or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Why aren't there any women playing on the men's tour?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why aren't there any women playing on the men's tour? - Page 4

post #55 of 126

when i was in college i played a round with a girl that was in high school.  she was having a practice round for a district tourney.  not bad on the eyes either.  anywho, she could flat out play some golf.  i was driving the ball anywhere from 285-315 and she was right there beside me on our approach shots.  granted the ladies tees are about 30-50 yds ahead, but still.  i wonder how she ended up doing with her golf career.  i bet she went to college to play fo sho.

post #56 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robster 7 View Post

I accept the strength issue to a point but still don't see why a woman who can average 270 can't play with the men. 

 

People are saying it's not "all" about distance, which it isn't.  But dammit, that's a whole helluva lot of the reason why.  270 is a top 2 average on the LPGA: http://www.lpga.com/stats/stats-detail.aspx?q=avg%20driving%20dist

 

Guess where that falls in line on the PGA?  Around 190: http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html

 

So the longest hitter on the LPGA tour is nearly the shortest on the PGA.  That makes a huge difference when they have to suddenly start playing from the same tees.

post #57 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

 

People are saying it's not "all" about distance, which it isn't.  But dammit, that's a whole helluva lot of the reason why.  270 is a top 2 average on the LPGA: http://www.lpga.com/stats/stats-detail.aspx?q=avg%20driving%20dist

 

Guess where that falls in line on the PGA?  Around 190: http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html

 

So the longest hitter on the LPGA tour is nearly the shortest on the PGA.  That makes a huge difference when they have to suddenly start playing from the same tees.

There are a lot of very good golfers at the bottom of that list. 

post #58 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post

Something must be lost in translation. You're speaking the wrong kind of English I suppose. a2_wink.gif

I'm speaking English as it was intended to be spoken. The same unfortunately cannot be said for you lot over the pond!😄
post #59 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappy091 View Post

There are a lot of very good golfers at the bottom of that list. 

I guess that was my point. If Mike Weir can win at Augusta, why can't Lexi Thomson?
post #60 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robster 7 View Post

I guess that was my point. If Mike Weir can win at Augusta, why can't Lexi Thomson?

 

Because Mike Weir winning was an anomaly, so someone with a lousier short game, less distance with every club except the driver, and several other factors winning simply won't happen.

 

Lexi doesn't even dominate or come close to dominating the women's tour.

 

P.S. Robster, please use multiquote. Thank you.

post #61 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappy091 View Post

There are a lot of very good golfers at the bottom of that list. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robster 7 View Post


I guess that was my point. If Mike Weir can win at Augusta, why can't Lexi Thomson?

 

http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.10423.mike-weir.html/season/#uber

 

The bottom 5 have a combined eleven top 25 finishes on tour this year and two top tens (5 of the top 25s and both top tens are from Jerry Kelly), and they have far more cuts missed than anything else.  And I'm guessing that if we analyze the data, they might have significantly better short game statistics than the ladies at the top of the driving charts on the LPGA.

 

The reality is, that if you're one of the worst distance-hitters on tour, to compete, you have to make up for that elsewhere.  Otherwise those guys would not survive on tour.  They would (will) be gone.  Period.  The ladies who are the longest on the LPGA can rely on that length.  However, if they try and translate their distance to a tour where it ends up being very poor, they would then have to rely on a part of their game that may not have ever been under pressure to be any good.

post #62 of 126

What's your point? That is pretty much what I imagine the MAX of a top women's golfer possible season would look like. Probably not even quite that good. Like I said, I believe they could make a living. Place decently in a few tounrnaments and make $100k-$200k a year. Every once in awhile they would play really well for the first day or two of a tournament and we would have a really good story going into the weekend only to see them come back down to earth. 

 

If there was no LPGA I think you would see a small handful of female golfers that played on the tour like that. As it stands now there just isn't any reason for them to try beyond one or two "I want to see if I can do this" PGA tournament entries. 

post #63 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappy091 View Post

I believe that a top women golfer could play and compete in the PGA. Would they be competing with Tiger and Phil on Sundays to win a major? No, but they could be just as good as one of the mid-low level anonymous players that makes a few cuts every year and basically just make a living. 

Do you really think that?

Based on what evidence?

post #64 of 126

don't forget that the course opens up more from the ladies tees.  sometimes from the tips you have obstacles to get around and have to shape shots.  probably don't have to do that as much from the ladies.

post #65 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by 460CompMark View Post

don't forget that the course opens up more from the ladies tees.  sometimes from the tips you have obstacles to get around and have to shape shots.  probably don't have to do that as much from the ladies.

Good point.

post #66 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappy091 View Post

I believe that a top women golfer could play and compete in the PGA. Would they be competing with Tiger and Phil on Sundays to win a major? No, but they could be just as good as one of the mid-low level anonymous players that makes a few cuts every year and basically just make a living. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

Do you really think that?

Based on what evidence?

A scientific formula that uses all of a players measurable metrics to determine exactly how well they would do in the PGA. 

post #67 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappy091 View Post

Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

Do you really think that?

Based on what evidence?

A scientific formula that uses all of a players measurable metrics to determine exactly how well they would do in the PGA. 

 

If it's a scientific formula that determines exactly how they would do in the PGA, why aren't more women entering PGA events?

post #68 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappy091 View Post

 

A scientific formula that uses all of a players measurable metrics to determine exactly how well they would do in the PGA. 

You have got to be joking.

If a male member joined the PGA Tour and was the shortest driver in addition to being in the bottom 5% in every category, I promise you, they aren't making cuts and making a living.

post #69 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappy091 View Post

What's your point? 

 

It's in the rest of the post.  

 

Regarding making $200k and making a living, I don't know enough to spout off real-life examples, but you must understand that the $200k is only revenue, not profit.  They still have tournament related expenses (maybe they are sponsored for these?  Not sure), other training expenses, and taxes on their revenue to pay.  $200k in winnings may sound like a lot to you and me, but I'd be surprised if they actually take home even half of that.

post #70 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

 

It's in the rest of the post.  

 

Regarding making $200k and making a living, I don't know enough to spout off real-life examples, but you must understand that the $200k is only revenue, not profit.  They still have tournament related expenses (maybe they are sponsored for these?  Not sure), other training expenses, and taxes on their revenue to pay.  $200k in winnings may sound like a lot to you and me, but I'd be surprised if they actually take home even half of that.

Depends on the state they live in how much they get taxed too. Some professional athletes will have their official residence in a state that has no income tax.

post #71 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

Because Mike Weir winning was an anomaly, so someone with a lousier short game, less distance with every club except the driver, and several other factors winning simply won't happen.

 

Lexi doesn't even dominate or come close to dominating the women's tour.

 

 

Exactly. Just a little real life experience.........

Last week I played with a guy off 5 who was far and away the best amateur ball striker I have ever seen.

His power and trajectory still has me in a state of shock.

He was hitting 4 and 5 irons like a lazer. If he had a bag over his head and someone told you it was Dustin Johnson or ANY other tour player, you'd believe it.

There would not be a female on the planet who would come close to hitting it like he did.

His Australian 5 would equate to a plus in many parts of the world, I'd guess.

Bottom line? He's a good amateur player who isn't good enough to play penants for his club.

Still...the most impressive striker of the ball I've EVER seen, aside from PGATour players.

So a woman who hits it 70 yards shorter than him and hits 3 clubs more on iron shots aint winnin' the Masters anytime soon.

post #72 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

 

Would you be?

 

Nope, it's impressive to me that she's even back out competing. Hats off to her.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Why aren't there any women playing on the men's tour?