Off the Bench #2 - Should Vijay get a Mulligan?

[irwin1227]

We live in a country where all people are supposed to be treated equally. You and I know that is not always the case. There are certain instances where this type of behavior bleeds into the sports world.

Such is the case with Vijay Singh's comments toward Annika Sorenstam. When asked about Sorenstam participating in the Colonial gold tournament next week, Singh did not hold back.

“What is she going to prove by playing? It's ridiculous," said Singh, a two-time major champion. "She's the best woman golfer in the world, and I want to emphasize 'woman.' We have our tour for men, and they have their tour. She's taking a spot from someone in the field."

I am sure that Singh will have some backlash along with a few others who have spoken out against Sorenstam participating in the tournament. The point can be made that Singh’s remarks were callous and discriminatory. He may have taken his comments a little too far.

Why people are having a hard time digesting his remarks is because he is right. Annika Sorenstam is an incredible golfer, and it shows by her dominance of the LPGA tour. There is the key right there…LPGA. The men have their own tour, and the women have their own. It works out better that way for both sides.

Imagine if there were no men or woman’s tour – there was only a PGA tour. Everyone would have to play by the same rules. For the men it would mean lower tiered players losing slots that would guarantee them at least a little money for participation. For the women it would mean hardly any of them would ever be successful.

The reason there are women golfers who are millionaires is because the game is changed to fit their style. They are playing closer tees than the men. This is not to say that they are not as skilled, but it shows that in the realm of the golf world, men can hit the longer distances.

If there was no WNBA, would there be any women’s professional basketball players? Maybe one – Lisa Leslie. There have been no professional baseball or football players. There are women stock car drivers, but auto racing is based more on skill than physical presence.

I am all for equality, but only where it makes sense. Unfortunately in sports, sometimes it doesn’t.

[jjcourtright]

Vijay is an idiot. </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
She's taking a spot from someone in the field

[/ QUOTE ] What does he care? He is in the top 10. A spot will not be taken from him. And, it is not like she is joining the tour for the season, she is playing in one event. She is of course doing this for the publicity, but it helps everyone.
Annika - everyone is talking about her, can't be a bad thing.
The PGA - everyone is talking about it, can't be a bad thing.
The LPGA - see above.
It is a win-win-win situation.

[Razorback]

I would LOVE to see a woman beat a man in a sporting event (it has happened in tennis) as much as I would love to see women allowed into combat roles in the military (my friends who are in the armed forces would kill me for saying that too). However, there are two different leagues for men and women... if a woman is allowed into the men's league then should a man be allowed to play against women in their league?

If that is the case then they should just do away with the two leagues and make everyone compete in the PGA. Unfortunately women and men are physically different and 90% of the men would out-qualify the women in ANY sport. This is the same issue that the military has about physical standards between men and women in training. Only about 10% of women are physically capable of competing with well conditioned men. That is why there are seperate leagues for men and women in professional tennis, soccer (football for non-Americans), golf and basketball (and soon for hockey and already in a limited capacity for baseball).

Of course an argument can be made that before Americans allowed blacks into baseball they were given their own league, called the Negro Leagues. Out of that league came some of the best baseball players of all time. So perhaps the same could happen if women were allowed to play against men. Maybe if women were held up to the same physical demands as men they would develope into better athletes and eventually be able to compete with men... even beat them.

What Vijay said was dead-on accurate. It may not be a popular comment or PC but it is right on target. With men and women the ideology has been "seperate but equal" with respect to sports and it has worked so well that professional organizations for both sexes are popping up now and women are finally getting some great recognition as athletes. So now Annika wants to change a system that has worked very well for both sides?

I hope she does very well because if she doesn't give the men any competition it will play out very badly for the next woman who wants to do the same.

RB

[JIM]

Hmmm...Could Vijay play in the WPGA? He could make himself some nice scratch on the side.
Whoever is the best should win. They can have the PGA, and the WPGA, then play a combined "big game" at the end of the year.

[jjcourtright]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
However, there are two different leagues for men and women... if a woman is allowed into the men's league then should a man be allowed to play against women in their league?


[/ QUOTE ] There is a PGA and an LPGA. The PGA can therefore not discriminate against female players, but the "L"PGA can discriminate against male players.

