Jackass of the day: Greg Norman.
The Shark, taking a cue from fellow golf idiot Vijay Singh, doesn't like women playing on the PGA tour. "I think the rightful place is that women play on their tour and we play on ours." Rightful place, eh?
"I think the situation is more of a marketing ploy than anything else," Norman said. "If the girls come out and think they can play against the guys and fail every time, that can't be very positive."
But Greg, they don't "fail every time." Michelle Wie, at 14 years old, missed the cut by one stroke! In a tough field, that was a stunning success.
The main complaint is that women use up sponsors' exemptions. With sponsors' exemptions, tournament sponsors give spots to people who don't otherwise qualify. Norman says the use of these exemptions for women is just a made-for-TV play, and that it takes away spots from men who are better players.
But sponsors' exemptions, by definition, always give a spot to someone who doesn't otherwise qualify. They're often given to famous old-timers who can no longer compete or local favorites or even non-golfer celebs. They are regularly used to put players on the course who will generate crowds and ratings (and thus financial returns for the sponsor).
In short, sponsors' exemptions are often given to players who aren't the best out there.
Maybe sponsors' exemptions are an all-around bad idea. You could make some argument that it's not fair to give a spot to someone other than the best, most deserving player... but what difference does it make if his spot is taken by a man or woman? If sponsors' exemptions are unfair, why hasn't Norman been complaining about them for years?
Norman also says it's bad for the women's tour. (This is the paternalistic, it's-for-your-own-good part of the argument.) There is a legitimate point here, but it may or may not reflect reality. So far it hasn't -- Annika's appearance last year on the men's tour generated increased interest in the LPGA. In the long run, however, if Michelle competes regularly on the PGA, it could hurt the LPGA.
But if it does eventually hurt the LPGA, the LPGA can recognize and deal with the problem. The LPGA is for the most part a fine organization run by smart people. It doesn't need fools like Greg Norman telling them what's best for them.
The Shark, taking a cue from fellow golf idiot Vijay Singh, doesn't like women playing on the PGA tour. "I think the rightful place is that women play on their tour and we play on ours." Rightful place, eh?
"I think the situation is more of a marketing ploy than anything else," Norman said. "If the girls come out and think they can play against the guys and fail every time, that can't be very positive."
But Greg, they don't "fail every time." Michelle Wie, at 14 years old, missed the cut by one stroke! In a tough field, that was a stunning success.
The main complaint is that women use up sponsors' exemptions. With sponsors' exemptions, tournament sponsors give spots to people who don't otherwise qualify. Norman says the use of these exemptions for women is just a made-for-TV play, and that it takes away spots from men who are better players.
But sponsors' exemptions, by definition, always give a spot to someone who doesn't otherwise qualify. They're often given to famous old-timers who can no longer compete or local favorites or even non-golfer celebs. They are regularly used to put players on the course who will generate crowds and ratings (and thus financial returns for the sponsor).
In short, sponsors' exemptions are often given to players who aren't the best out there.
Maybe sponsors' exemptions are an all-around bad idea. You could make some argument that it's not fair to give a spot to someone other than the best, most deserving player... but what difference does it make if his spot is taken by a man or woman? If sponsors' exemptions are unfair, why hasn't Norman been complaining about them for years?
Norman also says it's bad for the women's tour. (This is the paternalistic, it's-for-your-own-good part of the argument.) There is a legitimate point here, but it may or may not reflect reality. So far it hasn't -- Annika's appearance last year on the men's tour generated increased interest in the LPGA. In the long run, however, if Michelle competes regularly on the PGA, it could hurt the LPGA.
But if it does eventually hurt the LPGA, the LPGA can recognize and deal with the problem. The LPGA is for the most part a fine organization run by smart people. It doesn't need fools like Greg Norman telling them what's best for them.
posted by Ted at 8:51 AM
