or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › 2014 U.S. Opens (Plural!) at Pinehurst #2 Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014 U.S. Opens (Plural!) at Pinehurst #2 Discussion Thread - Page 49

post #865 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzel View Post


You wouldn't believe the number of women's golf scholarships that go unfilled each year. The insane part about it is, division 1 girl's golf teams get 6 full-ride scholarships per team to give out (which can be divided up into half scholarships or smaller if needed) and they have many go unused. Men's golf in division 1 only gets 4 scholarships per team, and they have to cut the scholarships of their best players in order to give new recruits a bone so they pick their school over another. It's really quite absurd when you compare the two.
 

 

There is a legal reason for this, but this doesn't need to turn into a debate about the merits of that particular law.

 

Suffice it to say that I will pay for my son's college with the G.I. Bill, and I'm teaching my daughter golf and physics.

post #866 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by cipher View Post


Tough to cut an 11 year old some slack, I get it. Not sure why she is not more polished in front of the press.


Thanks for repeating what I typed.  Sorry that I found a eleven year old super genius child annoying when she laughed at serious questions. :beer:

post #867 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by metrybill View Post
 

Non sequitur here: you decide.  Not totally on point but close.

 

Pinehurst no. 2 is a great golf course.  No doubt. Let's face it, Scottish courses are the seminal courses for golf, also no doubt.  Having said that, I don't consider Pinehurst No. 2, as redone, representative of the best of what American golf courses have brought to the game. I think the USGA was trying to make a statement about its desire to "go green" and water bare, EPA friendly. Pinehurst no. 2, as redone, may have looked like a British Open course, but I didn't see a lot of bump and runs from a distance, one of the landmarks of a British Open course.  Give Martin Kaymer a Lot of Credit, he figured out the setup for that tournament and he also executed better than anyone else.

 

I prefer the differences between the tournaments, To me this year's US Open looked more like a British Open than an U. S. Open, Not  lot of shot making going into the greens. (Remember, the larger American ball became the game-changer in golf, because it could be "worked" better than the bullet shots of the smaller R&A, smaller diameter ball. 

 

Look it up; by almost every definition, America's first  great golf course was and remains National Golf Links by C. B. Macdonald, not by Donald Ross.

 

In prior years in degree of prestige and difficulty I would have ranked US Open 1st, Masters 2nd, British Open 3rd, and PGA 4th. This year, I would rank them Masters 1st, British Open 2nd, PGA 3rd, and US Open 4th. 

 

USGA, please don't do this again for another 10-15 years again, Please. 

 

How do you rank the British Open second and the PGA third when they not been played yet? Courses can be made or broke with weather.

post #868 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzel View Post


You wouldn't believe the number of women's golf scholarships that go unfilled each year. The insane part about it is, division 1 girl's golf teams get 6 full-ride scholarships per team to give out (which can be divided up into half scholarships or smaller if needed) and they have many go unused. Men's golf in division 1 only gets 4 scholarships per team, and they have to cut the scholarships of their best players in order to give new recruits a bone so they pick their school over another. It's really quite absurd when you compare the two.

I had a friend who tore her ACL playing soccer her junior year and required surgery. She can't play soccer anymore, but took up golf as soon as her knee could handle it. She nearly got a golf scholarship to Purdue having picked up golf only the year before, and could still get one with another year's worth of improvement and applying again next year. There's another girl in our district, who is currently going into her junior year, who shoots in the mid-high 70's in every tournament she plays in. She will have her pick of the schools she wants to go to for free, barring a select few.

Men's golf is another story. Last year my school graduated four seniors, all who were on the team that placed second in 4A state and one who shot the only under-par round in the whole 4A state tournament. Not a single one of them, if I remember correctly, got a golf scholarship larger than what could pay for a couple classes each semester. It's just nuts the difference in depth of field between the two areas, because at the high school and college level they are playing two entirely different sports (95 will make varsity for 4A women's golf in our district, but you better be breaking 80 to get on varsity for boy's golf)

Well, guess when I have a daughter, I'm just gonna buy her clubs.

post #869 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleygolfer View Post
 


Thanks for repeating what I typed.  Sorry that I found a eleven year old super genius child annoying when she laughed at serious questions. :beer:

Ah okay, I get it now.  I did not before...

post #870 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

There is a legal reason for this, but this doesn't need to turn into a debate about the merits of that particular law.

Suffice it to say that I will pay for my son's college with the G.I. Bill, and I'm teaching my daughter golf and physics.
Sorry, wasn't meaning to turn it into a debate. I was just pointing out some of the details behind someone saying that there's a large difference in the depth of fields in women's golf versus men's golf. It's college and high school where those differences become the most apparent, so I was just showing it from the perspective of someone who's currently in the midst of all that.
post #871 of 1034

I think there is room for optimism about the women's game. Because the field isn't as deep as the men's game, more and more young girls are seeing that as an opportunity. That'll increase the competition and help grow the game.

