are getting into semantics. I understand your point. To me, a disagreement is something people can accept and then move on. This thread is about to move to the 5th scroll. I take that to mean people are passionate enough about the topic to make outrage[/i] an appropriate word. (John touches off a tangential debate on what constitutes outrageous behavior.)
Someone makes a valid point and is told the beliefs are "bizarre"? Some of us repeat ourselves over and over, trying to make a point. Qualifies as outrage to me!
My frustration in even trying to argue this point is that too many people don't even know the facts that led to this situation. Who is YOUR disagreement with?
The PGA of America for allowing its female members a distance concession in their organization's events?
The Greater Hartford Open for using a sponsor's exemption for the person their PGA Section recognizes as champion?
The GHO for not rescinding the invite upon learning the Section's champion is female?
The PGA Tour for not getting involved by taking the unprecedented step of disallowing a sponsor's invite to one of their events?
Suzy Whaley for "asking" for such a concession?
A lot of people have said, "It's not right/fair for her to qualify for a Tour event from a different set of tees." How do you even begin to address them? It is clear they don't understand what happened.
Let me go through the various people or groups that may be considered at fault.
The PGA of America is actually being progressive in providing equal opportunity for all of its members. Since their events are closed, only members of their group are affected by the participation of females.
This is standard practice on Tour, and affords a little "local flavor" for otherwise mundane Tour stops.
To do so would actually BE discriminatory. "We ordinarily respect the Section's ability to identify the golfer they consider 'Champion', but in this case they have failed and we will not be inviting the supposed winner this year." That'd go over REAL well with half the population.
With Augusta National and the Masters as a backdrop, do you actually expect Tim Finchem and Company to do that?
I'm not even convinced Whaley realized an invite to the GHO would be coming if she won. She has never gloated and asked a lot of people if it was a bad idea before she accepted. There really hasn't been much public resistence to her participation. Telling her that she shouldn't accept such a novel invite is a bit meddlesome in my eyes.
I have a bet she finishes last. I am very happy she has decided to play and think it will be good for the Tour to have solid support for this event, even if it is for a hokey reason. But I still think she'll finish last, and I'm not going to be one to say she doesn't have that right.
Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll listen with all ears open.
-
Jim Kennedy:
I'm still struck by how sensitive people seem on this issue.
Accounting firms don't have male and female divisions, so what is the logic for professional golf to do so?
More to the point, doesn't that logic break down when one sex is permitted to play in the other's tournaments but the other is denied?
Why support a double standard?
You are asking me to take a rest. Is that your way of acknowledging that the double standard doesn't make sense?
-
Dan:
When you ask me what rule is being broken by the Ct Section when they allow a man to tee off from one set of tees and women from another, can probably begin to be answered by Tim Weiman's question, (Does this also men that a male competitor can play from a different tee than his fellow competitors?), (fellow competitor in this case would be men in the same division of the same tournament and not something like the regular seniors and Super seniors who aren't actually competiting against each other).
As to the rule that would prevent this. It's not much more than the fundamental rule of golf that ALL competitors in scratch competitions, which as far as I know all professional events are and always have been, play the SAME golf course under the same rules (which in almost every case I know of are the unified rules of the USGA & R&A).
When you start to abridge and comprise that fundamental of scratch golf you start to get into the world of "handicapping" and, again, that's where this is leading and in the professional realm particularly which I've never heard of and hope doesn't happen.
I hope this never happens in any serious scratch or nonhandicapped competitive event, amateur or pro, men against men, women against women, or even women against men!
It's just a fundamental of golf competition that ALL competitors play the SAME golf course under the SAME rules which I would prefer to see be the rules in the rule book.
-
John Conley:
I see this as genuine disagreement rather than outrage. The two concepts mean something different to me. It is not a question of semantics. What we do here is discuss, disagree and even, occasionally, agree.
To answer your specific question, I probably disagree most with the local PGA and possibly Whaley and the PGA Tour.
From what I gather, it is common to have 1 or 2 locals participate in PGA Tour events. I don't really have a problem with that.
Further it sounds like the CT section held a competitive event to determine who would qualify. Fine. Where I think they got bizarre is allowing senior males and females to play from different tees than other competitors AND from different tees than they would play if they happened to win and play in the GHO.
I use the word "bizarre" because I think there has been a blurring of reality on this issue. Defenders of the CT section vascilate between saying Whaley qualified (great story, isn't it?) and saying that, in fact, she just earned a sponsor's exemption. Whaley herself adds to the confusion with her public statements.
I don't recall saying she shouldn't accept the invite. However, I do think talking about "making history" is inappropriate. What history has she made that Babe Didrikson hasn't already accomplished?
Whaley has a "right" to accept a sponsor's exemption just like anyone else. My disagreement is with how that exemption was earned and the politically correct presentation of what is happening.
My rights are simply those of a fan. I'm not a member of the CT section, an official with the PGA Tour or the sponsor. I hope this matter does not mean fans should no longer feel free to comment, even if the views they express are unpopular.
-
I sure wish there was some way on Golfclubatlas when people disagree with each other, and that one or the other, or both, could stop getting so upset, so hurt, so offended and appear to think there's something culturally offensive about someone disagreeing with you!
It's almost treated like some kind of emotional murder on here if someone thinks someone else is wrong and says so! Why not, then, from now on, just say "I disagree with you", and leave it at that instead of saying "You're wrong" if people are so sensitive as they appear to be on here?
So what if someone disagrees with you--so what even if you're wrong?
My God, even I might be wrong up to 2% of the time and Pat Mucci's clearly only right about 2% of the time!
What's the difference really?
OK, so what if it's about 96%
Big Deal!
-
Tom Paul:
Are you saying Dan King has found a loophole?
-
Tom Paul:
Some of the "sensitivity" one finds here I think I understand. Possibly someone has trashed your home course or favorite architect that you may even be friends with.
But, on this issue I'm baffled. The young women I spoke to in order to gain perspective seemed far more comfortable discussing the issue - and criticizing Whaley - than folks are here.
Maybe people just want it to be a nice story and don't want anyone pointing out contradictions. That happens.
-
Tim:
I understand your viewpoint completely. You are the one who used the word bizarre? Anyway, I completely agree with you that the inclusion of a Sponsor's Invite with a win in the Section event is a bit odd. All "they" would have to do is say, MUST COMPLETE FROM BACK MARKER TO WIN EVENT, PURSE PAID OUT REGARDLESS OF MARKER PLAYED.
Suzy Whaley says, "I got 1st Place money, but wasn't considered the Section Champion because I played a forward set of tees."
The other guys says, "I lost first place money to a lady when I couldn't close the deal, but am considered CHAMPION because I had the low score for those playing the back tee."
I don't think either would complain. (They aren't complaining now, to my knowledge.)
There is precedence for this in competitive golf. Jim Thorpe got the Western's 1st Place check, but was not considered the "Champion" when Scott Verplank won as an amateur. You can pay a purse out along one guideline - in this case, professionals entered - and recognize order of finish along another - all entrants.
-
But, on this issue I'm baffled. The young women I spoke to in order to gain perspective seemed far more comfortable discussing the issue - and criticizing Whaley - than folks are here.
Specifically, what are they criticizing her for? I understand some think she should turn down the invitation, but I also think 1) it is HER decision, and 2) it is a known fact that the GHO is hurting for a sponsor and her husband is a key employee at the club. Perhaps she's been "asked" to play a little more than a normal sponsor's invite.
As I see it, she can save the event for at least another year. Their fundraising efforts will go much better now that she's commited to play.
-
John Conley:
My recollection is that Whaley received criticism as a symbol of rules these women disagreed with. They just don't buy the handicapping thing. See how serious they are about practicing and you can understand why.
If I were to take the other side, part of what the Tour is about is entertainment. The IMG crowd is always trying to come up new ideas. The commercial side of me understands that. But, I suspect these young women think more about the competitive aspect and aren't concerned with the financial prospects for the GHO.
-
Tom Paul, I assume that you feel that the Wendy's Three Tour Challange is not a legal event either then?
There is nothing in the Rules of Golf that prohibits the Committee from determining who plays from what tees in any event, scratch or handicap. As a matter of fact, it is one of their duties in setting up the course for the competition.
Tim, The LPGA, Futures Tour and the USGA for all women's events have a clause in their entry form that states, "Must have been born a woman" There is no such equivalent clause in any of the men's events. The clause was added after Renee Richards started playing in women's tennis events. If you wish to challange that in court and try to play, I'm sure that you could get some lawyer to help you. You could probably even make some money on the Future's Tour. ;)
As I think I stated before, the PGA of America restricts qualifiers for the PGA Championship to those who play from the back tees at the Club Pro Championship. The section could have done that before the event and I'm sure that Suzy Whaley would not have objected. She played in the CPC from forward tees this year and didn't object to the clause then. BUT, they didn't do that so she rightly got the spot when she won. Any crying about it is way too late at this point.
-
John V:
My future won't include playing on any tour. Just sampling the world of golf architecture is all I hope for.
I'll still never forget seeing Dan King, Hawaiian shirt and all, sitting on the bench approaching the #14 tee at Pacific Dunes. For me that experience is far better than playing in the GHO!
-
Tim:
That is exactly the problem with discussion of this issue. Whaley can end up being the target for disagreement or frustration in another area.
I started a thread over a month ago that wondered whether 10% is the right number. If it is, should it be evenly applied to each hole, or is it an aggregate number that provides a nice target. As we saw at Hazeltine, absolute yardage is misleading. That 7300+ yard course played "short" for a lot of pros because the distance was buried in the four very long par 5s. My post went on to say that an architect may have a future analyzing data and making the required adjustments to all golf courses, as every course could conceivably host a PGA of America event.
My guess is that the PGA Sections just march up a bit and set the block, with little or no thought.
Alas, that thread died in a matter of hours and nobody else wanted to use this site for the same meaningful discussion you and I like - at least on that issue.
When Bethune-Cookman won the NCAA Minority College Championship, who did you have a problem with?
* the event's governing body - which I think is also the PGA of America - for allowing a team that didn't mirror the racial complexity of the school they represented
* the Europeans on the BCC team for playing well enough to win
* the coach and AD at BCC for entering a team in the field when they clearly did not meet the intent of the rule
* the other "true minority" schools for not boycotting the event or forcing changes that would exclude Bethune Cookman prior to teeing it up
* or someone else?
Mike O'Toole from Granite Falls, MN won the individual portion of this event over a decade ago playing for Eddie Payton's Jackson State team. Where does blame or fault lie for letting that happen? I think all reasonable people agree that he SHOULDN'T have been playing in the event to begin with.
Like the Whaley case, the National Minority College Tournament is not a black-and-white issue. There are many shades of grey. I remember hearing a lot of outrage about that as well, but most people didn't pinpoint where their frustrations lie. I bring it up to show yet another instance where seemingly well-intended rules and guidelines can often have unintended ripple effects.
Title IX is a great rule, with horrible implementation. When people say, "Title IX sucks!" it is usually misdirected anger at the implementation of the well-intended rule.
All I ask is that when people tell me they don't like something, tell me specifically what you don't like. I usually agree with the core beliefs others have, or at least respect them.
Florida State "shouldn't" be playing in a BCS game. I hear it a lot. But I have yet to hear a viable plan to take them out. Don't forget, any proposal has to get clearance from the ACC Commissioner. I'd like to see someone else point out why FSU and the Conference shouldn't get the $13 Million payday they deserve for agreeing to go along with the present BCS structure in the first place.
I may seem like I am rambling, but I toss these out to illustrate how many contentious issues have complex sub-plots that go a long way to explain how we end up in a quandary that often results from well-intended decisions.
-
Maybe people just want it to be a nice story and don't want anyone pointing out contradictions. That happens.
More likely we're all just a bunch of argumentative SOBs... ;D
P.S. to JC -
Poor implementation of a well intentioned idea usually means the idea was wrong in the first place. :)
-
John -- It would seem at this point that the GHO needs Suzy Whaley more than she needs the GHO.
Even though I disagreed with the procedure under which Whaley qualified for the GHO (I think your last post outlines a perfectly reasonable alternative: the automatic bid to a PGA event goes to whichever player scores lowest from the PGA tees), I have no problem with her accepting the bid that she won according to the rules in existence.
My concern, however, is about what might come next. If a struggling tour event (and, according to recent accounts, many of them are struggling) decides that the best way to retain its attendance is to invite a woman, or women, to play -- regardless of their ability to compete -- has the integrity of the event, and the tour, been compromised?
Maybe the Tour is too dull now. The marketplace generally decides quite efficiently when a product is no longer worth the money being charged. But I think there are better alternatives to restoring interest in weekly PGA Tour events than mixed-gender, handicapped competition.
I suspect, however, that a spike in attendance and/or TV ratings for this year's GHO is going to convince other tournament promoters that adding a woman is the easy way out. Then what? What otherwise non-qualified contestants or stunt events could be added to the mix: Alternate tees, three shots per side, golf carts allowed, blind bogey, super skin holes, buying a mulligan, etc. Anna Kournikova may be getting fitted for a set of Pings as we speak.
I don't mean this post to sound condescending to women. Any woman who can play with the men ought to eligible to compete for a spot in a PGA tournament. That would be good for the game. But I'm afraid tour stops are going to exploit this wrinkle, which will be nothing new for women.
-
Tim Wieman writes:
If that is the case, isn't it time to eliminate sex discrimination on the LPGA Tour?
Nope.
Second, I'm no expert on the rules of golf, but you appear to be saying that nothing in the rules prevents a man from teeing off from a different (and shorter) set of tees than fellow male competitors.
You play from the tees the Committee specify. It isn't up to the competitor to decide what tees, it is up to the Committee.
TEPaul writes:
When you ask me what rule is being broken by the Ct Section when they allow a man to tee off from one set of tees and women from another, can probably begin to be answered by Tim Weiman's question, (Does this also men that a male competitor can play from a different tee than his fellow competitors?),
My understanding is the Committee would be within their rights, according to the Rules of Golf, to specify all men should play from forward tees and all women from back tees. My guess is if such a tournament were to take place, women would be disinclined to sign up. The Rules of Golf say the Committee determines what tees you are playing from and you must play from the tees they specify. I don't believe there is any rule saying that they can't determine some tee off from one set of tees and some from another.
It could be an interest in fairness, but I'm fairly sure it has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf.
I haven't ever given an opinion on Whaley, my position is if you throw around Rules of Golf, better to be able to specify chapter and verse. I'd rather people not make up Rules of Golf, especially doyen's who could have significant influence on some of the impressionable youth on this forum.
But I might as well state my opinion. I think Whaley competing in a PGA Tour event is a wonderful thing. I think some day women will be able to compete on a level playing field with men in golf, but we aren't there yet. Part of the reason is a lack of role models. Perhaps Whaley will convince some young girls that they can compete with young boys. It's a baby step, but it has to start with baby steps. We are not near the point now that it is a level playing field between men golfers and women golfers, so why pretend we are?
Dan King
"In 1587 golf's first famous woman player [Mary Queen of Scots] was convicted and beheaded. Women's golf went into something of a decline after that."
--Rhonda Glenn
-
John Conley:
Surprise, surprise. I hate the BCS and wish we could go back to the old bowls. At least under that system we could argue who the best team was without any pretense of fairly settling the matter.
Rick:
At the end of the day, I suspect money will rule. Whaley represents a good story, ticket sales and advertising dollars.
Questions about how she earned her spot won't make the cash register ring. Come to think about it, I must be "irrational"!
-
Tim,
I'll try to keep my comments in a narrow band and apply them to professional golf played for prize money.
Tour diivisions exist so players can compete within peer groups. We recognize divisions in many other sports and understand the various reasons why they exist. Some are related to ability or age or sex , others to safety and others to establish viewing markets.
In the world of golf we recognize that the PGATour is at the top of golf's divisional heap.
Stifling any sportperson's professional quest by saying: "if you reach or surpass the top of your respective division you cannot participate at the highest level because of your gender, race, religion, old age, etc.," is the only true "Double standard". That is one reason the PGA Tour sets performance and not gender as one of it's main criteria for membership. They realize that if a player has the ability to rise to the highest level of play they deserve the right to compete with their peers.
-
Dan King:
It sounds like you have found a loophole. Clever man, indeed! I'll let the learned Mr. Paul respond. His knowledge of the rules far surpasses mine.
But, I can't understand why you think women are close to being able to compete on the PGA Tour but still support sex discrimination on the LPGA Tour. Isn't it a workplace just like any other? Why the special exemption?
