Casey Martin: Cart or Not?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Related to the decision that permits Martin to use a cart during tournament play, I wonder how the USGA and Martin would/will handle the following;

Courses where carts are not permitted for use such as Bethpage Black

On courses where carts are permitted how will he handle areas on these courses where carts aren't permitted (Cart path only), will he be given an exception or will he have to walk when required?

How will slow play rules be managed to account for potential delays related to safe cart usage with the galleries.

He is a 40 year old college golf coach who hasn't even attempted Q-School in 5 years.  This is likely a one time deal.  I have a feeling none of those issues will come up.

[allin]

The one concrete part of this that convinced me the Martin exception should stand, my original gut response was that it shouldn't, was equity. Does the advantage of the cart exceed the negative impact his disability has on his ability to play golf? I don't believe it does. If we are going to allow the long putter, originally introduced to allow senior golfers with bad backs and other problems making use of short putters difficult, the yips part came latter, then I think this is a far smaller accommodation. I have to wonder if you can't beat a player basically playing on one leg is it really about fair competition or keeping your own advantage maximized.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by allin

The one concrete part of this that convinced me the Martin exception should stand, my original gut response was that it shouldn't, was equity. Does the advantage of the cart exceed the negative impact his disability has on his ability to play golf? I don't believe it does. If we are going to allow the long putter, originally introduced to allow senior golfers with bad backs and other problems making use of short putters difficult, the yips part came latter, then I think this is a far smaller accommodation. I have to wonder if you can't beat a player basically playing on one leg is it really about fair competition or keeping your own advantage maximized.

I think the long putter analogy would be a great one ... if they only allowed the players with bad backs to use one.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Jwat381

If walking is so integral to the game, we should stop carting players back to the 18th for playoff holes, I guess. Make them walk from the 18th green to whichever designated tee, and tell them to suck it up. Forget the T.V. times that the networks have allotted; running an hour passed the scheduled end-time will show that golfers really are world class athletes once and for all.

I'd be fine with that.

For me, I believe this argument has run it's course (no pun intended).  I consider Professional Golf a sport, and in a sport, athletes can have no assistance once the competition begins.  If others don't consider golf a sport, I could understand them wanting to assist the handicapped.

Anyhow, I've heard all the arguments and hearing the loopholes in the "yes" camp has solidified my thoughts on it.  Having said that, since the PGA Tour and Supreme Court currently have the issue wrong, I wish Casey the best of luck and hope he plays well.  I will gracefully bow out of the thread and give you all the last words :)

Brandon

[iacas]

Originally Posted by BallStriker

If you accept the "survival of the fittest" premise, then why allow major medical exemptions?

Not the same thing.

Originally Posted by BallStriker

Also, I don't buy the "it's an uneven playing field" because EVERY golfer in the same situation as Casey Martin would be allowed to use a cart.

It un-levels the playing field when ONE guy gets a special privilege not afforded to others.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I'd also love to know how many guys would actually take one if given the option.  I would guess not many.

That's why I kind of like that idea - I doubt any of them would. They're probably too proud.

Tiger might have if it was 2008, every now and then or up some particularly steep hills or something. But then again he might not have, given the pride thing again. I can't see Ben Hogan taking a cart, either.

Originally Posted by allin

Does the advantage of the cart exceed the negative impact his disability has on his ability to play golf? I don't believe it does. If we are going to allow the long putter, originally introduced to allow senior golfers with bad backs and other problems making use of short putters difficult, the yips part came latter, then I think this is a far smaller accommodation.

Nobody's arguing that he's at an overall advantage, allin. Again, if life gave him a quadruple bogey but the cart gives him an eagle, he's still +2. But we don't go around handing out eagles and birdies to everyone who is at a disadvantage - that's not the nature of sport at the highest levels.

Someone already responded to the long putter thing, so I'll just add that long putters were not introduced FOR senior golfers. They just took to them quickly because of what you say - you have the cause and effect backwards.

