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 6

post #91 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

 

That's actually a fair point.  A while ago, pretty good athletes started to pick up golf and continued competing in the higher levels of the sport.  I still don't think women's golf has that kind of draw.  Imagine Serena Williams as a golfer.  She could probably do some damage to a ball if she had the coordination for it.  Are there any of those types of athletes in women's golf?  Most of the bigger women I see in the sport are soft and pudgy looking, except Michelle Wie.  

I don't think Serena could play golf and win at the LPGA level. She makes a living by overpowering and intimidating her opponents in a 1 on 1 game. She doesn't have the temperament to last 4 days, the pressures of a golf tournament are a lot different than multiple tennis matches IMO. You can play badly on one hole and make an 11 and miss the cut, but no matter how badly you play in tennis it's scored in such a way you can come back from even the worst mistakes. Consistency isn't as necessary as long as your best is really good. Even then, you can draw a fairly close comparison between first serve speed and clubhead speed as a measure of power; she's around the low 100s on average where the top men go from 120 to 135 on average, generally topping out around 150 for individual serves. It's not a stretch to say there's a 20mph difference, which is huge. In clubhead speed terms, Serena could expect to be hitting it almost as well as the average senior male PGA pro. And that would be the best part of her game, most likely. A lot of her speed advantage comes from height (better angle over the net) and her aggressive playing style, she's not generating racquet speed that's worlds apart from her peers except on the compact groundstrokes. She wins by getting a lot of aces, you can't really do that in golf. You can make more eagles than most people and beat up the par 5s, but it doesn't really work out if you're making bogeys all the time.

post #92 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.

Is that relevant for LPGA distances? They aren't playing from ladies tees. They play from close to what would be the tips at most courses. The longer courses I play here rarely if ever have markers out on the back boxes that would open it up to PGA distances. For good reason, few if any amateurs could realistically hack it. I played a course tonight that has championship tees of 7676 but there was nothing back there. I played one up from the back and it was 6897, close to LPGA average. I didn't see any men playing from the 7404 blacks. Most were playing from the 6230 tees.

post #93 of 126

Whether Serena could contend with LPGA (or PGA) players might be veering off topic, but I'll bite.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciusWooding View Post

I don't think Serena could play golf and win at the LPGA level. She makes a living by overpowering and intimidating her opponents in a 1 on 1 game. 

 

She makes a living by playing a game with great skill and a highly competitive spirit. Much like Tiger and many other professional golfers.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciusWooding View Post

She doesn't have the temperament to last 4 days, the pressures of a golf tournament are a lot different than multiple tennis matches IMO. You can play badly on one hole and make an 11 and miss the cut, but no matter how badly you play in tennis it's scored in such a way you can come back from even the worst mistakes. Consistency isn't as necessary as long as your best is really good. 

 

Great golfers rarely make 11's. Granted, my argument is based on the pretense that Serena could theoretically be a great golfer. I would think that if any type of golfer could come back from an 11, someone as fiercely competitive as Serena probably could. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciusWooding View Post

Even then, you can draw a fairly close comparison between first serve speed and clubhead speed as a measure of power; she's around the low 100s on average where the top men go from 120 to 135 on average, generally topping out around 150 for individual serves. It's not a stretch to say there's a 20mph difference, which is huge. In clubhead speed terms, Serena could expect to be hitting it almost as well as the average senior male PGA pro. 

 

At Wimbledon this year, Serena's average first serve speed was on par with David Ferrer, who was a semi-finalist. Some of the better male tennis players aren't much faster than Serena. Sure there are some players that can average much higher first serve speeds, but similar to golf, first serve speed (or driver distance) doesn't equate to success. I would venture to say that she would be one of the longest, if not the longest, LPGA player. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciusWooding View Post

And that would be the best part of her game, most likely. A lot of her speed advantage comes from height (better angle over the net) and her aggressive playing style, she's not generating racquet speed that's worlds apart from her peers except on the compact groundstrokes. She wins by getting a lot of aces, you can't really do that in golf. You can make more eagles than most people and beat up the par 5s, but it doesn't really work out if you're making bogeys all the time.