Shouldn't less talented, perhaps shorter hitting men, be able to compete on the LPGA. What if they can't beat male PGA players but can beat female LPGA players? Shouldn't they be able to make a living on the LPGA? Why hold their sex against them?
-
Jim Kennedy:
I see two fair and reasonable regimes. First, one where sex discrimination is accepted. Men play in men's events and women play in women's events.
The alternative is to open up all professional golf to members of both sexes and avoid sex discrimination altogether.
That's the best way to avoid any double standard.
Preventing less talented males players from playing on the LPGA is just as wrong as denying capable women from playing on the PGA.
Professional golf is a workplace. Consistency and fair standards should apply. The Whaley matter has - or should - open up a can of worms.
-
Pazin:
Don't know that I agree, but I can see why you say that.
Rick:
Good points. Don't know what this could lead to. I think it will be a one-time novelty, like NBC airing a Jets game with no announcer or tennis scoring 1,2,3 instead of 15-30-40?! ??? Time will tell.
Tim:
No problem if you hate the BCS, but it was born in reply to those who felt Washington and Miami should have played in 1991 and that 1996 would have had a better finish if undefeateds Florida State and Arizona State met "on the field". No BCS this year? Washington State meets Ohio State (over Iowa, in an almost arbitrary tiebreaker because they didn't play) in the Rose, Miami probably chooses to take on Georgia in a home game at the Orange Bowl. Imagine the cries from sportswriters and fans!! (As I've stated 1000 times, there has never been a better system to select the National Champion for Major College Football.)
Dan King:
Great point about the Rules. A guy once told me I couldn't chip out from under a tree with the back of my 7-iron. "It says in the Rules of Golf that you have to use the face of the club to hit the ball." Okay to tell me I better check before I do it, but to tell me - with certainty - when it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about? That troubles me.
-
But since nobody ever said that exemptions, whether earned or unearned, must be given to people coming from level playing field competitions, I have no problem with this (other than the obvious fact that she's taking a spot from someone who has a much more legitimate chance to do well).
Shiv:
Thanks for the assist.
Point taken, but then you really are in a discussion far bigger than Whaley. Jeff Julian, Johnny Bench, Deane Beman, Mark Rypien, Gary Nicklaus, Ray Floyd's kids, and many others have been given invitations to many events on both the PGA Tour and Champions Tour that could have easily gone to more accomplished players. I'll lump Curtis Strange, an ABC announcer, into this group for receiving an invite to Disney this year even though he still makes cuts on Tour. His days of Top 10 finishes appear to be in the past.
Unfortunately, I don't see the Whaley-GHO episode leading to meaningful discussion on that subject. Just a rhetorical question, but aren't a lot of people saying that the PGA Tour should have formal standards for who can receive an invitation from one of the sponsors?
-
Dave Schmidt:
I don't have your legal mind, but do think sooner or later the right of the LPGA to dscriminate will be challenged. People who champion Whaley now will be to blame when that finally happens, in my humble opinion.
Yes, you have been missing a good party even if some have stormed out in protest.
-
Tim Wieman writes:
It sounds like you have found a loophole.
No loophole. It's just left up to the Committee. The Committee makes these sort of decisions. If their decisions result in an unfair tournament, people won't sign up for the next year. They have to maintain fairness to stay credible.
Regarding the Ct. PGA, if enough of their members believed Whaley got an unfair advantage it would hurt their future credibility. Apparently enough of them haven't been bothered by it to force the Ct. PGA to change their ways.
But, I can't understand why you think women are close to being able to compete on the PGA Tour but still support sex discrimination on the LPGA Tour. Isn't it a workplace just like any other? Why the special exemption?
I had a feeling you weren't just going to accept my "Nope."
Women have been kept second-class citizens, especially in sports, for centuries. Only in the recent past have we made the effort to level the playing field. But as in any race, you can't hold back some of the contestants at the starting line for a long time, then let them go, saying now it is a fair race. You have to give them the opportunity to get caught up.
I think for women to succeed at sports, or numerous other endeavors, they will need opportunity, instruction, role models, expectations and rewards (and perhaps a nice shrubbery.)
Whaley obviously doesn't answer all these issues. You make a strong argument that her earning this spot hurts in expectations. But I feel her job as a role model is more important at this stage than expectations.
By the way, I don't think Babe Zaharias in entirely a fair comparison. There is no way to compare qualifying for a PGA event in 1938 and today. The 1938 L.A. Open had something like 150 contestants trying for 90 spots. Current tournaments have hundreds of golfers trying for four spots. I've never found what contestants shot in those qualifying tournaments, but I have read that George Zaharias entered (and qualified) for the 1938 L.A. Open after having broken 80 for the first time in his life.
Dan King
"Women were no longer content to be regarded as purveyor of fun in mixed foursomes, or as a member of some race apart who should be confined to scratching in a nice little hen-run with dear little holes of 20 yards to so whilst the menfolk looked on in amused tolerance."
--Eleanor Helme (on the forming of the Ladies Golf Union)
-
Shivas:
Very good point of yours to bring up the Casey Martin case in the context of any potential lawsuits involving players trying to break into playing on other tours (LPGA whatever) in the context of discrimination policies and tour organization rules.
Clearly the PGA Tour was gambling by sticking with the case brought by Martin that a judge COULD HAVE ruled on the Tour's right to make their own rules, but, in fact, that did not happen (the original Northwest Judge was extremely clever on that point, in my opinion).
He ruled only on the physical facts and merits of Casey Martin himself in light of the one rule of "walking only" and ruled in Martin's favor in that context. And the lower court's logic and ruling was upheld through the Appelate Court and also in the US Supreme Court!
The effect of that clever lower court ruling was that any player suing a tour's policies or rules under the ADA must bring their own individual cases against any organization on the merits of the particular situation invoved. In this way, the Martin ruling did not really address the Tour's ability to make their own rules and the ADA did not become and "open door" vehicle for entry to the tour. Each case needs to stand or fall on it's own merits, in other words! Great Ruling!
-
Dan King:
You ask a very fine question about my mention of allowing any player to play scratch tournaments from other than the same tees violates some rule of golf!
I would expect nothing less from you and this is a great example of the value of some of the contributors to Golfclubatlas, their thinking and in depth knowledge!
And you're completely right to ask that anyone who's throwing around and citing the rules of golf should be able to back it up chapter and verse!
I can't do that at the moment. I looked in the rule book and can not now find anything to back up what I said.
I do view this issue, though, as a fundamental principle of golf and the Rules of Golf. I'll look some more for it and if I can't find it I'll run it by the USGA. If they won't or can't answer it and I can find no logic of what I'm saying anywhere, I sure will admit it and that I'm wrong to base what I said on a rule, principle or even what I thought was a supposed fundamental of golf!
-
Dave Schmidt:
Not sure I completely follow the legalize, but I can't imagine how the LPGA or the PGA would not be considered a workplace. If not, then what is it?
Dan King:
I understand the history and your 1960's reference to changing civil rights laws.
The reason I described what is happening with young women golfers today is to illustrate how much things have changed since I was growing up.
I was just lucky as a kid to find a few old Titleists and be allowed on the golf course. By contrast, my nine year old daughter has high school coaches trying to recruit her.
In the world she is growing in, girls have every opportunity to practice and play golf as the boys. Thus, I can't see why a double standard should be kept in place much longer.
To deny men the right to make a living on the LPGA Tour while permitting women the right to do so on the PGA Tour simply isn't fair or sustainable. Sooner or later some guy will challenge it and both Tours may regret how the Whaley matter has been handled.
-
Tom Paul:
Dan King always brings a thoughtful angle. I'll be interested to hear what the USGA says.
P.S. More than once I've fantasized about winning the US Open. Please advise if you discover an angle that will help me enough to make it actually happen. Surely, you and Dan can think of something.
-
Shivas:
This is why you're a lawyer and I'm not! Those questions are beyond my memory and possibly my understanding.
I do remember an "inside the ropes" argument from the Tour but I can't recall whether that was just all part of the Martin case progression or a separate stop and ruling, so to speak. I think I remember that "inside the ropes" in the PGA Tour context was "outside" the workplace (as Tour players are independent contractors) and therefore somewhat exempt in a "public accomodation" context, which basically the ADA encompasses, or is supposed to.
So I don't know whether there was any precedent setting for carts or localities or anything like that. I only remember reading the actual case, all the way through, and the reporting that anyone bringing a case in the ADA context would have to do it on any future case's own merits.
-
Dave Schmidt:
I can see the headlines now:
"Golfclubatlas.com discussion opens up LPGA......Martha Burks challenges Augusta to follow LPGA example".
Even better would be if Tommy Naccarato became the first male winner on the LPGA Tour.........
SI's "What kind of man logs on to Glofclubatlas.com?" will become even more famous in the annals of golf!
-
Can anyone figure out a way for me to join the Girl Scouts?
ChrisB, Male, Age 32
-
This whole issue was dealt with much more consisely in an Afterschool Special. In this particular movie, Will threw a wrench into the works when he showed up at his older sister Jenny's cheerleading tryouts and attempted to get on the squad. The movie was the defining point in this argument and it basically summed up everything: treat your sister with respect and don't be a jerk. Men have plenty of avenues to ride down in getting from point A to point B. Anyway, this is old news. The ABC television network put it to bed a long time ago--like in the 70's.
-
Dave Schmidt:
I had a post for you but couldn't post it, didn't lose it and will post it later.
But if it's true what you say about Martin being considered a "customer" pertaining to "public accomodation" in the context of ADA law, that's nothing like what I thought the effect of the US Supreme Court ruling was.
That would be far more disasterous for the PGA Tour or other sports, and sports organizations, in my opinon!
I like to think of myself as a fair man, capable of considering the plight of others who might be unfortunate, disabled, whatever, but eventually a logic needs to set in before things become truly illogical, or unworkable as to their survival--and I hope to construe that in the finest sense for all, and all things considered!
-
It appears that I ruffled a few feathers (Tim's and TEPaul's, namely) by referring to Tim W's position as "irrational." Tim and Tom, I apologize if my use of the term offended you or your sense of decent, formal debate (If I had known our debate was so formal, I'd have worn a tie.)
Tim, let me assure you that I was not calling you, your mother, or your many female friends irrational, just your application of PGA Tour standards to what I view as a business association's member event.
In the future I will try to use a more politically correct term. So I don't bumble into offending anyone else, maybe one of you two more experienced posters could instruct me on the proper way to express my belief that another's argument takes an unjustifiable leap in logic (such as when another treats Tour Pros and Golf Instructors on equal footing since they both have "professional" in their name.)
Or, perhaps you lead by example. Next time I will consider following Tim's lead and refer to the offending post as "bizarre, more so, in my opinion, than any I have seen put forth on this site." And perhaps I should emphasize this point like Tim by repeating that the argument "makes absolutely no sense." This may be the way to go since TEPaul also is apparently a follower of the "makes no sense" school.
I only made the remark about the debating society out of control because I was reading DMoriarty's reponses to the quotes he inserted of yours.
With many of his responses, for me anyway, it wasn't a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing with what he was saying--I just thought he was all over the place, bringing apples into an orange discussion and whatnot. In a debate, a formal one anyway, it's sort of important to stick to the subject of the debate and not to bring points or things into that subject that don't relate, and to say at the same time that he doesn't even know why he's posting (or debating) as the whole thing seems ridiculous to him anyway.
TEPaul, I enjoy reading many of your posts (of course I don't have time to read through them all!) and almost always respect your opinion. That is why I hope you will pardon me when I disregard your viewpoint that my argument on this thread was "was all over the place." After all, it took you 75 posts (10 of which were your own) for you to figure out that: 1) Mrs. Whaley played shorter tees in the sectional, and 2) that Mrs. Whaley was not playing shorter tees in the GHO. Perhaps if you had spent a little bit more time reading and a little less writing you would have understood what I was getting at. Or, perhaps not.
Always a Pleasure.
-
Tim Weiman writes:
In the world she is growing in, girls have every opportunity to practice and play golf as the boys. Thus, I can't see why a double standard should be kept in place much longer.
You can't discriminate for centuries and then believe the results of that discrimination goes away in a generation. It's going to take a while. Black golfers were discriminated against for a long time and only now, more than three generations later, are we just beginning to see results from sacrifices of people like Bill Spiller, Ted Rhodes and Charlie Sifford.
And I'm not arguing legalities. I don't believe the legal system is a good barometer of ethical issues. I'm not arguing the PGA Tour® should be forced to include women, only that it is in their best interest to encourage women to reach their full potential. It's an ethical, not a legal issue.
The PGA Tour charter is to identify the best golfers. That isn't the charter for the LPGA, Senior Tour or AJGA. These tours identify the best of a subset.
It is in the best interest of the PGA Tour to ensure the best players in the world play on their tour. Why would they intentionally restrict their membership to 50% of the potential pool?
Another part of the problem is that it isn't in the LPGA's best interest to see women succeed on the PGA Tour. I believe that is part of the reason the tour has gone to a setup that encourages accuracy over strength.
Note: I don't believe there is any legal reason the PGA Tour couldn't be the Men's Professional Golf Tour if they decided they wanted to be. Gender specific organizations have proven to be legal.
But why would the PGA Tour want to go from being a tour for the best players in the U.S. to a tour for the best male players in the U.S.?
More than once I've fantasized about winning the US Open.
Me, I've always wanted to play on a Walker Cup team. Course, if I were to win the U.S. Open, I'm betting they'd give me a spot on the Walker Cup. But the U.S. Open has far too much celebrity for my taste. Walker Cup: something a small group of people are very impressed with, and they seem to have the coolest reunions. No U.S. Curtis Cup team fantasies, but I do have an individual Curtis Cup fantasy for Leigh Ann Hardin.
(http://www.curtiscup.org/players/images/usa/hardin.jpg)
Dan King
No one could expect a married women with young children to win a championship. It would be enough grounds for a divorce."
--Sir Ernest Holderness (former British Amateur Champion on plans for matches between the Ladies Golf Union of Great Britain and American golfers, 1931)
-
If Babe Zaharias were alive today, she'd be rolling in her grave!
-
I am so impressed that Dan King can scan and post a picture out of his wallet like that! Dan, aren't you going to share what she wrote on the back? ;D
-
Dan King:
I'm actually a far bigger fan of the Walker Cup. Bob Lewis, who will captain the next US team, once told me he felt far more pressure competing in the Walker Cup than the US Amateur or the Masters. For spectators, the Walker Cup blows away any professional event, in my experience.
Women may have experienced discrimination for centuries, but I really believe the opportunities young women have today to practice and play exceed what I experienced growing up. That's a lot of change in just one generation. That's why the young women I spoke to think the Whaley situation already represents outdated thinking.
Speaking of outdated thinking, just consider the reference to being a "jerk" as found above. What makes a male without the skill to compete on the PGA Tour a jerk for wanting to earn a living on the LPGA?
At some stage, the logic of allowing one sex to compete on both tours but denying the same to the other sex will fall apart. For the time being, supporters of this concept are just hoping no man will want to suffer the abuse of being called a jerk. Meanwhile, they want credit for how open minded they are being about Whaley. A classic example of trying to have it both ways.
Dan, I'm all for providing opportunity to women to reach their potential. But, why does that mean supporting a double standard? How is that ethical? Do we have to wait centuries to achieve some consistency?
One final point. The only sport I played competitively growing up was swimming. I can assure you that at least thirty five years ago the girls worked as hard as the boys in the pool. To even suggest any sex discrimination took place is totally wrong. Race discrimination? Absolutely. But, sex discrmination? No way.
DMoriarty:
Anytime you want you can accuse me of an "unjustifiable leap of logic". It would be bizarre (or irrational) of me to suggest otherwise!
-
Dave,
What the laws don't do is regulate private associations, such as the LPGA or the PGA Tour, if it so chose, from excluding members based on gender. The SC decision used the Q-school as an example of the public having access to the PGA Tour, a big part of their decision. Q-school for the Tour doesn't limit access by gender but as a private association it could. The LPGA Tour is gender specific. It might be tough to call but I believe they would prevail in the end.
An interesting find when reading the SC decisions is how they are used in Tour events. Dan King is so right and not loopholing the rules at all. In the Martin case the court explained the use of the rules as follows:
Three sets of rules govern competition in tour events. First, the “Rules of Golf,” jointly written by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of Scotland, apply to the game as it is played, not only by millions of amateurs on public courses and in private country clubs throughout the United States and worldwide, but also by the professionals in the tournaments conducted by petitioner, the USGA, the Ladies’ Professional Golf Association, and the Senior Women’s Golf Association. Those rules do not prohibit the use of golf carts at any time.