[Robbo_the_Hood]

The real issue is not whether a woman should be allowed to play in the PGA with men. In fact it looks like no one has even bothered to look at the real issue that should come from all of this. Vijay Sihng's "They have their own league argument" sounds similar to the same argument used to keep Major League Baseball segregated. As much equality that has been preached among gender and races over the last half-century, the only argument people have developed is the same one that was used to keep Satchell Paige and Josh Gibson from eclipsing any record Cy Young and Babe Ruth may have had. The question should not be if Sihgn (and his supporters) argument is wrong, but in the sixty years in between these incidents, and all of the strides towards equality do we really feel equal, and what does that say about the advances of American society in the equality of gender and race?

Apples and Oranges
Women in a men's golfing league and men of color playing in Major League Baseball are two different arguments. At least it was black men trying to play in the majors. However, if some people are going to use the same argument for both then they have already linked the issues to each other. Sihng can also be attributed to saying, "Every one of them that plays in this league means another man is sitting at home." Yet again, another argument used prior to 1947 to keep baseball segregated. Regardless to which incident the argument is used, they are both invalid. Yes, they have their own leagues but they still are not considered real athletes because they are not being measured with what is considered the best in the world.

They should have to qualify
If she is going to play agains men she is just going to embarass herself and what will that prove? Nick Price made a very valid argument. That women should have to qualify to join the Tour rather than just be given a spot. Very good argument. Let her play on the Nike Tour and win those tournaments to qualify like most golfers have to do. Even Jackie Robinson played a year in the minor leagues before he was called up to play for Brooklyn just so he could get some seasoning. His Montreal teammates knew Robinson would not be there for long, but at least there was proof he could play and play well against what was considered the superior race.

But we are dealing with women and they are not as physically qualified as a man as opposed to Jackie Robinson who was a man. Look at Shannon Faulkner who was admitted to the Citadel in South Carolina until they found out she was a woman. After all of the commotion she dropped out during the first week traditionaly known as "Hell Week." In the year following Faulkner's departure, four women enrolled into the Citadel and eventually graduated. Shannon Faulkner may not have been qualified for the Citadel but other women are. That is not to say that Annika Sorenstam is not qualified for the PGA. She should however go through the same qualification process that her male counterparts have to go through.

The real world
The drama of American sports has been a metaphor for American life as well. Baseball was one of the first intitutions to integrate. They did it before schools and the military integrated. It was the prelude to a whole era of tolerance of culture and race that was supposed to usher in a utopia of all races living together. Now a woman cannot even play in the same league as men. Where is all this equality talk across gender barrier lines? If we are supposed to be a more advanced civilization, how come people are using the same arguments to keep women out of the PGA that were used to keep blacks out of the Major Leagues? Is that because after decades of struggle that women and black people are equal but still inferior to men? Or has America just been going through the motions since 1947?

[jjcourtright]

Incredible post Robbo. My only problem with it is in the "They should have to qualify" paragraph. This is an invitational, it is not a tournament that everybody in the PGA can play in. So, there is no way for anyone to qualify for the event, even Annika Sorenstam.

[Robbo_the_Hood]

well, Nick Price has said that he would rather see her qualify instead of get an invitation. I know that the Collonial is an invitation, but I was trying to regard Price's comments rather than the tournament.

Thanks for the praise. Not much of that happens around here.

[Zens_7s]

Excellent post Robbo, and I am not saying that because we are Siamese twins.

I support woman's rights and equality. Many women say they support the issue, but their behavior dictates otherwise. Often woman are supporting special treatment and segregation programs created by men. Men and women alike use the phrase, "They have their league and we have ours".

Separate leagues are not inherently bad. I enjoy playing sports with people of a similar skill level. What I oppose is the denial of a woman's right to ask to play the same game, in the same way, with men, and being told no because she has breasts.

I agree with your stand on qualification. To me, the definition of equality means NO special treatment. If a woman wants to play in a PGA tournament, then she must compete using the same rules, same tee locations, etc. as the men. That is equality, not bringing LPGA rules to the PGA.

It is possible that equalizing the playing field would eliminate women due to physical limitations. I highly doubt it, having seen the women in the LPGA. The point, as Robbo so much more eloquently put it, is that they should be allowed the chance. Buried under the arguments he previously stated are hundreds of years of sexual divisions created by both sides.