 

We have no idea what the best part of her game would be. Her biggest advantages are power and accuracy of ground strokes, her knowledge of the game, and her competitive spirit. 

 

So much of your argument is very "chicken and egg" in that you don't think she would be a good golfer based on the way she plays tennis. But if she had been playing golf from an early age, who knows what her body type and temperament would be? She is very strong, athletic, coordinated, and competitive. I see no reason why she wouldn't be a world class golfer had she taken up golf at four instead of tennis.

post #94 of 126

Can't say I buy into being a good athlete translates to the potential to play golf at a high level. Wasn't it just a week or two ago when that celeb tournament was played in Tahoe? Some pretty ugly golf there. Michael Phelps is a good example of good athlete and bad golf. Heck it's the " I played varsity baseball" and I'm doing crossfit types I dread getting paried up with. That's good for a day of overswinging and one weak slice after another in my experience.

post #95 of 126

My argument was never that Serena Williams is a great golfer nor that any athletic person is better at golf than a non-athletic person.  The context was regarding the draw of women to the sport of golf.  While golfers will likely never be mistaken for NFL linebackers, that has less to do with the draw of the sport and more to do with a 240lb, muscle-bound torso not being necessary (and perhaps not ideal) for golf.  Yet, you do get athletic guys who could possibly have pursued other sports 40-50 years ago now pursuing golf instead (at least in theory).  

 

Is it the same for women?  I used Serena as an example because she is clearly stronger and much more athletic than the average or even the above-average woman.  If that type of athlete were also good at golf, perhaps more of them would have the ability to make this thread relevant.  But as it stands now, the women we see on the LPGA tour arguably cannot make up the physical differences enough to compete with the men and, on average and as a general rule, never will.

 

That is my basic argument.  I have no idea if Serena can even make contact with a golf ball (although my guess is she could).  In fact, the best golfer I've ever been paired with was an NCAA tennis player.  Coincidence?  Possibly.

post #96 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2512 View Post

Can't say I buy into being a good athlete translates to the potential to play golf at a high level. Wasn't it just a week or two ago when that celeb tournament was played in Tahoe? Some pretty ugly golf there. Michael Phelps is a good example of good athlete and bad golf. Heck it's the " I played varsity baseball" and I'm doing crossfit types I dread getting paried up with. That's good for a day of overswinging and one weak slice after another in my experience.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

My argument was never that Serena Williams is a great golfer nor that any athletic person is better at golf than a non-athletic person.  The context was regarding the draw of women to the sport of golf.  While golfers will likely never be mistaken for NFL linebackers, that has less to do with the draw of the sport and more to do with a 240lb, muscle-bound torso not being necessary (and perhaps not ideal) for golf.  Yet, you do get athletic guys who could possibly have pursued other sports 40-50 years ago now pursuing golf instead (at least in theory).  

 

Is it the same for women?  I used Serena as an example because she is clearly stronger and much more athletic than the average or even the above-average woman.  If that type of athlete were also good at golf, perhaps more of them would have the ability to make this thread relevant.  But as it stands now, the women we see on the LPGA tour arguably cannot make up the physical differences enough to compete with the men and, on average and as a general rule, never will.

 

That is my basic argument.  I have no idea if Serena can even make contact with a golf ball (although my guess is she could).  In fact, the best golfer I've ever been paired with was an NCAA tennis player.  Coincidence?  Possibly.

 

I'm not saying that a great athlete is necessarily a great golfer. But the majority of great athletes are naturally gifted in some way. Some more than others. If they had put the same effort into golf as they had into tennis, swimming, football, or whatever, they could potentially be a great golfer. 