Second, the “Conditions of Competition and Local Rules,” often described as the “hard card,” apply specifically to petitioner’s professional tours. The hard cards for the PGA TOUR and NIKE TOUR require players to walk the golf course during tournaments, but not during open qualifying rounds. On the SENIOR PGA TOUR, which is limited to golfers age 50 and older, the contestants may use golf carts. Most seniors, however, prefer to walk.
Third, “Notices to Competitors” are issued for particular tournaments and cover conditions for that specific event. Such a notice may, for example, explain how the Rules of Golf should be applied to a particular water hazard or man-made obstruction. It might also authorize the use of carts to speed up play when there is an unusual distance between one green and the next tee
-
ChrisB writes:
Dan, aren't you going to share what she wrote on the back?
There are certain things a gentleman leaves as private.
Tim Weiman writes:
Women may have experienced discrimination for centuries, but I really believe the opportunities young women have today to practice and play exceed what I experienced growing up. That's a lot of change in just one generation.
So you believe the playing field is now level?
Practice and play is one part of the equation, but there is still plenty of work.
Do you believe the gap between the best men's player and best women's player is there because that is the size of the gap between their potentials? Is it only because of the superior strength of men, or is there something inherently superior about men that make them better golfers?
Speaking of outdated thinking, just consider the reference to being a "jerk" as found above.
Wasn't me that said it, was it?
At some stage, the logic of allowing one sex to compete on both tours but denying the same to the other sex will fall apart.
Do you ever get upset when you hear that people under 18 can compete in AJGA and PGA Tour® events, but those over 18 can't compete in both? Should that be grounds for some sort of lawsuit?
There is no Men's Professional Golf Tour (actually not sure if they changed, but when I looked into four or five years ago the European Tour was restricted to males.) If you wanted to start a men's tour, I'm fairly sure there is no legal reason you couldn't. If the lack of a men's tour bothers you, start one.
It isn't that the men's tour allows women while the women's tour doesn't allow men. There is an unrestricted tour and a woman's tour. Yes, men do not have a tour all their own, only because there hasn't been a lot of need for one. At some future date, when the line between the best male golfer and the best golfer widens, then there might become a reason for a men's tour.
A classic example of trying to have it both ways.
I'm failing to see the inconsistency in my position.
Dan, I'm all for providing opportunity to women to reach their potential. But, why does that mean supporting a double standard?
You are seeing a double standard where none exists. The lack of a men's tour doesn't mean anyone is stopping it from happening. Market forces are not the same as legal forces. Some might call you a jerk for trying to start it, but I'm guessing your skin is plenty thick enough to handle that.
Dan King
"This is another thing I like about golf, the exclusiveness. Of course most country clubs exclude the wrong kinds of people, such as me. But I hold out the hope that somewhere there's a club which bans first wives, people in twelve-step programs, Sting, the editorial board of the Boston Globe, and Ross Perot."
--P.J. O'Rourke (Men's Journal, 1992)
-
DMoriarty:
As you mentioned earlier, regarding which tees Suzy teed off from, who gave her a sponsor's exemption and for what, and what tees she's gonna tee off from, I certainly was a little slow on the uptake. Sorry about that.
As for the, perhaps if I'd spent a bit less time writing and a bit more time reading I would have understood what you were getting at....
I think for the time being, I'll just choose the 'perhaps not'.
Thank you, and likewise, it's always a pleasure as well.
-
Dan King:
Observing the opportunity young women have has convinced me the playing field is level. Today. Here and now. My daughter has a far greater opportunity to learn the game than I ever did at her age. Not even close.
The high school girls I see work every bit as hard and receive all the same coaching as the boys.
Honestly, I think you fail to appreciate how much things have changed. By any historical standard the change has taken place at a very rapid pace - one generation.
As for why men may be better golfers, I really don't know. What does seem clear is that golfing ability - like other activites - varies as much within each sex as it does between the sexes. That's why I question the assumption that some form of handicap is appropriate to "negate inherent advantage". As Tom Paul as written, that makes sense for casual golf, but not for scratch competitions.
I'm having difficulty understanding how you believe denying men the right to play on the LPGA Tour is not a double standard if women can play on the PGA Tour. Males can play on one tour, but women both tours. Why the difference? How is that not a double standard?
An "unrestricted tour" and a "women's tour"? Really. Don't you mean one "unrestricted" and one "restricted tour" with an arbitrary rule that denies participation to the latter based on gender? And this, in the name of "fairness"?
Finally, I must reference your comment "it isn't that the men's tour allows women while the women's tour doesn't allow men".
My understanding is that Suzy Whaley IS a woman and IS being allowed to play in the GHO. It is also my understanding that male golfers are, in fact, NOT permitted to play in LPGA events.
Dan, tell me which one of those facts is wrong?
-
Tim Weiman:
You're understanding is wrong. Whaley has just been disqualified and fined $2.99 for cheating in the Ct Championship for withholding relevant information on a rules infraction of playing from the wrong tee marks. Whaley's entry into the GHO has been withdrawn. You social engineers, rules experts and problem solvers have all been hoodwinked!
Although unusually attractive Suzy Whaley has just admitted she's actually a man!
In case you missed my mention of it on another thread the ANGC/Burk issue has also been resolved. Hootie has come out of the closet and has a sex change operations scheduled for tomorrow!
Martha Burk will be a on-course commentator for CBS in the 2003 Masters.
Tiger Woods issued a press release saying although he forgot to say he wasn't going to play in the 2003 Masters, now he is!
The New York Times has headlines being prepared for tomorrow's early edition as we speak, reading:
"Major New York newspaper solves multiple discrimination problems simultaneously".
And all is well tonight in Denmark.
Goodnight Mrs Calabash, wherever you are!
-
Tom Paul:
My God, now I'm really happy Professor Keller told me not to sit quietly!
Paul Richards:
Where are you? Isn't this your thread?
-
Thank God we made it to page 7 on this thread. That calls for an all out smileyfest!
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-/ :-* :'(
-
Some of this we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
This is my last week of the semester and I have a Algebra and Japanese Lit finals, and three essays due: Rebuttal of the Aquatic Ape Theory, response to Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail and a comparison of the writings of Dazai Osamu and Kawabata Yasunari.
Instead of doing all my school work, I'm busy trying to become a Senior Member overnight.
I'll respond later, but it might be a while.
Dan King
"I was terrible at history. I could never see the point of learning what people thought back when people were a lot stupider. For instance, the ancient Phoenicians believed that the sun was carried across the sky on the back of an enormous snake. So what? So they were idiots."
--Dave Barry
-
Dan King:
Thanks. I happen to think this has been a pretty good thread. No minds will be changed, of course, but the issues have been examined/expressed fairly well, I think.
Good luck with your exams.
-
Dan King:
Anybody who knows anything knows the Phoenicians were right! The sun is carried across the sky by an enormous snake! Many people actually think those big long things you see in the sky are jet airplane contrails! What a bunch of idiots! And furthermore all you dunces have so far failed to understand that in that realization lies the solution to the problem of this entire Suzy Whaley issue!
-
Tim;
I am here. I just cannot believe how the discussion on this topic continues!
I just can't get past the fact that Ms. Whaley "qualified" when she didn't play the same course.
I think we will learn a lot when we see what scores she actually shoots in the GHO ....
-
I just can't get past the fact that Ms. Whaley "qualified" when she didn't play the same course.
I understand that is a point of frustration for many. But, out of curiosity, who do you "blame"?
The GHO for inviting the CT Section champ, them for not rescinding it when they learned it was Suzy, the PGA Tour for not stepping in, Whaley for going along with it, or the PGA of America for making a concession for their female members?
People are entitled to have their own opinions on the matter, but it helps me to understand where you are coming from if I know what you'd propose differently. (I've offered my 2 cents earlier.)
--
I completely agree with you that the inclusion of a Sponsor's Invite with a win in the Section event is a bit odd. All "they" would have to do is say, MUST COMPLETE FROM BACK MARKER TO WIN EVENT, PURSE PAID OUT REGARDLESS OF MARKER PLAYED.
Suzy Whaley says, "I got 1st Place money, but wasn't considered the Section Champion because I played a forward set of tees."
The other guys says, "I lost first place money to a lady when I couldn't close the deal, but am considered CHAMPION because I had the low score for those playing the back tee."
I don't think either would complain. (They aren't complaining now, to my knowledge.)
There is precedence for this in competitive golf. Jim Thorpe got the Western's 1st Place check, but was not considered the "Champion" when Scott Verplank won as an amateur. You can pay a purse out along one guideline - in this case, professionals entered - and recognize order of finish along another - all entrants.
--
Who is YOUR disagreement with?
The PGA of America for allowing its female members a distance concession in their organization's events?
The Greater Hartford Open for using a sponsor's exemption for the person their PGA Section recognizes as champion?
The GHO for not rescinding the invite upon learning the Section's champion is female?
The PGA Tour for not getting involved by taking the unprecedented step of disallowing a sponsor's invite to one of their events?
Suzy Whaley for "asking" for such a concession?
A lot of people have said, "It's not right/fair for her to qualify for a Tour event from a different set of tees." How do you even begin to address them? It is clear they don't understand what happened.
Let me go through the various people or groups that may be considered at fault.
The PGA of America is actually being progressive in providing equal opportunity for all of its members. Since their events are closed, only members of their group are affected by the participation of females.
This is standard practice on Tour, and affords a little "local flavor" for otherwise mundane Tour stops.
To do so would actually BE discriminatory. "We ordinarily respect the Section's ability to identify the golfer they consider 'Champion', but in this case they have failed and we will not be inviting the supposed winner this year." That'd go over REAL well with half the population.
With Augusta National and the Masters as a backdrop, do you actually expect Tim Finchem and Company to do that?
I'm not even convinced Whaley realized an invite to the GHO would be coming if she won. She has never gloated and asked a lot of people if it was a bad idea before she accepted. There really hasn't been much public resistence to her participation. Telling her that she shouldn't accept such a novel invite is a bit meddlesome in my eyes.
-
John Conley:
I can't devote the time I did yesterday to this thread, but will briefly respond to your questions.
If you are looking for one party or one act responsible for this situation, it sounds like it was the CT section PGA and the decision to handicap a sratch event.
Tom Paul addressed this issue in previous posts. Handicapping is fine for casual golf, but really has no place in sratch events at the professional or amateur level. This applies to both senior males and females.
I would suggest leaving the thing alone, allowing the media to have its story and the GHO its marketing angle, but eliminating handicapping in all future PGA section events (or at least those where part of the prize is playing in a local PGA Tour event).
Trying to be progressive is fine. The appropriate way to do that is what I described yesterday: high school coaches are recruiting 4th grade girls for the golf team. But, after years of work and once a person has made it to the professional ranks, tournaments should be scratch not handicap.
If a women, e.g., Annika Sorenstam, really is able to earn her way to a PGA Tour event, I suspect you'll find far less questions raised than the case of a Suzy Whaley which strikes me and others as an inappropriate form of affirmative action.
John, you may recall Bill Clinton's comments while still President about affirmative action. "Mend it, don't end it", Clinton said.
Truthfully, I always liked what Clinton said (even if that does surprise Dan King). But, I was somewhat frustrated that Clinton never took it beyond the great sound bite and explained what it was supposed to mean.
In this case, however, we have a chance to implement Clinton's suggestion. Mend it, don't end it means restoring the integrity of sratch events, while also encouraging more opportunities for young women to learn and play golf. I see that happening here in Cleveland. If it is not happening elsewhere, then people should work on that.
With all due respect to Dan King, it won't take centuries to achieve a reasonable standard of fairness.
-
WOW!!
Take a few days off and don't check in and look what happens!
(Love George's comment that we are a bunch argumentative SOB's!)
My head hurt's from trying to read this thing and figure out whose side everyone is on and who pissed who off!
A few questions I will ponder:
What are the fathers of sons going to say? She should be here, Does she belong?
She was AWARDED a spot due to her perfomance as per the organizations outlined them. We're those rules unfair because a women won? Everyone will have differnet opinons on this and those are all valued.
As a father of two young daughters, I'm going to sit my girls down and watch w/ them. I'll tell them that in this world of inequalities, unfairness and bias here is a succefull women who on that day, gets to play a game that she loves and maybe, just maybe inspires some other girls to do the same.
Go get'em Suzy!!!
-
Tim:
We agree. I suspect that the PGA of America and any Sections that have an event that leads to an invite to something else have plans in the works to add the clause necessary to make me, you, and Paul Richards happy.
In the meantime, I'm not going to place blame on the Tour, Whaley herself, or someone else that is caught up in the mess. I want to fault the GHO for following through with the decision to invite the CT Section winner, but know they need attention for the event and are getting it from an unlikely source.
I may be the one that's called argumentative, but most of my effort on this and a BCS discussion is to show people they probably agree with me by helping them understand the events that led to the end result - which is often enough to raise an eyebrow. In questioning others and pointing out faulty logic, my goal is to help people understand the real issue. Here it is pretty clear: IF TWO SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONS DEPEND UPON EACH OTHER, THEY SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OTHER'S RULES. In a lot of ways, the issue is similar to the USGA/R&A equipment story with C.O.R. becoming a household phrase. The equipment manufacturers took far to much heat, in my opinion, for creating products within the Rules of Golf.
For any girls who aren't happy for Whaley, it seems like jealousy to me. Why should she be deprived of the chance to benefit from this absurdly unique happenstance? My guess is she plays, misses the cut but doesn't embarrass herself because the conditions are just to much, and becomes a prominent teaching professional because of the notoriety. She can carve out a little niche by helping area golfers get better.
Show me someone who "throws back a trophy fish" that jumps in the boat and I'll show you someone who fails to understand how much of our lives is in the hands of fate.
-
Shiv:
GREAT point about men and women not being equal. Men and women have some differences, and there have been many attempts to insist that is not the case.
I say the Augusta debate is a little misguided when someone tries to pretend women don't have equal opportunity to create their own club just like it. They do, and have - to this point - chosen not to. (The entire issue isn't that simple, as the club's choice to have an affiliation with the PGA Tour clouds the water.)
In an attempt to get gender-equity, my impression is that female activists have done a poor job of getting women interested in women's sports. More women are interested in who wins the U.S. Open (for men) than the U.S. Open (for women) - yet some decry that they have disparate purses?? Women have equality already in that the events pay out what they can afford from the money each generates.
-
John -
For the most part, I agree with what you said in your last two posts. I think you summarized the argument fairly well.
The only minor differences I'd point out are as follows:
1) Regarding women criticising Whaley, I don't think they are criticising her per se, they simply agree with those of us that believe that non-handicap competitions should be played under the same rules & conditions for all competitors. I'd be surprised to learn if any think she should turn down the invitation. More likely, they share my belief: I think the original logic behind the decision to level the playing field was suspect, but I'm curious to see how she'll do & wish her the best of luck. She probably isn't any less deserving than many others who have received special exemptions, as you pointed out before. I agree with your statement that the CT section should have said anyone wishing to be eligibile for the invite has to play the back markers (in fact I suggested this as a reasonable compromise back on page 3:)).
2) Regarding your statement in the second post - More women are interested in who wins the U.S. Open (for men) than the U.S. Open (for women) - yet some decry that they have disparate purses?? Women have equality already in that the events pay out what they can afford from the money each generates. I agree completely, but I've always thought the more interesting question is: What is the breakdown of people watching women's golf (or any women's sport)? I've always suspected that more hard core male golfers watch women's golf than female golfers. It would be quite simple for the women's tour to surpass the men's tour in purses, if they simply drew the same relative interest from women & men that men's golf draws from men & women. After all, women are more than 50% of the population.
-----
The single most ignorant comment I have ever heard (ignorant in the knowledge sense, not rude sense) was a joke from Paula Poundstone following the '92 election. She commented that women had increased their position in the Senate to 5 seats. Cue audience applause. Her rejoinder? 51% of the population & 5% of the Senate - sounds fair. Much laughter ensued, but no one pointed out the glaringly obvious flaw in her gender bias argument.
-
John Conley:
Yes, we agree.......sort of. I don't agree that you are being "argumentative"! After all, we are here to exchange views. I think that is all you have done, even if we don't agree exactly on every point of substance.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I do think your comments about young women being jealous of Whaley are off the mark. I'm very impressed by the young people I've met locally, both girls and boys. Their work ethic goes beyond anything I saw growing up, at least as it relates to golf.
