[jim kennedy]

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?
  

[Paul Richards]

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.

[Tony Ristola]

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?  


  

[Paul Richards]

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.

[Phil_the_Author]

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!

[Paul Richards]

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.

[Phil_the_Author]

Paul,

We agree again.

The rules should always be the same for thosew who are competing against each other.

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.  

[T Ristola]

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.  

[TEPaul]

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!

[CHrisB]

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

[CHrisB]

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!

[Andy Hodson]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

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  

[CHrisB]

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...

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.  

[TEPaul]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Andy Hodson]

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?

[CHrisB]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.


  

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()