 

A similar discussion has been had regarding the US's history in international soccer competitions. Relative to other sports, the US has been pretty unsuccessful in soccer. There are several reasons for this, but I believe one of them is the fact that most of the best American athletes play baseball, basketball, or football because those are the most popular sports with the highest pay. What if Adrian Peterson, LeBron James, and Bryce Harper had grown up playing serious soccer instead of their respective sports? Who knows, but it's an interesting discussion. 

post #97 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2512 View Post

Is that relevant for LPGA distances? They aren't playing from ladies tees. They play from close to what would be the tips at most courses. The longer courses I play here rarely if ever have markers out on the back boxes that would open it up to PGA distances. For good reason, few if any amateurs could realistically hack it. I played a course tonight that has championship tees of 7676 but there was nothing back there. I played one up from the back and it was 6897, close to LPGA average. I didn't see any men playing from the 7404 blacks. Most were playing from the 6230 tees.

The question was not about whether the ladies can compete with John Q. Public that "can't realistically hack it" from the back tees. (Of course they could). 

 

The question was whether they can compete with the best players in the world from those distances that create a more narrow target off of the tee.

 

On many holes from the middle tees you are out close enough to the dogleg that you can just bomb away with little fear of getting in trouble. The same hole can have an entirely different look from the back tees where it takes most of the total drive distance down the shoot just to clear the dogleg. It's just basic geometry. The widest dispersion is at the end of the shot. That is a bigger factor on many holes than just the extra distance alone and can place more premium on hitting the ball straight.


Edited by MS256 - 8/1/13 at 7:20am
post #98 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2512 View Post

Can't say I buy into being a good athlete translates to the potential to play golf at a high level. Wasn't it just a week or two ago when that celeb tournament was played in Tahoe? Some pretty ugly golf there. Michael Phelps is a good example of good athlete and bad golf. Heck it's the " I played varsity baseball" and I'm doing crossfit types I dread getting paried up with. That's good for a day of overswinging and one weak slice after another in my experience.

On average, top athletes are naturally very good at golf. I can think of tons of examples. Just look at the leader board and scores for that tournament: http://www.scoring.r2it.com/golf/acc/Leaderboard.aspx?TournamentID=1&RoundID=3

 

Phelps has only been playing less than a year and everything I have heard says that he has tremendous potential. The natural athleticism and hand-eye coordination that most athletes have usually translates very well to golf. 

post #99 of 126

how fast is Phelps' golf swing?  with his monkey arms and huge shoulders, you would think he could generate the damn thing to 200mph lol.

post #100 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2512 View Post

Can't say I buy into being a good athlete translates to the potential to play golf at a high level. Wasn't it just a week or two ago when that celeb tournament was played in Tahoe? Some pretty ugly golf there. Michael Phelps is a good example of good athlete and bad golf. Heck it's the " I played varsity baseball" and I'm doing crossfit types I dread getting paried up with. That's good for a day of overswinging and one weak slice after another in my experience.

 

You don't need to buy into it, but it's true.

 

Athletic speed and fast twitch muscle fibers are essential to someone's athletic ability...including golf. Doesn't mean anyone athletic can be good at golf, but you need to have speed attributes to compete at the highest level. I bet Tiger Woods would be good at pretty much any sport he'd dedicate time to, including track and field.

 

Want to know someone's athletic potential? Have them run in a straight line...typically the faster guy will be able to generate more natural clubhead speed. Speed is speed, and can't be taught.

post #101 of 126

Ok......for 100 posts we've played around, now I'm gonna give the right answer:

 

It's because NONE OF THEM ARE GOOD ENOUGH to play on the men's tour. 

 

 

 

Thank you.  I'll be in town all week.  Please don't forget to tip your wait staff.   

post #102 of 126
Quote:

Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

 

Athletic speed and fast twitch muscle fibers are essential to someone's athletic ability...including golf. Doesn't mean anyone athletic can be good at golf, but you need to have speed attributes to compete at the highest level. I bet Tiger Woods would be good at pretty much any sport he'd dedicate time to, including track and field.