John, I suspect there is a Tiger effect here. Both the girls and boys have a sense that Tiger worked very hard to get where he got. They believe the only way to get close to what Tiger did or even just qualify for their local high school team is through lots of hard work.
I don't think they are jealous of Whaley. She just don't think she earned it. In short, they buy into Tom Paul's argument that scratch events should not have handicaps.
Besides the kids, I'm impressed by the coaches. They are very dedicated to helping young people achieve all they can and to teaching the kids appropriate conduct in competition.
Unfortunately I spent 4-5 hours a day in a pool when I was growing up. Wish it had been on the driving range.
-
Dave Schmidt:
God damn, this thread is addictive!
I know you and I don't completely agree on the related issue of Augusta's membership policies (based on the notion of "extension of the workplace"), but part of what has troubled me about the issue is whether anything prevents a leading female golfer, say Annika Sorenstam, from doing what Bobby Jones did.
Could Annika get a couple friends together, buy a piece of property, hire a talented architect, build a course, create a single sex (female) golf club and, finally, create a prestigous women's golf tournament?
I can't think of any reason she couldn't.
That, of course, is not true in every society in the world. But, here in America, I believe it is. The opportunity exists for Annika, just like Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus with Muirfield Village.
The opportunity exists. Its real enough that I would have to call it an "equal opportunity".
We don't agree on the matter of workplace extension (on that I side with Burk), but on the opportunity Annika has to do what Jones did I suspect you and I agree.
On the question of outcomes vs opportunity, there is lots of confusion whether it relates to the Whaley or the Augusta matter.
I hope someday we catch for a round of golf and further discussion on the 19th hole.
-
Dave,
You said:
In fact, there is not, and to my knowledge, has never been, a law that even requires women to work for lower wages than men, as startling as that may seem. Imagine that!
Women don't need a law that requires them to work for lower wages as, and I'll bet you are well aware of this, they already do!
According to the U.S. Census Bureau: Women working* full-time throughout the year earn 73¢ for every dollar earned by men. African-American women earn 64¢ and Latinas earn 52¢ for every dollar paid to white male workers. Men of color also experience wage discrimination, with African-American men earning 78¢ and Latinos earning only 63¢ for every dollar paid to their white male counterparts
* equal job title and responsibility.
To say there exists an equal opportunity for women to build their own clubs is a moot point, but....There would need to be 100's of women only clubs built overnight to equalize the field and that ain't gonna happen for a number of reasons most of which are related to the course building environment and not the werewithal of women folk.
Business networking has gone on for so long at clubs that women, when compared with men, were at a distinct disadvantage until a relatively short time ago . When a thread on here spoke about the Executive Women's Golf Association it was to thrash them along with the LPGA for perceived failures. Give me a break.
Make equal pay and opportunities a reality and pretty soon there is nothing left to bitch about. Pretty simple.
There is no need to respond to the above as my mind is already made up. ;D
-
Aarrgghh!
As a society, we keep striving for the impossible and then wonder why we don't meet our objectives. Hmmm. Fairness? This is golf -- the sporting metaphor for the unfairness of life: You try hard. You work to get better. You only get so many chances to succeed and you have to make the most of them. And you have to finish the deal under pressure. And sometimes it's best to limit your losses. Often, the breaks aren't with you and you lose. And you have to deal with that gracefully. And come back to compete another day. Is that a description of golf, your job, your portfolio (or what's left of it), your love life or all 4? And we're trying to create fairness? Hogwash. Life is unfair. Golf is unfair. People need to learn to deal with that.
I couldn't agree more. All those who are griping about Mrs. Whaley getting to play in this tournament should take what you say to heart.
For crying out loud, science is constantly "proving" all kinds of stuff . . . but they can't "prove" that women and men are different? Nonsense.
Again, I agree. Isn't it strange that we have such trouble with a concept that 3-5 year olds understand implicitly?
-
Jim Kennedy:
My understanding is that there are about 18,000 golf courses in the United States.
What is your understanding about how many are all male?
-
DMoriarty:
You appear to be saying that it is "unfair" for Whaley to be playing in the GHO, but that people should just accept it.
Do you support the notion John Conley suggested about requiring all competitors in PGA section qualifying events to play from the back tees if they want to play in a local PGA Tour event?
Do you think John was "griping" when he made this suggestion?
-
Tim, I think you know where I am coming from on this issue, and I you. What do you say we spare the rest of the readers and give it a rest?
It has been a pleasure.
David.
-
DMoriarty:
I think I know where you are coming from. I just don't understand the details of your views on the matter.
If you would prefer not to discuss it further, I'm happy not to direct any further questions your way.
FYI, I've enjoyed hearing people's views, yours included.
-
Tim,
A preface: I see nothing evil or wrong with same sex clubs.
The two paragraphs should be read as pertaining to one another. Men have had the run of the mill at golf courses and they became places of business by extension and recognized as such by tax code. It's not realistic from a perspective of time or money to expect women to create the 100's of clubs they would need to create this same perc and that is why they petition to remove these barriers.
I don't know if you are in the golf business or keep abreast of recent issues but it's taken a long time for women to become members in equal standing and there is still road to travel.
No such impediment has existed for men save the means to join these clubs. As I said, when it's truly equal there is nothing left to gripe about.
These are my opinions and I need no clarification of them.
-
Jim Kennedy:
You mention the importance of creating equal opportunity. Must here would agree, I think.
But, let's step back for a moment on that one. In the business world, there are many jobs where who would make the best candidate can involve difficult subjective judgments.
My own experience included making a job offer to someone with an absolutely perfect resume. However, all of my colleagues felt I made the wrong decision. They felt my second choice was far superior for intangible, purely subjective reasons.
(It turned out they were right. The first candidate was hired and didn't work out. Fortunately, the second candidate was still available, interested in taking the job, was hired and worked out beautifully.)
I mention this story for comparison's sake only. I think PGA Tour managers face far easier decisions than most business managers. They don't have to consider subjective factors. They can just implement the same set of rules for everyone and fairness, or equality of opportunity is achieved.
In golf speak, they don't need to consider handicaps. They can just play scratch events.
The CT section had good intentions, I'm sure. They just overreached in their effort to provide equal opportunity.
-
Jim Kennedy:
I am on record supporting Burk's argument with regard to "extension of the workplace". To me, that is the central issue, not whether there is anything wrong with single sex clubs or whether holding the Masters really should influence the matter.
Nonetheless, I was merely trying trying to understand how prevalent all male clubs are in the United States today? Is is more than one percent of all golf clubs/courses? Nowhere have I seen evidence that it is.
Aren't all male golf clubs a very small percentage of the golfing world here in the States?
-
Dave,
I think it's inequality of opportunity that gives a market the impetus to devalue the labor of those subject to fewer opportunities, in this case women.
-
This is one helluva an amazing thread, without question the "social engineering" thread of all time on Golfclubatlas!
I find it sort of fascinating, that is, what I can read and understand of it.
What I would like to determine is what in this thread is fact and what is just opinion? Don't anybody please try to answer that--I'm just conjecturing here.
It would appear, for instance, that Jim Kennedy has already made his mind up on some incredibly utopian ideas! I think that's good for Jim but some of those ideas could be unusually complex to put into effect without tampering with valid but sort of conflicting concepts.
I would also like to know what some of you think this idea of "equality of Opportunity" actually means at this particular time as framed by our US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'd also like to know what some of you think the concept of a "Right" to "freedom of association" is exactly as framed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Why don't you see if you can find references to both "Equality of Opportunity" and also "Freedom of association" in those two fundamental American documents?
Jim Kennedy:
I don't want to ask you something you either can't or don't want to answer but for starters do you see any differences or distinctions (as the Constitution frames it) between the concepts of "Equality of Opportunity" and actual "Equality"? And if so what do you think those differences and distinctions are?
-
This discussion is in the top twenty of all time. When political philosophy is the legitimate topic, the quality of discourse really goes up.
What is to prevent competitors from teeing off from different places? How about rule 1-4? "If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with equity."
Hasn't this little koan always been the most important rule, mystical in its brevity and seeming to always have the last word? I love this rule.
-
Most telling stats of all:
"in earning her spot into Hartford at the section championship, she played the Ellington Ridge CC at 6,239 yards, while the men played it at 6,938. For Hartford, she will have to play the TPC of River Highlands ... at 6,820 yards."
-
Te,
First let me say I believe that the Constitution is the part of the equation that says how we are going to do it. The other great part that says why we are doing it, the Declaration of Independence makes reference to our being "created equal" and has some implications here, wouldn't you say?
I'm not a constitutional scholar but I'll give you my take.
The short answer is you won't find them laying around in there naked, their cloak is one of implication.
Our Constitution covers all Americans equally, whether born here or naturalized. I could offer AR. XV-equal rights for whites and blacks, or AR.XIX-women's rght to vote or AR. IX in the Bill of Rights which says that the constitution doesn't limit us from accruing other rights but I don't want to stretch myself thin.
I also look at the Preamble to the Constitution which says we are forming this perfect union to:
establish justice that I believe enables us to make the laws that lead to domestic tranquility, which helps to promote the general welfare, which would be meaningless if we didn''t provide for the common defense,so we can secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
I think the Constitution is a fantastic framework that has guided us well and will continue to do so as our nation evolves. I don't often read it or the D of I but I cannot ever remember having done so and feeling that the ideas expressed were only for some of the people. We broke away from England because their King was treating us a second class citizens and not as equals.
Do I think that "Equality of opportunity" and "Equality" are in the Constitution?
Easy answer. Yep.
-
Michael Moore:
Koan? What a great little word that fits perfectly in this particular thread and discussion. Plus it sound vaguely Hawaiian to me.
I think I asked you this before but is that photo in your posts, you? If it is it definitely makes you look like an intellectual type maybe from the 1930s or so. So much so in fact that if the 1950s Joe MacCarthy witch hunt Senate Committee was still in existence they'd probably start a file on you thinking you must be a one of those Socialist intellectual thinkers about to turn communist and infect the lifeblood of American motherhood and apple pie!
Anyway, I thought a lot about "The Equity Rule" now positioned in the Rule Book as 1-4, and the concept of "equity" as it applies to golf and its rules as it might apply to this Whaley situation. Possibly it applies but maybe vaguely, although there could be a fundamental connection there somewhere.
The whole basis of "equity" and the "equity rule" as it applies to golf is embodied in the phrase "Like situations shall be treated alike". It's sort of golf's application of "justice" for all that is not specifically covered within the rules themselves.
I really am thinking, though, that the Whaley situation and how it might be examined in the context of the rules may not be found in much more than the evolution and the traditions in and of the game, as well as its formats and the ways they've always been handled and dealt with.
I guess sometimes it just ain't easy to fit "social engineering" into the way certain things have been done in some sports in the past. In the broad scheme of things is it even worth it?
I can't help think of what Joe Dye said to me once on that "honor" proposal, that golf has done just fine the way it is and fundamentally should stay the way it is.
-
Tom Paul,
As you suggest, it is appropriate to ask what “equality of opportunity” means within the context of the Whaley matter.
I appreciate Dan King’s reference to President Johnson’s famous civil right speech in the 1960’s. But, I can’t quite understand how one could suggest today’s professional women golfers started their careers “in chains”. I doubt Annika Sorenstam would make such a claim or that it fairly applies to Suzy Whaley.
At the risk of repeating myself, I see equality of opportunity for young women golfers right here in Cleveland. They have dedicated, private teachers. They work hard. They participate in numerous competitions. They have high school coaches recruiting them before they even reach junior high. What more must be done to demonstrate fair treatment? Is the Cleveland area really that far out in front on this issue?
Simply put, converting scratch events into handicap events is not required to achieve any reasonable standard for equality of opportunity. However well intentioned the CT PGA section was, such thinking does amount to political correctness run amuck.
People who think handicaps should be applied to scratch events are entitled to their opinion. I can’t see where it makes any sense.
Years later I’m happy Professor Keller encouraged all her students to sort out the real, practical things that should be done for women from the feel good, nice sounding but clearly illogical approaches. I see young women who get it, I’m sure Keller would be equally happy to know.
-
Tim Weiman writes:
But, I can't quite understand how one could suggest today’s professional women golfers started their careers "in chains". I doubt Annika Sorenstam would make such a claim or that it fairly applies to Suzy Whaley.
So they were oppressed, just not enough for you to be willing to help? They didn't reach some degree of oppression -- "in chains" which would have warranted help?
From yesterday (taking a break from Western Civ essay:)
Observing the opportunity young women have has convinced me the playing field is level. Today.
I raised a daughter and a son. My son is 26 and my daughter 24, so it was less than a generation ago. I was involved in their sports teams. I saw a big difference between how people treated boys and girls sports. Not so much in playing or practicing the game, but a huge difference in role models, coaching and expectations. This was in fairly liberal Silicon Valley.
I have plenty of nieces and nephews. I see a big difference in others outlooks toward their sports. Either we are looking at reality from different POVs or you live in a more forward area than I do.
I did go to a CyberRay game this year. While I hate autographs, I still felt good seeing little girls gathering around Brandie Chastain and Mia Hamm. Seeing that gave me hope for the future. Things have changed, but there is no way the field can magically become level in a generation.
You implied elsewhere that I felt it would take centuries to fix. It doesn't sound like something I'd say, but please, go ahead and show me where I made that claim.
Of course, if we say everything is fine and continue without change, it will take an infinite amount of time to fix the problems.
My daughter has a far greater opportunity to learn the game than I ever did at her age.
That ain't the issue. The issue is, does she have the same opportunities, expectations, role models, coaching, etc... as boys her age?
I'm ready to agree to disagree on this point. I don't believe it is level, you do. I would say this fundamental difference in our positions accounts for a lot of our disagreement.
Males can play on one tour, but women both tours. Why the difference? How is that not a double standard?
Males can play on a male-only tour. The only problem is that you have not started this tour yet.
Don't you mean one "unrestricted" and one "restricted tour" with an arbitrary rule that denies participation to the latter based on gender?
Arbitrary? How so? Walker Cup restricted to amateurs arbitrarily?
I have no trouble saying the LPGA is a "restricted tour." Same as the AJGA, Senior Tour, the men-only tour you plan to start.
How about the Walker Cup? It's a restricted event. You have to be an amateur. Does that bother you? Should it be open to all?
My understanding is that Suzy Whaley IS a woman and IS being allowed to play in the GHO.
Correct.
It is also my understanding that male golfers are, in fact, NOT permitted to play in LPGA events.
Correct.
And once you start a men-only tour, Suzy Whaley will not be allowed to play on your tour. The fact that is currently doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that it can exist.
You and I can attempt to qualify for the U.S. Amateur and the U.S. Open. Tiger Woods can not. Double standard? Should the U.S. Open start refusing to allow amateurs to qualify to avoid this terrible double standard?
Would it be a positive in your book if the PGA Tour stopped being a tour for the best golfers and became only a tour for the best male golfers?
Dan King
She takes just like a woman, yes she does
She makes love just like a woman, yes she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl.
--Bob Dylan
-
JimK:
It's my feeling having searched the US Constitution and Bill of Rights recently for reference and application to the right of "freedom of association" that the Consititution and particularly the following Bill of Rights are documents setting a structure (that surely the framers understood well) that both could and needed to slowly evolve as our society would.
It's extremely clever in its wording, for sure, as it's pretty clear the framers could see that the documents and concepts would need to be sold to the States and ratified. This was definitely not an easy sell at that time and the wording needed to be somewhat general and maybe necessarilty vague or even delicate for that purpose but also needing to encompass fundamental and probably immutable prinicples and concepts as well as realities that would eventually confront the nation which it appears the prescient framers could see coming eventually remarkably well.
It's actually great fun to try to see where the US Supreme Court might point to if ever asked to specifically define the "right of freedom of association".
But my understanding of the basic American concept of "equality" is actually better explained in that it means only "equality of opportunity", and that there is a great deal to be considered in the word "opportunity"! That word may even be considered to mean only each citizen's own responsibility to make his won way on a somewhat level playing field. But we can't forget that every citiizen has that responsibility to himself as much as anything else! In this interesting area the government may be far less willing to help as some of us think it will or should.
I think in this way it can be seen that the government and the American concept never intended to attempt to make people actually equal in a true sense. That's nothing more than our (the citizens) own responsibilty to strive for our own rewards (fruits of our own labors) however we choose to individually do that on as level (equal) a playing field as possible.
And I think it can be seen too, certainly in this ANGC situation, how one fundamental concept ("right of freedom of association") can appear to run headlong into another fundamental concept ("equality of opportunity").