 

Li being in the US Open is a great thing for the game; attracting young blood to the sport is never a bad thing. I get where Lewis is coming from, but I think it's going to be a net positive for both Li and the sport as a whole. 

post #872 of 1034

If preteen Lucy Li soundly defeated top amateurs twice her age, women who had been playing for years, doesn't that say something about the dismal level of women's amateur golf in USA?  I mean Jack Nicklaus waited till he was a teenager before beating up his elders. 

post #873 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by joekelly View Post
 

If preteen Lucy Li soundly defeated top amateurs twice her age, women who had been playing for years, doesn't that say something about the dismal level of women's amateur golf in USA?  I mean Jack Nicklaus waited till he was a teenager before beating up his elders. 


Yes.

 

Not exactly something new about it though. Others in the past have done the same thing at just a few months to a year older than Li. (I guess everybody forgot?)

 

That said there is a difference between girls competing against women and boys competing against men in any sport. Girls get close to the physical maturity of women much earlier than boys get close to the physical maturity of men.

 

I coached girls traveling softball teams for several years and I thought nothing about scheduling them against some of the best women's teams. They competed quite well against the women in some of those tournaments.

 

I also coached baseball for many years and there's not a chance in the world any of my boys teams would have been able to compete with men. They not only would have been trounced but would probably have gotten hurt in the process.

post #874 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzel View Post

I think that since the girl isn't expecting anything but to have fun, she won't be disappointed. I know I've never had a bad experience, regardless of how I play, when I just head out with the goal of having fun and learning a bit more about my game. It just came across to me that Stacy Lewis was being a bit negative, but that could be the opposite of her intent.

 

I think Stacy is also concerned with "where does she go from here?" If this is the peak of her career, and she doesn't qualify when she's 12, 13, 14… 15……… then what? She quits? She peaked at 11?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzel View Post

Watching the interview it just seemed to me like the girl felt that playing in the US Open was more of a fun reward for doing well than an actual competition where she was going to try and win or get upset if she didn't.

 

I've heard Li drives the ball 190 or so, and they hand-picked the qualifying course to be a shorter, trickier one so she would have an advantage. She might not be reaching some of the par fours in two - that's hardly the way to succeed.

 

It's not the end of the world, of course, nor did Stacy over-react. She simply said she should learn to win, beat kids her age, and all of that only applies if she were Stacy's kid. Stacy turned pro at 22. She's clearly a fan of waiting.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I don't disagree with Lewis but she has the best interests of her LPGA peers at heart not Li's.  No one wants to lose or shoot worse than Li and it's even worse if you're losing to her and she's in your group.  For the pro's having an 11 year old on the course is a no win situation.

 

You don't know that. I highly doubt the #1 player in the world is afraid of losing to an 11-year-old. C'mon… Perhaps the reasons are exactly what she said.

post #875 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I think Stacy is also concerned with "where does she go from here?" If this is the peak of her career, and she doesn't qualify when she's 12, 13, 14… 15……… then what? She quits? She peaked at 11?

 

 

I didn't really understand that statement...wouldn't making the cut or winning be where she goes from here?

All she did was qualify, she won't make the cut.

 

If she doesn't qualify in the next 4 years...than she has a couple decades more to try. Didn't Lexi Thompson play the US Open at 12 years old?

post #876 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

You don't know that. I highly doubt the #1 player in the world is afraid of losing to an 11-year-old. C'mon… Perhaps the reasons are exactly what she said.

We don't know anything for certain, so unless you speak to Stacy,  we're all speculating.

 

Stacy has also demonstrated that she doesn't like to share the limelight and we know that at least for Thursday and Friday the media will be focused on the 11 year old girl that qualified for the US Open.

post #877 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crim View Post

I didn't really understand that statement...wouldn't making the cut or winning be where she goes from here?


All she did was qualify, she won't make the cut.

If she doesn't qualify in the next 4 years...than she has a couple decades more to try. Didn't Lexi Thompson play the US Open at 12 years old?

Yes Lexi did compete at 12 years old so this is nothing new. Stacy Lewis has every right to feel the way she does, but she comes off as the the bigger kid here in my opinion. Im sure what she said has gotten back to Li and her parents. So congratulations Stacy (The Grinch) Lewis for possibly dampening this kids spirits. Even more reason to root against her.
post #878 of 1034
Not crazy about the kid's shirt today, design ok but if it were my 14 yr old, I'd make her add 8 inches to the length of it. Maybe I'm being hyper-critical, I do wish her well.
post #879 of 1034

Well she went out in 40. -1 on the front 9 now. 

post #880 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3putter View Post
 

Well she went out in 40. -1 on the front 9 now. 

That's awesome, I was hoping she'd get at least one birdie. Sounds like she's playing well. Imagine if she had another 40 yards off the tee....

post #881 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crim View Post
 

That's awesome, I was hoping she'd get at least one birdie. Sounds like she's playing well. Imagine if she had another 40 yards off the tee....

Source from GD claims she drives the balls about 230 off the tee, so it looks like she can cover some ground with that length. The big numbers just hurts her scorecard badly

post #882 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3putter View Post
 

Source from GD claims she drives the balls about 230 off the tee, so it looks like she can cover some ground with that length. The big numbers just hurts her scorecard badly

Ahhh, I had heard she was more in the 200-215 area, and iacas had stated 190 up there...so I just figured she was giving up quite a bit of yardage off the tee.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › 2014 U.S. Opens (Plural!) at Pinehurst #2 Discussion Thread