 

I think this is a good general rule.  But Golf and Baseball (for example) are activities with enough ridiculously fat-ass exceptions in the Pro ranks to lay down one observation.  These are not athletic activities by any means, but being an athletic person still helps the cause.

post #103 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

 

I think this is a good general rule.  But Golf and Baseball (for example) are activities with enough ridiculously fat-ass exceptions in the Pro ranks to lay down one observation.  These are not athletic activities by any means, but being an athletic person still helps the cause.

lol Both Stadlers, Kenny Perry, Daly, Calcavecchia, Duffy Waldorf, Carl Pettersson, etc.

Prince Fielder... and way too many other "DH" style big boned players to mention. Though, I think Ramirez lost some weight playing in Japan.

post #104 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

 

I think this is a good general rule.  But Golf and Baseball (for example) are activities with enough ridiculously fat-ass exceptions in the Pro ranks to lay down one observation.  These are not athletic activities by any means, but being an athletic person still helps the cause.

 

As a general rule, my perspective on this is that the more tools (external, non-biological utilites/resources) are involved in the core functions of the sport, the less athleticism dictates who is better.  Extreme examples: 100M sprint uses no tools whatsoever.  The athlete runs on the track.  They could run naked and barefoot on a dirt track, and Usain Bolt on steroids will still be the fastest person.  On the other hand, in Nascar the tool is the vehicle, and you could theoretically have the sloppiest athlete around still win a race if he has the driving skill and still possesses the endurance necessary.

 

Baseball, golf and tennis are sports that start to meet somewhere in the middle.  But they are still so reliant on tools (bats, clubs, rackets and balls), that a lesser athlete won't necessarily be at an unmanageable disadvantage, nor will a superior athlete necessarily be the better performer.

post #105 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

lol Both Stadlers, Kenny Perry, Daly, Calcavecchia, Duffy Waldorf, Carl Pettersson, etc.

Prince Fielder... and way too many other "DH" style big boned players to mention. Though, I think Ramirez lost some weight playing in Japan.

 

yup - but, I think the move to people that have a SERIOUS fitness regimen is taking over and the fatties will be left behind eventually.  Look at the field now.  In general, it's paying off for these guys.  It's hard to argue against the idea that fitness and strength improves both distance and fine control.

 

 

 

Quote:
Baseball, golf and tennis are sports that start to meet somewhere in the middle.  But they are still so reliant on tools (bats, clubs, rackets and balls), that a lesser athlete won't necessarily be at an unmanageable disadvantage, nor will a superior athlete necessarily be the better performer.

 

You make a good point, but I'll disagree, at the top levels, the most incremental improvements make a huge difference.  Your weekend amatuer, etc?  absolutely.  there's enough other variability involved, that for these non-sport activities, fitness might not be such a big affect.  The PROs?  I disagree.

 

----- as far as athleticism, I'd put golf in there just above card playing and car driving.  But nowhere near what's required for Tennis - shameful to list those three as equal... ; )    As far as NASCAR, to be able to withstand the environment, I'd still give the edge to the fitter driver - endurance is a legit measure of one kind of fitness.  Still, strength, speed, and control are aspects of golf.  It won't make you fit (it might save the life of a couch potato), but being fit will make one a better golfer.

post #106 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

 

yup - but, I think the move to people that have a SERIOUS fitness regimen is taking over and the fatties will be left behind eventually.  Look at the field now.  In general, it's paying off for these guys.  It's hard to argue against the idea that fitness and strength improves both distance and fine control.

 

 

 

 

You make a good point, but I'll disagree, at the top levels, the most incremental improvements make a huge difference.  Your weekend amatuer, etc?  absolutely.  there's enough other variability involved, that for these non-sport activities, fitness might not be such a big affect.  The PROs?  I disagree.