But it would be my strong feeling that if Burk's ever could take ANGC to the US Supreme Court and have the "right of freedom of associaton" tested that the court would and should rule that Burk's and her women have every right to go out and start their own ANGC and enjoy all the percs and enjoyments that the present ANGC might now! Whether or not they actually eventually do that only revolves around how they manage their own "opportunities". But the way is clear, the playing field is level (equal) for them to do that.
As for how the fundamental concept of "equality of opportunity" would ever apply to Whaley and her situation in competition in golf on the men's tour or men on the women's tour, I think that would be far more complex to imagine the outcome of.
-
Dan King:
Annika Sorenstam did not start in chains, nor was she "oppressed" at all. At a young age, she benefited from the kind of thing I see here in Cleveland. She then did things the old fashioned way. Just like Tiger, she worked and worked and worked.
If my daughter wants to achieve what Annika has done, that's all I can promise her. Spending time worrying about some advantage boys might have, won't help. Only lots of practice.
The point is that the opportunity stands before her right now, not centuries or decades away.
Dan, I really don't know how unusual my neck of the woods is or whether being a liberal or conservative community has anything to do with it.
Surely, here in the US programs are not as centralized or perhaps as sophisticated as the Swedish national program seems to be. Still, I think there are plenty of young women with a clear idea of what it takes to be successful and who have the opportunity to do so.
I've come to know one family with two high school students, a boy who is a senior and a girl who is a freshmen. They are a very blue collar family, but both take private lessons, have loads of encouragement from their parents and hit 300-500 balls a day.
Frankly, they remind me of the swimming families I grew up with. My sister had every bit as much support as I did and, frankly, accomplished more. That was circa 1960's.
I really doubt golf today is that much different, not if the family I mentioned is any indication.
As for the LPGA, they do "arbitrarily" restrict men from playing. Good old fashioned sex discrimination. That's all it is.
At least we agree Suzy Whaley is a woman. If we had to "agree to disagree" on that point, then this discussion would really have taken a bizarre turn.
-
We've gone this far afield, might as well go ahead and go further. I'll at least bring it back to Connecticut.
TEPaul writes:
It's actually great fun to try to see where the US Supreme Court might point to if ever asked to specifically define the "right of freedom of association".
Been there. Done that.
The Supreme Court first recognized freedom of association in 1958 in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama.
THe claim is that it grows out of First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government. In Pete Irons book on the Supreme Court (a very liberal Supreme Court scholar) he mentions Justice William O. Douglass' use of the right to association in Grisswold v. Connecticut (must be something about that state) and that Douglass pointed to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments as sources of the emanations whose penumbras created "zones of privacy" into which government can not trespass without good reason. (Italics from Irons) He didn't use the Fourteenth Amendment "Due process clause," worrying that setting precedent there could lead to conservative judges using Grisswold to wipe out New Deal legislation.
This is one of the reasons the framers were leery of having a Bill of Rights. There are those, including myself, who believe that if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government has no jurisdiction. Others believe if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then the people have no such rights. It's my position that the federal government has no legal right to infringe on my right to privacy or association, or countless other rights, but states, unless specified in the state's constitution can infringe those rights.
Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click here for an interesting site dealing with Freedom of Association (http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.association.html)
Dan King
"I like my privacy as well as the next one. But I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional protection."
--Justice Hugo Black (in dissent on Grisswold v. Connecticut)
-
Tim Weiman writes:
As for the LPGA, they do "arbitrarily" restrict men from playing. Good old fashioned sex discrimination. That's all it is.
You keep saying that, and while I disagree with the term "arbitrary" I agree they discriminate based on sex. I've never once disagreed with that statement. But you fail to say why this is a bad thing.
I'm about through with this discussion, but I did ask I thought a critical question that you never answered. Perhaps it was buried a bit too deep into rhetoric.
Why do you feel it is wrong for the LPGA to discriminate based on sex, but a-okay for the USGA to discriminate based on sex, professional status, age, golf course access, etc...?
Dan King
"As long as the world is turning and spinning we're gonna be dizzy and we're gonna make mistakes."
--Mel Brooks
-
"There are those, including myself, who believe that if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government has no jurisdiction".
Jeesus Christ Dan, you do have some wild ideas! Don't believe in the Bill of Rights, huh? Why would that be?
This one's for you!
Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Consititution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(The Federal Government exercises no Power over the Unlisted rights of the People).
The concept of "unenumeration" (unlisted rights) is pretty fundamental to the understanding and interpretion the US Constitution!
Maybe you don't like the Bill of Rights but I'm sure glad we have it.
-
Dan King:
Sorry for not responding earlier. My feelings are as follows:
Prior to the Whaley matter we had a regime in place. Both the PGA Tour and the LPGA discriminated on the basis of sex. I understand the argument that actually only one did - the LPGA, but I still think that in practice we had a men's tour and a women's tour.
The Whaley matter upsets the apple cart, so to speak. It raises serious questions about why any form of sex discrimination is fair.
How can it be that one tour SHOULD NOT discriminate while the other tour MUST discriminate?
That just doesn't fly. Either we go back to the old regime or we eliminate sex discrimination altogether.
If we are going to do social engineering, why would we help the most talented while failing to provide "equality" for the less talented? Don't less talented males deserve to earn money on the LPGA Tour just like females who can't make it on the PGA Tour? And, if not, for how long? Do we need 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 generations of high school women receiving the support system Annika received before we say "enough.....it's time to end discrimination".
As for the different USGA events, when it comes to sex discrimination issues, I see no difference with the professional tour ranks. Same issues.
Professional vs amateur status? So far I haven't heard any protests concerning the current regime. If you have, explain their position and I'll try to respond.
Age?
I suppose you are questioning why an old person can compete in the Open, but a young person can't compete in Senior events.
Good question! It is a double standard. I need to give that some thought. In the meantime, I will issue an injunction against any old person (a person old enough to qualify for senior events) competing in the Open.
Golf course access?
Not sure what you mean.
-
How can it be that one tour SHOULD NOT discriminate while the other tour MUST discriminate?
That just doesn't fly. Either we go back to the old regime or we eliminate sex discrimination altogether.
Tim,
There is a third option, and that is to stop wishing the world was neat and tidy, and let the occasional departure from the ordinary slide unless it is truly hurtful to someone. These sorts of events CAN happen without the whole apple cart getting turned over, so let it happen and don't worry so much about any slippery slope--we'll all deal with that if it happens.
Golf course access?
Not sure what you mean.
I believe he's referring to the U.S. Public Links Championships, which are open only to public players and therefore "discriminates" against those with access to private clubs.
-
Tim Weiman wrote:
How can it be that one tour SHOULD NOT discriminate while the other tour MUST discriminate?
I don't know where I ever said "SHOULD NOT" or "MUST." I wouldn't any more likely tell the tours what they should do as I would tell the Connecticut PGA how to handle their tournaments. I prefer everyone behave in what is in their best interest. The PGA Tour® wants to be the tour for the best players in the U.S. The LPGA Tour wants to be the tour for the best women golfers in the U.S. The Connecticut PGA wants to hold a tournament for their members who are both men and women.
If less talented players want a place to play I'd encourage them to start their own tour and try to figure out a way to make money.
The free market, not any sort of force of law, will determine which of these will be successful.
I guess I'm a bit lost. I think you are either arguing that all tours and events should be open to everyone or everyone should be restricted to the exact same number of tours or events.
Either way, I think we are too far apart on this issue to keep it going any longer.
Oh, golf course access, I was referring to PubLinks.
It was fun, but I got to get back to Kawabata Yasunari and Dazai Osamu.
Dan King
"It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
--Dean Inge
-
Dan King:
Are we a bit lost? I don't know.
Forgive me, but something in the back of my mind just keeps trying to find what oil guys call a "material balance" or overall system logic.
What I call the old regime - an agreement by all to practice sex discrimination in sporting events - has some logic, whether you agree with it or not.
In my view, suggesting sex discrimination is okay for the LPGA but not the PGA, doesn't have the same justification. Either sex discrimination is okay or it is not.
You say the PGA Tour is just the tour for the best players and that I am free to start an all male tour.
Interesting.
This whole discussion is taking place within an environment in which the good old boys at Augusta National are being told sex discrimination is wrong.
So, what are we saying? The LPGA has a right to discriminate, that it is perfectly okay for them to do so, but the Augusta guys don't have the same rights? Why doesn't Martha say that as long as the LPGA practices sex discrimination, she will support the same at Augusta?
-
ChrisB:
Your argument that I shouldn't worry about the "slippery slope" is also interesting.
A major political drama is playing out in Washington over that very concept.
Should the majority leader of the US Senate step down because of a comment that appears racist?
Those who answer "yes" have a real logic to their position. They are saying we can never achieve our ideals if we tolerate that sort of thing from senior political leaders.
They recognize that we don't immediately go back to the days of Rosa Parks just because Trent Lott said what he did. But, equally they argue that tolerating such things has a long term corrosive effect on race relations in our society. I agree with them. History shows that preventing the slippery slope doesn't get easier when you start to slide.
The idea that sex discrimination is okay for the LPGA but not the PGA Tour (or Augusta National) will also have a long term corrosive effect, in my judgment. Either its okay or its not. Trying to have it both ways will undermine relations between men and women. The party being discriminated against will always feel resentful and they should.
No doubt you will offer the rebuttal that the guys aren't complaining. That is true. Not now. Fear of being called a jerk is very powerful, but dangerous long term.
Sex relations, like race relations, will always require a delicate balance. Double standards corrupt both. They are unfair and unhealthy.
-
Tim Weiman wrote:
Either sex discrimination is okay or it is not.
Can't speak for Martha, can't speak for Hootie. I only speak for myself.
Sex discrimination is okay. If someone want to discriminate based on sex, I'd never dream of forcing them not to. I have a long history of discrimination based on sex when looking for a sexual partner. My preference is women. Other's people preference is men. It would bother me if someone told me I could no longer discriminate against men when choosing my sexual partners.
I don't understand guys that don't want to play golf on golf courses where women are around, but then I don't really understand guys that like having sex with guys either. It ain't my job to understand, just to let it be.
That being said, I think there is a huge difference between personal sexual discrimination and government sexual discrimination. I have no problem with the personal choice, I'd have big problems with the government choice.
So, what are we saying? The LPGA has a right to discriminate, that it is perfectly okay for them to do so, but the Augusta guys don't have the same rights?
While I think Augusta looks incredibly silly fighting this fight, I also believe they have every right to remain a men-only club. And Martha Burk has every right to lead a boycott against the Masters Tournament and companies that support it. I don't see any inconsistency is supporting their right to make choices without supporting their choices.
And if the LPGA discriminatory policy bothers you, boycott them. Since I don't have the same problem with their policy as you do I don't think you should count on my support.
Dan King
"The last girl I made love to, it was not going well, Anytime you make love and have to give the Heimlich maneuver at the same time, it's not a good thing."
--Gary Shandling
-
Dan King:
I'm glad you support my right to boycott against the sex discrimination policies of the LPGA. Some here have suggested that I just shut up, let it go, don't worry about the slippery slope, etc. Well, my protest is right here hopefully giving some guy who could compete against LPGA players the courage to not worry about being called a jerk. That kind of pressure has discouraged other people from speaking up against injustice.....including women.
I fully support your right to select women as sexual partners. Good choice.
But, I also feel government is allowing the LPGA to discriminate. It is workplace. Sex discrimination should not be tolerated.
-
Dan, I am always impressed with the depth and breadth of your knowledge-- a Constitutional scholar in addition to everything else. You must make one heck of a college student.
For those who don't bore easily, a little more about "freedom of association," if I can recall correctly. I am quite rusty and out of date on this stuff, so don't go to court based on anything I say here.
As Dan notes, the concept of a Constitutional right of free of association was developed (some say invented) in late 1950's and 1960's and applied to strike down southern state laws aimed at hindering the desegregation and anti-discrimination work of the NAACP and later the ACLU. While certainly not explicit anywhere in the Constitution, the right is said to derive from the First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly (to petition the government to redress grievances.) One needs to be able to freely form political associations with like-minded people in order to effectively assemble and petition, or so the reasoning usually goes.
Not all discrimination by "associations" is protected. For example, the right did not justify business associations' (such as the jaycees and rotary club) discrimination against women. I do not remember the exact test used, but am pretty sure it was a balancing of interests between the need or reason for the exclusion vs. the harm done by the discrimination. I also recall that it is a much more lenient test than what is required when other rights are in question.
I believe that the scope of the protection is still relatively undefined, but I do recall a few general guidelines: Political and activist associations are given a much higher degree of protection than non-political and social groups (Martha's advocacy organization gets more protection than Hootie's club); organizations that are more private (strict rules of admission, very narrow segment of the public admitted) may receive more protection than clubs that are less private (clubs that are generally open to all but one segment of the public); organizations that are actively engaged in or promoting business and commerce receive relatively less protection (this is likely why Augusta goes to great lengths to say that the tournament is entirely separate from the club;) Courts have taken the status of the group being excluded into consideration when balancing the right-- when minorities or women were excluded , the associations received less protection (the cases of this era considered discrimination against minorities suspect, and discrimination against women semi-suspect.)
Some question whether the right should or does provide any protection to groups that are formed for purely social purposes. This looks to be the case, but I don't think the question has been definitively answered. I do recall a few cases where certain social activities, such as choosing a dance partner, were not protected associations (I think one case involved a law which prohibited those above a certain age from dancing with those under a certain age.)
Dan is also correct that the "freedom of association" is considered by many to be a right which is found outside the text of the Constitution-- a penumbra right-- thus creating a problem for anyone who likes the right, but claims to be a strict constructionist. (Shivas, are you a strict constructionist?). Association is much less controversial than its brethren penumbra right -- the right of reproductive privacy (better known either as freedom of choice, or freedom to murder, depending on your point of view) and the foundation of Roe v. Wade. But both rights were recognized and expanded in the same S. Ct. era and rely on similar logic. (Griswold, mentioned above by Dan, and a case named Eisenstadt v. Baird laid the foundation for Roe v. Wade.) [Interesting internal jockeying on Eisenstadt and Roe: The S.Ct. heard argument on Roe v. Wade, put off ruling, then heard and decided Eisenstadt, including a few key phrases that worked perfectly for abortion, then reheard and came down with Roe v. Wade. Like him or not, Wm. Brennan was one smart cookie.)
Some conservative scholars and judges gloss over the extra-textual nature of the right by claiming that they can see it right there in the first amendment (they have better vision than me). Others see it flowing so directly from the first amendment as to not be a penumbra right at all (or hardly).
A few ironies regarding freedom of association as it applies to the Augusta situation. First, the right was created in the fight against discrimination and desegregation in the South. Second, the right which so many uphold as one of the founding principles of our nation and Constitution is but a handful of decades old, and has little more specific textual Constitutional basis than that longtime conservative whipping post: the right to reproductive privacy.
-
There are those, including myself, who believe that if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government has no jurisdiction.
Dan, you've lost me here, but for different reasons than you lose TEPaul. Are you sure you mean to say 'the federal government has no jurisdiction?' If so, what you say is technically correct: the Fed. Judiciary's sole source of "jurisdiction" over any legal dispute is found in Art. III of the Constitution. But almost all commentators take it one step further and say that ALL of the federal government's powers (not just Judicial) must derive from the Constitution (judicial, legislative, and executive.) I don't think there is much doubt that this is what was intended by the framers and the 10th Amendment.
TEPaul:
I think you may be misunderstanding Dan's quote (as I understand it). He is not disavowing the Bill of Rights, but instead stating that the Constitution sets the limits on how much power the Federal Govt. has. If the Constitution doesnt give the Fed. govt. the power, then the fed. govt. cannot do it. If anything, this would protect individual rts. from interference from the Fed govt., not weaken them.
I know you like to look to the 9th Amendment to find extra-textual ("unenumerated") rights, and some scholars have suggested the same. But with the exception of Douglas (See Dan's quote above from Griswold) judges have been reticent to take such a leap, perhaps because doing so would throw the door so wide open to the possible invention of a plethora of new rights that even the most activist of judges (except the ever-brave Douglas) would shutter at the potential chaos. A viable historical explanation for the 9th amendment is that, because some states were contemporaneously enacting State Bills of Rights that went further that the Fed. Bill of Rts, rights activists wanted assurances that the Fed. BofRts would not trump state BofRts or limit them to the only the rights expressed in the federal version.
It's my position that the federal government has no legal right to infringe on my right to privacy or association, or countless other rights, but states, unless specified in the state's constitution can infringe those rights.
Dan, while some question the methodology as intellectually suspect and activist, in is generally accepted that the 14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause) incorporated the BofRts and applied them to limit state governments (it was done piecemeal-- I think there are a few things that have never been incorporated.) Even the most conservative judges have learned to let this dog alone-- I think this is one of the issues that got Bork into trouble. I believe that the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the bill of rts.--not the EPC, but the long forgotten 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause. (I am in the minority on this one.)
-
I knew I made a mistake throwing my opinion on the Constitution into my response to TEPaul shortly after hitting the post button. I've send private email to Tom and Dave to respond to their questions.
Dan King
"Mr. Speaker, I said the honourable member was a liar it is true and I am sorry for it. The honourable member may place the punctuation where he pleases."
--Richard Brinsley Sheridan (When asked to apologize for calling a fellow MP a liar.)
-
DMoriarty:
You said"
"I think you may be misunderstanding Dan's quote (as I understand it). He is not disavowing the Bill of Rights, but instead stating that the Constitution sets the limits on how much power the Federal Govt. has. If the Constitution doesnt give the Fed. govt. the power, then the fed. govt. cannot do it. If anything, this would protect individual rts. from interference from the Fed govt., not weaken them."
DMoriarty:
I believe your exactly correct in that quote. But I don't believe I'm 'misunderstanding' Dan. It appears to me that the 9th Amendment does no more (vis-a-vis the subject wer're discussing here) than REAFFIRM exactly what Dan King thinks the US Constitution should and does do--that's all.
As for Dan being concerned about the states having the power to trump the Fed Gov and abridge citizens "rights" I do not believe that either as the US Consititution spells out in Article 3, Section 2 and in Article 4 that the US Constitution IS 'The Supreme Law of the Land'.
-
TE,
Wasn't me. I think you want to direct your remarks to DMoriarty.
Have another cup of coffee. ;D
-
JimK:
You're right, it was DMoriarty's post I was responding to--sorry about that.
-
If I was to read every word of this thread I would have to give up all other reading endeavors, you people are weird. ;)
The lady got an exemption by the rules her section set forth for the championship. If there is a dispute with that then take it up next year, what's done is done. She will play from the same tees for the dreadfully slacking GHO, greater hartford OPEN and this should be interesting. I hope she wins!
Steve
-
Steve Curry:
Be careful. GCA can be addictive......regardless of the topic. I started out yesterday determined to stay away and get some software testing done. Unfortunately, my development team kept saying "Tim, you'll have to wait....we need a few more hours". So, there it goes.
-
Dave,
For those who haven't read it lately, (not you Dave ;) )
Article IX. in the Bill of Rights states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
I think we are born with this tatooed across our pysche. Call it social engineering if you wish but the accrued rights that men like Bork or yourself don't like, or don't like how we got to them, ring true within the citizenry. No one really likes the person who would take them away, or try to, as a Bork would probably have done if on the Court.
-
Tom Paul:
A footnote to our discussion:
Professor Suzanne Keller, whom I remember so fondly, was the first women awarded tenure at Princeton. Quite an accomplishment given the very all male nature of the place when she joined the faculty in the 1960's.
Hunter College, where Keller studied as an undergraduate, created the Suzanne Keller Award for the student with highest honors in sociology.
Apparently, Keller no longer serves as professor for Princeton's courses on matters pertaining to sex roles, gender, etc. The university reports she is currently working on a book about "modern communities".
This thread has encouraged me to look her up next time I visit the university. FYI, Donald Rumsfeld was a fellow classmate (international relations courses), but I doubt it would be as easy just to drop by his office.
-
DMoriarty:
You said to me (paraphrased from memory) in your post #199:
"I know you like to look to Amendment 9 to find extra-textual (unenumerated) rights, as apparently some legal scholars do the same."
Could you possibly tell me what you mean by that? If you could tell me what you think I'm looking for or seeing in Amendment 9 or what you are, I have a funny feeling it very well may clear up a ton of misunderstanding on this thread.
The concept of "Unenumerated" rights (the citizenry's or People's rights) as its defined in Amendment 9 is extremely important to me, not so much in what it exactly says but in the way that the entire US Constitution is contructed and written vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights or certainly this particular Amendment.
This may turn out to be not much more than looking at the same tree from two directions but nevertheless we're still looking at the same tree!
-
Tim:
Interesting! It's occuring to me as I continue to read and write on this very interesting thread that many of us may be like ships passing in the night on the very same sealane!
I think I understand the way the US Government, its Constitution and Bill of Rights is constructed and basically for what purpose and also how it's mechanisms are intended to work and how they are not intended to work, but perhaps I'm wrong. If so, I would like to find out how I'm wrong.
I'm sorry Dan King is not on this thread now because he wrote me an interesting email and I responded (perhaps I will post them here).
I'm really wondering if the whole concept and structure of "unenumerated" rights might just be the key to many answers here--what they ("unenumerated rights") really are and are intended to be and mean.
It occurs to me that many on here are attempting to find references or even applicable text somewhere in the Constitution or B of R, or even somewhere in the breadth of American law for their individual opinions and perhaps grievances.
They may not find them--and I believe there's a very good reason for that--that can possibly be found in the meanings of "unenumerated" rights. I think Amendment 9 basically shows that those references and texts aren't there for many opinions and grievances (or what our People's rights are and aren't), only that it shows, in a way, the "mechanisms" to be used to satisfy those grievances (or not) through the processes that are our entire society as fundamentally founded on the US Constitution, B or R and all the extensions of them.
It will be interesting because there're some people on here who have some very clear ideas and some excellent resources. But some appear to be looking for actual and written answers and references to things (ex. Whaley, ANGC/Burk) or even a frame of logic (all this Bork mention as he arrives at the same result while complaining about the logic of how someone else arrived at it) and I don't think they will find it. All they will find, I think, is what the mechanisms are to ultimately find it and determine it, if that's what they want to do. As as far as having their grievances and opinions someday satisfied they should consider, for a time, not just the idea of "individual rights" only, but what the whole idea of democracy is really all about.
Sometimes clearly it's individual rights while other times those may have to take a back seat to what the mechanisms determine to be in the best interest of the "Commonweal", so to speak.
-
Dave Schmidt;
I have the Federalist Papers right here. I haven't read them in a very long time but I will if need be. Without pulling them out yet though, it's always been my impression that the Federalist Papers serve more and were intended to serve as a dialectic, probably for the original and specific purpose of selling the US Constitution to the States in the first place to be ratified!
Certainly the Federalist Papers are interesting and very historically interesting (and as a dialectic some are flatout brilliant, like Hamilton's) but I did not know that they served in any way as any kind of actual surrogate for the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and the extensions of them.
I'm well aware that there is and always has been (from even before the beginning of all this) a real dynamic between what might be considered Constitutional "strict constructionist" and those that may take a more "interpretive" view of the Constitution and B of R (the "social engineering" jurists), but I've never really looked at either side as so much complaining about the Constitution and B of R itself (although it may appear they sometimes are), but far more complaining only about those that are doing the "interpreting" or not at any particular time!
-
Shivas,
Has Bork therefore excoriated the Supremes for judicial activism in striking down a whole host of laws by making factual findings that the laws aren't justified (talk about legislating from the bench!). Has he also screamed about the recent 11th amendment decisions, where Rhenquist et. al. acknowledge that what they are doing has no support in the language of the Amendment but is supported by the "structure" (or some such) of gov't? Sounds like a penumbra to me! Couldn't resist, but now back to architecture.
(the 11th amendment says clearly that a citizen of state A can't sue state B. The Supremes believe that this means that a citizen of state A can't sue his own state). So much for Scalia's belief in the plain meaning rule.)
Jeff Goldman
-
Tom Paul:
Ships passing in the night? I guess you are right.
Rumsfeld was one of those ships I passed in the night. That was in the form of taking a class together at the Woodrow Wilson School circa 1976. The class was taught by Professor Fouad Ajami. Ajami was an advisor to Brent Skowcroft before the Gulf War. He is also the guy credited with first saying the Iraqi people will welcome and cheer American soldiers if we go to war with Iraq.
I remember Don Rumsfeld thought very highly of Ajami 25 years ago after his first stint as Defense Secretary and apparently still does.
To my knowledge neither Rumsfeld or Ajami can comment on subjects like "maintenance meld", but Ajami was more popular with my female classmates.
-
But Dave, I don't know that anyone has suggested that "the guys" lied (in the Federalist Papers et al)!
It's just astounding to me the extent that some people will go to make a point sometimes as is evidenced in much of this Whaly and ANGC stuff! Reems and reems of one kind of opinion or another. I say let them just stick to understanding and using the "mechanisms" "the guys" left us with and not necessarily to try to pick "the guys" brains in every scintilla of evidence they can find as "the guys" molder away in their graves.
I guess, I'll have to actually check here and there but I never felt that any of them wanted absolutely zero mechanism to "interpret" what might come up in the future and that's clearly the capacity of some of those mechanisms and they had to intend that to be so. The whole function and position of the US Supreme Court is such.
I think, like I'm sure you do, that those "guys" were quite amazing futurists but they certainly never intended to actually be there for us in the future.
-
I hope you guys (I assume there are no women on this website) realize that I am taking all of this in as head of Bush's information gathering department. Carry on.
-
John Poin Dexter:
Why take it in over the Internet? Apparently personalities traits and such are somewhat skewed and misunderstood that way. Ask us down to the White House, I'm sure many of us will come as it's winter now and the courses are cold. We'll show you how to take in information firsthand.
If you have some pretty good wine down there, I'll come! If George bags that Osama's ass before the new year I'll even make a special trip to tell Pres George howdy do and good on him!
But if you offer no invite, stay tuned anyway because I think the next-up thread just might be exactly how to bag Osama's ass before the new year!
-
Tom Paul -
Yes, this is my real photo, taken at my brother's wedding in 1998. I have been described as intellectual, but more literary than legal - I can barely keep up with this debate.
I suppose there is some bizarre connection between the Tenth Amendment and Rule 1-4, both of which ask "What if it does not appear in the rules?" The brevity of each has left them wide open to interpretation and led to such monstrosities as the Civil War and Decisions on the Rules of Golf.
But the Tenth Amendment is crystal clear when compared to Rule 1-4, which to me says "If you can't find it in the rules, apply justice."
Easily the most helpful post so far is the one quoting from PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, by Stevens and Scalia, differentiating among the Rules of Golf, Conditions of Competition and Local Rules, and Notices to Competitors. As someone who is naive about tournaments this is fascinating and crucial information.
By the way, Scalia's dissent is hilarious -
"If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf--and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point--then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government's power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf."
-
Michael:
Nice photo.
;)
-
You said to me . . ."I know you like to look to Amendment 9 to find extra-textual (unenumerated) rights, as apparently some legal scholars do the same."
Could you possibly tell me what you mean by that? If you could tell me what you think I'm looking for or seeing in Amendment 9 or what you are, I have a funny feeling it very well may clear up a ton of misunderstanding on this thread.
The concept of "Unenumerated" rights (the citizenry's or People's rights) as its defined in Amendment 9 is extremely important to me, not so much in what it exactly says but in the way that the entire US Constitution is constructed and written vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights or certainly this particular Amendment.
Tom, these are not really easy issues to address in a simple and concise manner.
I will try to give you my understanding of the 9th Amendment's relationship to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, why it was added, and what it was meant to do. Then I will go from there. I apologize if much of this is remedial for you.
At the time of the founding, most sovereigns had limitless power over their subjects except where their power was specifically limited by doctrines or tradition. Some of the founders very much wanted to turn this structure on its head, so the Constitution was created as a GRANT OF POWER (as opposed to a limitation on already existing power.) The founders envisioned a Fed. Govt. that had absolutely no power at all, except for the specific powers that the people (through the States) specifically granted the Fed. Govt. in the Constitution.
Since the Fed only had the powers that the people gave them (through the States), many felt that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. To give an oversimplified example, freedom of speech was unnecessary because the Constitution did not grant the Fed any power that would put the Fed in a position to impinge on freedom of speech.
More importantly for this discussion, some also believed that a Bill of Rts was actually dangerous to the very structure of the government they were attempting to create. Basically, founders were afraid that if they started limiting the Feds power by awarding the people unnecessary rights, the Fed would interpret this to mean that they could do anything it wanted so long as it didn't violate the enumerated rights. They were afraid that the Fed would stomp on the rights of the people (some from state constitutions) like the British did. They did not want to return to this type of government, and did not want to risk the "grant of power" basis for our Fed.
I think it was Madison who suggested the 9th Amendment in order to calm these fears and to insure that the Constitution remained a grant of power, and that the Fed's power consisted of only powers that the Constitution specifically granted.
So, many consider the 9th amendment a guidepost or reminder on how to read the Bill of Rts. in the context of the structure of the Constitution, and a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would not be used to increase Fed power.
Turning to what I think you think the 9th Amendment means; to be honest I am not sure I know what you think, but I will give it a shot since you think it might advance the discussion. I assume that you look at the 9th Amendment as guaranteeing rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (your unenumerated rights). Perhaps you think that identifiable rights exist that fall under the protection of the 9th Amendment. I assume you conclude that, if the Fed (or State?) steps on those rights, the 9th Amendment should be invoked to protect the people from the govt. interference.
My guess is that you may see this as consistent with what I say above. But here is the rub, as I see it. History suggests that the 9th does not create or protect any rights at all (enumerated or unenumerated.) It just textualizes the notion that the Bill of Rts should not be construed to alter the structure of the Fed as a govt limited to only those powers granted by the Constitution. (Under this reading, the 9th and 10th have a lot of overlap, which makes some sense, structurally.)
In fact, the judicial creation and/or identification of particular rights (such as association) under the 9th Amendment could be viewed as entirely antithetical to the actual purpose the 9th. The fed. government (judges) are governing in a manner that is not specifically granted in the Constitution! Or, at the very least, the judiciary is usurping the will of the people (through the States) by amending the Constitution (adding rights) without following Constitutional amendment procedures.
Even if you look closely at some of the opinions in Griswold (which creates a new substantive right), they stop short of finding the right of reproductive privacy in the 9th Amendment. Instead, they use the 9th Amendment to justify the theory that the Constitution itself recognizes the potential for rights and protections beyond what is specifically listed. (Shivas and Bork will tell you that this use is also antithetical to the 9th.) The Justices turn to other portions of the Constitution to (try to) find the actual rights extending from enumerated rights.
So, as I understand most of the evidence, the 9th Amendment is not a place to turn to when one is looking to find specific substantive rights that one wishes to protect Constitutionally. In other words, freedom of association cant be protected by the 9th amendment because it is not an amendment that protects any specific rights.
Now after having said all this, there are scholars who believe that the 9th Amendment is a legitimate place to look for rights that seem to go beyond the text of the constitution. But, to be honest, I can't really remember what they said. If I recall correctly, one such scholar is John Ely who wrote Democracy and Distrust. You may want to check it out if you are interested in going deeper into the issue.
-
Shivas
Based your post #206, I assume that you and Bork think that Augusta should have no Constitutionally protected freedom of association or right to privacy, and that Georgia should be able to force Augusta to admit women merely by passing legislation requiring it to do so. Is this a correct assumption?
By the way, I have never read any of Bork's books from cover to cover, but I have read excepts and a some of his essays. You are right, his brilliance cannot be missed. However, he might have benefited if he had read Federalist #78, quoted by you above, as a warning:
"This simple view of the matter . . . proves incontestably, that the judiciary . . . can never attack with success either of the other two [branches]; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks."
This quote holds true whatever the theory of interpretation of the judge, and whatever the textual basis for his opinions. In other words, no matter how well reasoned a decision or position, if it is out of whack with societal standards, it will not be tolerated for long.
-
D Moriarty:
You Said:
"Since the Fed only had the powers that the people gave them (through the States), many felt that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. To give an oversimplified example, freedom of speech was unnecessary because the Constitution did not grant the Fed any power that would put the Fed in a position to impinge on freedom of speech.
More importantly for this discussion, some also believed that a Bill of Rts was actually dangerous to the very structure of the government they were attempting to create. Basically, founders were afraid that if they started limiting the Feds power by awarding the people unnecessary rights, the Fed would interpret this to mean that they could do anything it wanted so long as it didn't violate the enumerated rights. They were afraid that the Fed would stomp on the rights of the people (some from state constitutions) like the British did. They did not want to return to this type of government, and did not want to risk the "grant of power" basis for our Fed.