 

----- as far as athleticism, I'd put golf in there just above card playing and car driving.  But nowhere near what's required for Tennis - shameful to list those three as equal... ; )    As far as NASCAR, to be able to withstand the environment, I'd still give the edge to the fitter driver - endurance is a legit measure of one kind of fitness.  Still, strength, speed, and control are aspects of golf.  It won't make you fit (it might save the life of a couch potato), but being fit will make one a better golfer.

 

 

Yea, not sure how Tennis got thrown in there. It is one of the most physically demanding sports in the world. Anyone that doesn't believe that has never played it before. Those pro matches go on for hours. 

 

I think that hand-eye coordination is not being given enough consideration in this discussion. The reason that so many athletes are good at golf in addition to their main sport is their coordination more so than their natural athleticism. 

post #107 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

 

yup - but, I think the move to people that have a SERIOUS fitness regimen is taking over and the fatties will be left behind eventually.  Look at the field now.  In general, it's paying off for these guys.  It's hard to argue against the idea that fitness and strength improves both distance and fine control.

 

 

 

 

You make a good point, but I'll disagree, at the top levels, the most incremental improvements make a huge difference.  Your weekend amatuer, etc?  absolutely.  there's enough other variability involved, that for these non-sport activities, fitness might not be such a big affect.  The PROs?  I disagree.

 

----- as far as athleticism, I'd put golf in there just above card playing and car driving.  But nowhere near what's required for Tennis - shameful to list those three as equal... ; )    As far as NASCAR, to be able to withstand the environment, I'd still give the edge to the fitter driver - endurance is a legit measure of one kind of fitness.  Still, strength, speed, and control are aspects of golf.  It won't make you fit (it might save the life of a couch potato), but being fit will make one a better golfer.

 

 

Have to agree, i took tennis in college as an elective, its pure crazy. You look at the pro matches that go on for a few hours. Its like HIIT training + hitting a tennis ball

 

To me NASCAR isn't a sport. Sorry, it takes tremendous concentration, endurance, mental fortitude, but i wouldn't call it a sport. There isn't an athletic move being done. golf sits above it because it requires an athletic motion.

post #108 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

 

You make a good point, but I'll disagree, at the top levels, the most incremental improvements make a huge difference.  Your weekend amatuer, etc?  absolutely.  there's enough other variability involved, that for these non-sport activities, fitness might not be such a big affect.  The PROs?  I disagree.

 

----- as far as athleticism, I'd put golf in there just above card playing and car driving.  But nowhere near what's required for Tennis - shameful to list those three as equal... ; )    As far as NASCAR, to be able to withstand the environment, I'd still give the edge to the fitter driver - endurance is a legit measure of one kind of fitness.  Still, strength, speed, and control are aspects of golf.  It won't make you fit (it might save the life of a couch potato), but being fit will make one a better golfer.

 

We don't disagree.  You're saying that the same person, given the same level of skill, coordination, etc, will perform better if given proportionately more athleticism or increasing their level of fitness.  I completely agree.  In other words, take Jim Furyk, and assume that, ceteris paribus, you magically grant him a slight measure of more strength and speed, his game would benefit as a result.  Also, take a guy like Stadler, assume his same level of skill, and drop 20 lbs of fat without dropping his muscle/strength level, and his game would improve.  

 

There is a school of thinkers that believes increasing strength/fitness levels in a sport like golf can have detrimental effects on their games, but I mostly disagree with those folks unless we are assuming a big change in body proportions, flexibility and muscle endurance.  I remember at one time (and even as recently as the past 12 months), some golf analysts were speculating that part of what went wrong with Tiger's game is that he became too muscular, which I think is bull.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Have to agree, i took tennis in college as an elective, its pure crazy. You look at the pro matches that go on for a few hours. Its like HIIT training + hitting a tennis ball

 

 

I never said they weren't athletic.  But Andre Aggassi is an order of magnitude less athletic than Yohan Blake.  These are gradations we are talking about.  And because Tennis requires more skill with a tool than track and field does, him being less athletic than Blake didn't hurt Aggassi much.

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?