I think it was Madison who suggested the 9th Amendment in order to calm these fears and to insure that the Constitution remained a grant of power, and that the Fed's power consisted of only powers that the Constitution specifically granted.
So, many consider the 9th amendment a guidepost or reminder on how to read the Bill of Rts. in the context of the structure of the Constitution, and a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would not be used to increase Fed power.
Turning to what I think you think the 9th Amendment means; to be honest I am not sure I know what you think, but I will give it a shot since you think it might advance the discussion. I assume that you look at the 9th Amendment as guaranteeing rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (your unenumerated rights). Perhaps you think that identifiable rights exist that fall under the protection of the 9th Amendment. I assume you conclude that, if the Fed (or State?) steps on those rights, the 9th Amendment should be invoked to protect the people from the govt. interference.
My guess is that you may see this as consistent with what I say above. But here is the rub, as I see it. History suggests that the 9th does not create or protect any rights at all (enumerated or unenumerated.) It just textualizes the notion that the Bill of Rts should not be construed to alter the structure of the Fed as a govt limited to only those powers granted by the Constitution. (Under this reading, the 9th and 10th have a lot of overlap, which makes some sense, structurally.)
In fact, the judicial creation and/or identification of particular rights (such as association) under the 9th Amendment could be viewed as entirely antithetical to the actual purpose the 9th. The fed. government (judges) are governing in a manner that is not specifically granted in the Constitution! Or, at the very least, the judiciary is usurping the will of the people (through the States) by amending the Constitution (adding rights) without following Constitutional amendment procedures."
D Moriarty:
Thanks for all that--obviously must have taken some time and I very much appreaciate it. Some of your logic is definitely not clear to me, particularly the last paragraph, and I should say some in the first paragraph. Got to go for the morning but I'd sure like to take up or clarify those parts I mentioned later. Or send me an email offline with your email if you'd like.
-
Dave:
Oh Wow, do I not agree with opinions like yours on your last post although I'm actually glad you posted it, in the spirit of open and diverse discussion. However, this thread can be an even better one if we try to stick on here to the way the US Government actually works as a mechanism, or should work, or was or is intended to work as a mechanism even if in theory, without inserting merely personal politcal opinion on a single entity of the government into the discussion.
My point being this country has always had a diversity of political opinion and it's up to the government to stay current with that, always certainly recognizing that one side or the other, or more likely either end of the political spectrum, will probably not agree. That's not much more than recognizing and administering a true democracy, in my opinion.
Don't forget Lincoln's great quote 'that the barometer of the strength of a democracy is the amount of dissent or diversity of opinion that any democratic government can stand at any particular time!'
You really think the US Supreme Court is the only entity or the most responsible entity for creating a 'society of victims'? How about the Executive Branch, how about the Legislative Branch? How about a ton of other things and other factors not to mention the people themselves who "act the victim"? Have they no responsibility if they act the victim with almost anything and everything? Have they no sense of personal responsibility--at least to themselves?
What the Hell happened to the small matter of their right to EXCERCISE their vote and express their opinion of who they want to lead them and what they would prefer their leaders to do, if, in fact, they're discontent? That little matter (the vote) in the broad scheme of things, and even in the context of this thread on our government and its Constitution, is the best manner in which they (the Citizenry) can express and maintain that THEY, in fact, ARE the SUPREME LAW of this land! That's their own responsibility to themselves, as much as anything, if they think something or someone has made them "victims" or made a mess of things!
What does the small matter of a less than 50% voter turnout which is not unusual in America today mean to you? To me it means either contentment or laziness, two things that amount to the same basic expression which is things are probably OK--their probably just fine or fine enough to not care to do much about it--like vote and express something.
I'm not in the slightest trying to criticize you either if you're a political conservative or even a liberal--that does not matter to me at all. But I'd hope we all can recognize that this country has a real dynamic to it, always has had, and the government necessarily moves along in sort of a grey area to reflect that. Nothing's just black and just white about our country or our Government, including all the branches of it, and that certainly includes that one of three, the US Supreme Court!
Please don't take this post personally, I truly don't mean it to be that at all, although I'm certain some will see it that way. Please come back at me just as hard as you think I might be coming at you! You have a tremendous amount of knowledge apparently on some of these things and I'd love to see it come out to logically explain or defend what you feel but always within the mechanisms of Government more than the personalities in it.
I know this thread isn't about golf architecture but I think it's a wonderfully educational thread nonetheless, and I hope it keeps going, and soon if you give me half a chance I'll whip it back into golf and even golf architecture even in the context of this "constitutional" thread.
I probably shouldn't post this but here goes!
Peace!
-
Dave Schmidt;
Thank you--you're a very thoughtful and very nice man! I'm not all that concerned about pissing people off if the message is fundamentally well meant, but I didn't really want to piss you off, although the primary reason is I think you might be much bigger than me!
-
Guess I shouldn't swear to myself I'll stay out of threads as here's another one I'm breaking my promise on....
But Tom, I can confirm that Dave is quite a bit bigger than you. QUITE a bit.
But if ever there's a gentle giant, that has to be Mr. Schmidt! He'd have throttled me long ago if he wasn't this way!
TH
-
And as to Court opinions that are out of whack with societal standards, I agree that in theory . . . The problem, however, is that our politicians in Washington stand for nothing . . . and none of them has the guts to stand up and say that the Supreme Court is, and has been for at least 70 years, completely bonkers and overstepping their Constitutional bounds . . . but they also know that taking on the Court is a certain road to their political demise (ala Bork) because -- at the end of the day -- voters like freebies . . . Just look at the ridicule that Bork, Thomas and Scalia get . . .
Shivas, that is certainly the criticism often leveled, at both the Court and Congress. But, with my Federalist 78 reference, I was trying to turn this approach on its head. I am taking a step back and throwing out normative theories of interpretation ("the way it should be"), and instead asking this question: How has the Court actually functioned in relation to accepted societal values? I am sure you view this as a moral relativist's approach, because it is. But I prefer to think of it as learning from history.
Under this approach, I only care about an Opinion's reasoning and logic to the extent that the other branches and society accept or reject that the Opinion, reason, and logic.
For example: Under this approach, I don't care one way or another whether the justices in Lochner overstepped the bounds of the Constitution by inventing a substantive right. Instead, I view Lochner as a bad decision because, as the industrial revolution progressed, it became (or was) severely out of step with the contemporaneous societal standards, so the political process brought it down. Had the industrial revolution developed differently, maybe Lochner would still be good law.
You see a Congress that has been weak and unwilling to curb the judicial activism of a judiciary that has run amuck. You also view Bork as victim whose career was ruined by his willingness to take on the Courts.
I see a Congress (and a society) that is pretty pleased with where the Court has gone over the last 70 years (with some exceptions). And I see Bork as part of the courts, or wanted to be. He was rejected by Congress because his interpretive theory (no matter how well-founded) might have led to results that Congress and society were unwilling to accept.
Well reasoned or not, we have accepted Brown v. Bd into the fabric of our society. The "sword" of checks and balances cut down Bork because society did not want to risk of tearing that fabric by losing a decision like Brown. (I know, Bork has since made clear that he would have reached the same result, but with different reasoning, but that was much less apparent then.)
I call it my Federalist 78 theory, in honor of that great moral relativist, James Madison.
-
DMoriarty:
You're last post is exactly, precisely what I was trying to say to Dave Schmidt in my last long post.
Any of us can yell and scream and posture as to one of the branches of Government (Executive, Legislature, Judiciary) going bonkers and being out of step with society, but are they really?
Probably they are NOT to the extent nothing much is done about it--certainly the reason being ALL the inherent "checks and balances" supplied to us within the mechanisms of the US Constitution, supported by the Bill of Rights and all the extrapolations of same. (Bork got "balanced out" obviously because those mechanisms "checked" him).
One should simply look at the totality of the mechanisms supplied to us (and not just the individual parts) by the Framers and just analyze how and why they work and how they have worked, both individually and collectively to arrive at some result! Surely the "Peoples" right to VOTE and express their collective opinions underlie all of this (of course assuming they choose to do so).
In this way it can be seen that no matter what goes on the "People" are "Supreme" in this Land, then and now (armed with their right to vote and "throw all the bums out", should they become so discontent that they actually choose to do so!).
In this way our system is obviously somewhat more cumbersome than the Parliamentary System but the Framers knew that and intended it to be so. But it still can work just fine with the Peoples' underlying and Supreme lever (the Vote) should they collectively decide to use it.
-
Shivas.
I will leave poor Bork alone, he's been picked on enough. Perhaps he should consider a support group . . .
It is a good thing that it is very difficult to check the power of the Supreme Court, otherwise they would really be a useless branch. Appointments work to bring about slow change; court packing and outright revolt might bring about quicker change. But the obvious and Constitutional approach is through Constitutional Amenment. If enough of us think they are off base, we can amend the Constitution reversing or changing whatever they have done.
Your reference to Roe is interesting. I had a paragraph on Roe in my previous post but decided to delete it for the sake of brevity. Funny how we rely on the same examples to make opposite points.
In 1970 there was some precident for finding privacy in the Constitution (the WWII anti-German cases for example). But certainly those that were paying even a little attention could spot the large leaps in logic that were necessary in order to establish a Constitional right to reproductive freedom.
But, there was a pretty large segment of society (most of which had had never read the Constitution) that had a gut-felt belief that this was the type of thing that the Government had no business interfering in. This gut-felt belief is entirely consistent with the general philosophy expressed by the founders in the Constitution.
The fact that 30 yrs later Roe is more widely accepted than ever that, while the Ct. may have streched their power (and societal values) to its limits with Roe, they did not overstep thier bounds. They stayed within the limits of societal values, and brought about fundamental change in a non-revolutionary manner. While Jefferson may disagree, I think that fundamental change without resorting to revolutions is a good thing.
By the way, most liberals have not been too happy with much that the court has done over the past 20 yrs.
-
I've got to stop letting this site piss me off before I go home...I seem to have lost a sense of space and time.
I'm left to haiku in desperation...
Paranoia golf
Takes another pound of flesh
Waiting for the flash
-
JakanB
Don't despair. You are in fact right. This particular thread has been hijacked through a wormhole in the space-time continuum from a race of people on the planet Skyron who are known as the Gormless Constitutional Argumentatives. They will self-destruct as soon as they realize that this website is about golf and not Robert Bork.
-
Dave Schmidt:
You said above;
"How many people believed that in, say, 1970? How about today? A lot more today, correct? And how did it get that way? Do the Court's opinions "reflect" societal values, or do they"change" societal values?"
Those may just be some damn fine questions!
Assuming our 9 Jurists do act as quassi political leaders basically "legislating" from the bench, and assuming that you're correct that more people believe today that the way they ruled 32 years ago was correct than believed they were correct 32 years ago, and also punctuating those assumptions with your final question;
'Do the courts opinions "reflect" societal opinions, or do they "change" societal opinions?',
I guess one might just conclude that their opinions "change" societal opinion (if you're correct)!
And if that's all true as you appear to believe it is, I think you just answered that age-old political question; "Should a political leader or any kind of leader within the mechanisms of a Government lead his constituency or should he follow them?"
I think history could show us quite clearly that many if not most of the Framers and Founding Fathers may have taken that sort of "Noblese Oblige" attitude that they just might need to "lead" their constituency (the Amercican People), probably because, as I think we also know from history, they never felt their constituency was all that bright! I really doubt, in any case, they ever felt their constituency was as bright and clear thinking as they were!
-
JakaB and Rich:
If certain threads on this website piss you off, even simply because they stray from golf architecture, then why do you bother to read those threads? Is there something secretly pleasant about being pissed off I should know about?
-
Tom:
I refuse to let myself get pissed off. It's easy to just skip those threads that don't interest you!
-
Tom
The answer to your question is "yes!" But I am not at all "pissed off." Can't speak for Barney, however.....
-
Rich,
This thread sure has wandered around, no doubt about it.
The wandering began early and really started to blossom when the Whaley issue was tied to Burk/ANGC. It was then deemed a "social experiment" by some. Others insisted that women have no right to play the PGA Tour unless men can play the LPGA Tour and cried foul at this misperception of discrimination. This led to the Casey Martin/ADA/Supreme Court affair being brought up as a way that a man might get to play the LPGA 's Tour. It's at this juncture that any reference to the original issue was lost..
I have been a willing participant but through it all I stick by my earliest contentions that the Whaley issue is minor, has nothing to do with Burk/Augusta, is not a social experiment and will have no effect on sports in general or the male dominated PGA Tour as we know it. Sooner or later it will become clear that this is really no more than a PGA member, who happens to be a woman, earning an exemption to play in a PGA Tour event.
-
Tom,
I'm happy we can modify posts because who really wants a transcript of their life...
-
You're last post is exactly, precisely what I was trying to say to Dave Schmidt in my last long post.
Judging from your prior post, I thought that we were finally close to on the same wave length, but given that we had been speaking past each other on this thread, I didn't want to presume to speak from you.
By the way, you may not want to spread it around that we agree on this issue. Either the theory, our agreement, or both could get you thrown out of alot of academic and social circles.
Jim: Thanks for the recap. This has been going on so long I honestly forgot where we've been.
Barney, nice use of paranoia as a four syllable word. I would think that medium might be too restictive for your free mind, but I guess in bondage we find freedom.
-
Well, OK then, back to the Whaley issue. I'm sort of with Jim Kennedy that this may be no more than just an instance of a women happening to get an exemption into a Tour Event. Maybe this won't be much more eventful than that midget pinch-hitter Branch Rickey (or whoever did it) put into the big league baseball game a long time ago as a novelty to create interest.
But maybe not!
It all sort of depends where the PGA of America through their sectional structure wants to go with this! My pro told me the other day the PGA of America decided to allow women to compete in men's sectional PGA events maybe up to 5-6 years ago and they decided to "level the playing field" at 82% of the total distance of the men, then they changed that to 90%. (If someone has posted this fact on this thread, I'm truly sorry to repeat it).
But of course one wonders what the reason was for the PGA or America to do that in the first place. My pro believes it was because the PGA sections really weren't able to populate and stage PGA sectional tournaments for PGA of America women. Why? Because there really aren't very many women pros in the PGA of America. So instead of trying the logical route of maybe bringing more in to the PGA of America first they thought it easier to just let them play with the men and "level the playing field" this way from separate tees.
This certainly is a slippery slope method to solve the original concern--ie not being able to populate and stage women PGA sectional tournaments.
And now it appears Suzy has gone out and gotten herself an agent and maybe even will be decked out in "contract garb" and such since clearly the spotlight will be on her, no matter what.
What if the PGA Tour or the PGA Tour sponsors think this is a neat idea to perk up interest, and start offering sponsor's exemptions all the time to women in the name of even anti-discrimination, or who knows what?
Could this start to lead to a situation where women pros will compete on the PGA Tour or even men on the LPGA Tour? Could this all lead some day to a single PGA Tour for men and women with the PGA of America at the sectional level and the PGA Tour continually trying to tweak the "comparative" distance requirments of men and women generally until they can create a situation where they figure they have them all being competitive against each other. Maybe this ideas will get all the way into the PGA Tour Q school!
Why won't somebody like Corey Pavin get into the act and claim he too needs a distance adjustment because he's always been small and a short hitter and his "inherent disadvantage" actually constitutes "restraint of trade"?
Where will it all end then?
The PGA of America was wrong to open this door in their sectional events 5-6 years ago and they did it apparently for the wrong reasons. Let them get out there and expend the same amount of energy trying to recruit enough women PGA of America pros into their organization so they can compete in their own sectional events.
The PGA of America should never have opened this door (different tees) and they should realize that and close it!
I'm really sorry if this point has been mentioned before and if so I'll delete this post but I sure couldn't face reading back through every post on this thread to find out.
-
JakaB;
At this point I have you completely figured out and I know EXACTLY why you get pissed off!
Because you THINK TOO F.... MUCH!!
Just cut that stuff out and you'll be happy all the time like the rest of us!
-
TEPaul writes:
Could this start to lead to a situation where women pros will compete on the PGA Tour
Oh my God, man, say it isn't so! Men and women playing golf together, next they'll want co-ed showers.
(Tom, you do understand that Whaley will be playing from the same tees as everyone else at the GHO?)
Dan King
"Exactly what Adam and Eve were ashamed of is never clearly explained, anywhere. And why did they cover their loins? Why not their noses or elbows or big toes? And what does God wear -- a Pierre Cardin suit? And why fig leaves? Fig leaves were intended to cover up figs. The mind boggles: If I accept the anti-nude morality, I must be ashamed of my own body. But where can I go without it? Personally, I think God lis losing a lot in the translation. I can't imagine him being ashamed of anybody's nude body. On the contrary, he must think it's pretty peculiar when he sees us killing other animals and wearing their skins.
--Allan Sherman
-
Dan King:
Of course I understand she'll be playing from the same tees in the GHO--so what? It wasn't very long ago she either wouldn't have been playing in the same competition with the men at the PGA of America sectional level or she would have had to play from the same tees there too! We all know that things changed 5-6 years ago this way because the PGA of America made the change. Should they have done that for the reasons they apparently did or shouldn't they? They opened the door to this potential extrapolation and they have the ability to close it again.
-
Tom,
It's not a door the PGA of A has opened wide, Tom. This is a sectional event and a sectional champ cannot qualify for a spot at the PGA Championship unless they play from the designated tees at the CPC event and place well. In essence the door is only open in- state. Suzy opted to play from a reduced set of tees at the CPC and in doing so became ineligible. Had she played from the designated tees and won a spot at the PGA Championship would she deserve it? Answer no and you have to resort to some very convoluted theory to get around the sexism. No such theories are necessary to explain why we have specific requirements of participation for other Tours as they are entertainment segments. It should be easy to see, at least from a marketing perspective.
Something to remember, even though the Tour has had to offer more widespread participation, ala Casey Martin, they are not forced to follow any "rules of the competition" other than the ones they set.
-
Well, I'll see ya'll again on another thread.
-
My God, I'm starting to understand why y'all are in such a lather over Ms. Whaley! She may end up being a role model, more women are going to want to play golf with men! This could be only the beginning! Terrifying!
Thing about it, they get their way here, and who knows next thing you know they might want... the vote! Then probably they'll want to hold public office, run companies, work in operating rooms, teach our children! My god, some day they may even want their own checking account!
Thank god we have all these vigilant men who will work hard to ensure Ms. Whaley doesn't break out of the mold!
Dan King
P.S. It's not like me to use a lot of exclamation points, but this issue is far to important to use the feminized period!
"Boys will be boys --
And even that... wouldn't matter if we could only prevent girls from being girls."
--Anthony Hope
-
Dan;
Do you honestly think Ms. Whaley can make the cut? ???
-
Jim Kennedy:
You suggested there was a "misperception of discrimination" regarding the LPGA.
Is it your understanding that LPGA Tour events ARE open to members of both sexes?
I'm also curious if claims of sex discrimination against Augusta National are also a "misperception".
What is a "misperception"?
-
Dan King:
You seem to enjoy joking about men who oppose women voting and having their own checking accounts.
Who are these guys?
I'm beginning to think you have adopted the following view:
Sex discrimination practiced by men at golf clubs is bad, but sex discrimination practiced by women on the LPGA Tour is okay.
Or is that one of those "misperception" things?
-
Tom Paul:
Please don't tell me it took you this long and a talk with your pro to figure out what has occurred! Your recent long post is accurate, but that is what we've been discussing for a few months on this site on this and other threads.
She's been awarded a sponsor's exemption that it could be construed was earned in a Section event some have deemed a qualifier.
BRANCH RICKEY?!?!?! Oh my, has your history been distorted. Bill Veeck is forever remembered as the man who batted Eddie Gaedel. Veeck, as you probably remember, spawned Mike Veeck - the brains behind the ill-fated "Disco Demolition" day in Chicago. He was blackballed from Major League Baseball and flourished - as much as anyone CAN flourish - in the Independent Northern League and other similar outposts.
It actually seemed like he may get back to MLB a year or so ago, but I never did hear what happened.
Branch Rickey is famous for something else, and far more significant than batting a guy who wore the jersey number 1/8.
-
Tim,
Thank you. That should have read "mistaken perception of discrimination". Pointing it out once would have been sufficient but three times?? :o
Your understanding of discrimination is very different than mine. My definition includes the loss of opportunity and by extension the creation of hardship for a particular group.
Your whine says that it's not fair that men have to let women play on their tour but the women don't have to let the men play on theirs, boo hoo.
Think about it Tim, do you believe that these men who are the most talented and strongest players in the world of golf worry about a woman taking away their opportunity or visiting some sort of hardship upon them?
I'm sorry, but your view is too narrow and unresponsive for this century, make no "misperception of that" :P
I think Hootie should invite Annika to the party this April. ;D
-
Jim Kennedy:
What is frequently lost in discussions about sex discrimination is that ability in many fields varies as much within one sex as between the sexes.
Why speak of the strongest and most talented? Aren't they the least important folks to worry about? What about those less strong and talented? Shouldn't people of both sexes who fit this description have the opportunity to play on the LPGA?
Good old fashioned sexism is at work here. Lesser talented males who can't make it on the PGA Tour aren't supposed to complain about being denied opportunities on the LPGA. "Boo, boo", we tell them. Don't cry. Only women face hardship. Can't you see how oppressed Annika has been!
Thanks to Professor Keller's training, I'll ignore personal attacks like "your whine". They are a common thing in discussions about sex roles, especially when people attempt to take the moral high ground and inconsistencies in their positions are exposed.
-
Paul Richards writes:
Do you honestly think Ms. Whaley can make the cut?
To tell you the truth, I haven't given it a moments thought. But now that you've asked I'd have to say no.
Did you know Bill Spiller fought all his life to play on the PGA Tour. The PGA of America finally dropped their Caucasian clause in 1961, but Spiller never really profited. "The best I ever did on the white tour," Spiller recalled, "was fourteenth in the Labatts tournament, in Canada. I got a small check. I won most of the tournaments on the black tour, but you just can't go out and play against the best in the world with so little experience."
Tim Weiman writes:
You seem to enjoy joking about men who oppose women voting and having their own checking accounts.
If you can't enjoy joking what's the point?
I'm beginning to think you have adopted the following view:
Sex discrimination practiced by men at golf clubs is bad,
I'm trying to parse this. Are we talking about the Connecticut PGA of America who voluntarily integrated many years ago? Or are we talking about the PGA Tour who voluntarily integrated not so long ago? Or are we talking about Augusta National who will probably integrate some time in the not too distant future?
but sex discrimination practiced by women on the LPGA Tour is okay.
I've answered this question many times, but maybe somewhere along the line I gave you the wrong impression. Was there some post where you thought I might have said it wasn't okay. Just to make things perfectly clear, I think it is perfectly acceptable that the LPGA discriminates. If at some point you got some other impression from me, please ignore it.
Or is that one of those "misperception" things?
I have no idea what you are comparing.
Why speak of the strongest and most talented? Aren't they the least important folks to worry about? What about those less strong and talented?
Why not start a tour for the less strong and talented? Why do you want the LPGA to do all the work for you? Call it the Not As Good Tour (NAG Tour®.) Hey, if Madison Ave. can sell lite beer, maybe they can also sell players who aren't very good.
Dan King
"It's not the meat it's the motion
That makes this mama want to rock
It's not the meat it's the motion
It's the movement that gives it the sock."
--Maria Muldaur
-
Dan King:
I've seen a lot of women vote in my life but I've yet to see one who thought she had to go into the booth with men--but if the polling stations feel it's discriminatory the way it's been I'm sure they'll figure out how to get men and women into the booth together.
Interesting analogy anyway.
-
Tim,
You write
What is frequently lost in discussions about sex discrimination is that ability in many fields varies as much within one sex as between the sexes.
That's because ability between players within one sex has nothing to do with discrimination.
You write;
Why speak of the strongest and most talented? Aren't they the least important folks to worry about?
That is exactly what I've been saying. Men don't need to protect their market share.
Can you answer this question with a simple yes or no?: For a women's tour or a senior tour to establish a market share and flourish it must have the ability to set certain parameters,
Have you backed yourself so far into a corner that you are unable to say yes?
You wrote:
Thanks to Professor Keller's training, I'll ignore personal attacks like "your whine".
Professor Keller didn't train you well enough. If you were able to ignore the "personal attack", real or perceived, you wouldn't have to let us all know that you are capable of doing so.
Professor Keller should have taught you not to make them in the first place, ala the refence to my use of "misperception" in this discussion. The gentlemen here usually make comical note of such gaffes but don't extend this notice over four instances and spanning two posts.
And finally:
......especially when people attempt to take the moral high ground and inconsistencies in their positions are exposed.
Throughout this discussion I have not seen myself standing on the moral high ground nor have I thought that anyone else is doing so. I might have to change this outlook in your case as it appears you are now able to look down on my position and "see" inconsistencies. What do you label the high ground you are standing on ,Tim?
-
Jim Kennedy:
The backdrop to the Whaley matter is Augusta. Martha Burk has used the word "immoral" to describe Augusta's practice of sex discrimination. What remains to be seen is whether Burk really views sex discrimination - all forms of it - as "immoral" or whether she is selective about it.
Suppose Hootie Johnson followed your example and said that he doesn't understand what all the fuss over Augusta's membership policy is all about. He is just trying to establish a membership within "certain parameters". …..just like the LPGA. You might think Martha Burk would accept such logic. I doubt it. Spin it any way you want. The fact is that the LPGA practices sex discrimination. Members of one sex are permitted to play. Members of the other sex aren't.
As for whether the LPGA might not be able to flourish if sex discrimination were eliminated, that sounds like the men who used to “whine” that if women were allowed to work they won’t be able to feed their families.
-
Tim:
You know if men were allowed to play the LPGA tour that the women would have to be handicapped somehow. How would they do that--with the 90% distance rule they used with Whaley in Conn? Is that what will make it work--some kind of handicap management to try to achieve some kind of level playing field or equality?
You also know if they opened the LPGA to men from the same tees the women would be out of work!
Or are you just using the ridiculousness of opening the LPGA tour up to men to show what a double standard Burk's is using by going after ANGC and failing to mention or acknowledge something like the single sex rule on the LPGA?
-
Tom:
It does show the ridiculousness of the double-standard as applied by Burk.
-
Tom Paul:
I think Margaret Mead was light years ahead of Martha Burk or the CT PGA section when she advised against trying to eliminate all forms of single sex activities.
Had the CT section followed your advice and maintained the standards of scratch golf, questions about sex discrimination on the LPGA would not be on the table.
But, now the door is open. Burk will either need to speak out against discrimination on the LPGA Tour or be exposed as not really opposing sex discrimination.
Like I said, Dr. Mead was way ahead of her time. But, then, matters of sex roles in society have a certain timeless quality.
Paul Richards:
Burk may be inconsistent and hypocritical, but I'm not sure she is being ridiculous. Again, I would point to Mead for guidance.
The ideal of equal opportunity conflicts with the recurring pattern of human beings - both males and females - to have SOME single sex activities in their daily lives. The key is WHAT activities remain single sex.
In that regard, the Burk dialogue is healthy. If Augusta wants to be a corporate entertainment center, it should be open to both sexes. If the club wants to be a place to get away from all of that, remaining single sex should not be a problem.
The LPGA matter is sticky because it is a place of employment and discrimination should not be permitted. There is a fine balance to be achieved. The CT section hasn't helped matters.
-
Tim,
Whaley is a female section pro awarded a playing exemption for a PGA Tour event. The association that awarded her this prize recognizes distinctions between it members. If this is considered discriminate behavior then you must use the proper definition of the word in this context. They are showing partiality (in favor of) to their senior and female members rather than prejudice (against) these same members by adjusting the playing length for these two membership groups.
This distinction is critical and is of no small import in understanding how the two situations are different and that they should be seen this way.
Augusta exhibits a prejudice (against) towards allowing women to become members.
There is no such membership issue within the PGA of A as they have shown partiality(in favor of) towards women.
If it is proven that Augusta is a workplace by extension then they could lose the tax status they presently enjoy.
The PGA of A has no such issues to worry about as they are presently an EOE.
The LPGA and the Senior Tour show partiality(in favor of) to women and older men, respectively.
At the present time ANGC is showing prejudice(against) towards women as they do not have a female member.
As for your M.Mead reference pertaining to the elimination of all single sex activities, no one is advocating any such measures, not even Ms Burk. Her issue with ANGC is not based on eliminating single sex activities but is based on her belief that a single sex club that offers measureable advantages to men in business, like the Rotarians of old, is inappropriate and prejudiced(against)in their treatment of women.
-
Jim Kennedy:
I'm already on record stating that if - big if - a club is an extension of the workplace, then discrimination on the basis of sex is inappropriate. On that point, I'm a big Martha Burk supporter.
Making the "extension of the workplace" argument is tricky business, however. The LPGA is a workplace. It's the real thing - not an "extension".
Thus, the case against the LPGA is even stronger than that against Augusta, assuming you believe sex discrimination in the workplace is inappropriate.
All this talk about "prejudice" vs "partiality" is nothing more than verbal gymnastics designed to obscure old fashioned sexism.
Imagine Hootie making your argument:
"Augusta is not prejudiced against women.....they may attend the Masters......they may play the golf course as guests.......but we are partial to men.....they can also become members".
-
Tim,
The tours are not considered "workplaces", as D. Schmidt pointed out, and are not treated like ANGC might be.
Imagine Hootie making your argument:
Augusta is not prejudiced against women.. they may attend the Masters..they may play the golf course as guests..but we are partial to men..they(men) can also become members.
That's Tim, is exactly what he has been saying all along.
All this talk about "prejudice" vs "partiality" is nothing more than verbal gymnastics designed to obscure old fashioned sexism.
No Tim, it isn't. The word discrimination has been tossed around without regard to its meanings in this and other posts. There really are two sides and two meanings to this word, one is partiality(in favor of), the other is prejudice(against). Partiality helps individuals or groups to flourish but not at the expense of others. Prejudice helps individuals or groups to flourish but always at the cost to others.
You can believe that the LPGA is prejudiced but their rules for existence cost no one, therefore I believe this doesn't classify them as being prejudiced.
-
Jim Kennedy:
The idea that the Tours are not places of work is simply silly. No offense to Dave, but sooner or later a reasonably clever member of his profession will successfully make the case.
If all it takes to establish prejudice is that someone must lose, i.e., it must cost someone something, than surely the LPGA is prejudiced rather than merely partial.....unless opening up the LPGA wouldn't significantly change who earned money on the Tour.
The existence of sex discrimination creates winners and losers in every profession. We fight to eliminate it so that merit rather than gender determines who wins and who loses.
Bottom line: The LPGA practices sex discrimination. More verbal gymnastics won't change that.
-
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD--Please end this thread ASAP!!!!!!!
PLEASE!
-
Tommy,
I tried about three pages ago, its futile, like a pin drop at a NFL game.
Steve
-
Let's say some day maybe initiated by the PGA of America, it, for whatever reason, becomes commonplace to stage tour events (any tour?) with men and women competing together against each other from different tees (in the SAME competition).
This would certainly be a departure from the way things have been done in the past on a basically non-handicapped format (in the traditional way of handicapping with strokes).
Clearly if the method used to achieve this is a form of "distance handicapping" (only) to level the playing field and create some general equality between the sexes to attempt to make them competitive against each other the method used will be to create a set "distance differential".
In a sectional event in my area 82% was used (18% differential) and then it was assumed that made things to short for the women and they went to 90% (10% differential).
If this kind of thing began to happen with regularity (on a tour or tours) and it was promoted and televised, how long would it be before designers started to get into the act and begin to design in such a way as to also begin try to level the playing field architecturally?
This kind of thing may not be that far from some of the basic longtime ideas of Alice Dye, and could be even significant to the future of architecture.
I say this as a way of connecting this very long and very interesting thread (to me anyway) back to architecture.
I don't think this thread (or subject) should end at all although it should get back to the relevance of the door that the PGA of America opened that may have brought about this Whaley situation and if and how that may effect architecture in the future.
-
TE,
The golf business has not seen an increase in number of players for awhile. Despite this circumstance there are some 1,200 courses in one stage of development or another and 900 or so remodels. I would be willing to bet the farm that few will be designed or remodeled to entice women, the largest untapped resource in the golf market, into becoming long term players or focus on the needs of the shorter hitting golf population in general.
That's why I think the future growth of the business of golf rests on the visions of women like Alice Dye and men like Bill Amick. They have architectural ideas that are geared to the huge resource of non-traditional player.
Take a visit to his website
http://www.amickgca.com/index.htm
and see if you agree with what I've just said.
I don't know if combining some Tour events would have an impact on architecture but they are fun to watch, ala the Wendy's event and the team championships.