My point was well summarized by ntg, so I'm quoting it again and then I'm done.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

As others have stated, professional sports rules cannot and should not be manipulated to accomodate disabled athletes where it provides the disabled athlete any special consideration or advantage.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I think the long putter analogy would be a great one ... if they only allowed the players with bad backs to use one.

There'd be a fortune to be made by dodgy doctors who were prepared to diagnose a "bad back".

You'd be amazed at how suddenly a lot of long putter users suddenly needed them for "medical reasons".

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree with the court on that. I don't think the playing area is "public" and the final stage of Q-School is anything but public. If you're talking about the first stage, then the court may have had a point. But for the final stages you need to qualify - you need to do a lot more than register and pay an entry fee.

That's another reason I disagree with the Supreme Court. There's no "employer." Casey Martin is not (and was not) employed by the PGA Tour.

Well, it's "public" enough.  If someone has the entry fee (and a letter of recommendation I think, woo hoo), then they get to play stage 1.  If they play well enough in stage 1, they get to play stage 2, then stage 3, etc.  They can't be excluded on any ground except that they can't compete.

And the "employer" bit isn't so formalistic.  It's just a manner by which the court analyzes different types of public accommodation cases.  You look at a public-access park differently from a situation where someone is applying for employment or wants to participate in Little League.  At the park, the key issue is "will installing a ramp fundamentally alter the nature of this public space?"  For other situations, it's "will waiving this particular task or requirement (i.e. walking) fundamentally alter the nature of the activity?"  I used the word "employer" (it doesn't appear anywhere in the opinion) because that's the way I think about the analytical framework for this particular type of issue.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Well, it's "public" enough.  If someone has the entry fee (and a letter of recommendation I think, woo hoo), then they get to play stage 1.  If they play well enough in stage 1, they get to play stage 2, then stage 3, etc.  They can't be excluded on any ground except that they can't compete.

I disagree. Not stage 3. It's not "public" at all.

Originally Posted by k-troop

And the "employer" bit isn't so formalistic.  It's just a manner by which the court analyzes different types of public accommodation cases.  You look at a public-access park differently from a situation where someone is applying for employment or wants to participate in Little League.  At the park, the key issue is "will installing a ramp fundamentally alter the nature of this public space?"  For other situations, it's "will waiving this particular task or requirement (i.e. walking) fundamentally alter the nature of the activity?"  I used the word "employer" (it doesn't appear anywhere in the opinion) because that's the way I think about the analytical framework for this particular type of issue.

I disagree that "inside the ropes" is a "public" area as well, whether you're there because of an "employer" or not. I understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way they do. I just disagree with it.

Edit: Oops. Forgot I was done now. I'll try again.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

As others have stated, professional sports rules cannot and should not be manipulated to accomodate disabled athletes where it provides the disabled athlete any special consideration or advantage.

[brocks]

[quote] Originally Posted by Golfingdad I'd also love to know how many guys would actually take one if given the option. I would guess not many.

That's why I kind of like that idea - I doubt any of them would. They're probably too proud. [/quote] You need only watch the Champions Tour for proof of that. They're all allowed to use one, but hardly any of them do. *** After what happened with the Pressel thread, I've been reluctant to get into this, but since it's winding down, maybe I can make a hit and run post. My personal opinion is that walking should be an integral part of the game. My barracks lawyer opinion is that it isn't. Just like with the timing thing, it comes down to the difference between Rules of Golf, and Tour Policies. If the USGA would put their money where their mouth is and simply make it a Rule of Golf that no carts are allowed, that would be it. The courts could not override that, any more than they could allow disabled baseball players to use a cart to get around the bases, any more than they could allow blind golfers to feel the green between their ball and the hole. But in spite of all their arguments that walking is integral to the game, the USGA won't make it a Rule. So, no pun intended, they don't have a leg to stand on. They are evidently more worried about the popularity of the game than the integrity of the game. I honestly don't see why it would be a problem to require walking for official scores, and to consider using a cart akin to using the short tees, but they don't want to do that. Recreational baseball players have plenty of fun playing softball, so I don't see why recreational golfers can't have plenty of fun using a cart, with the understanding they're not playing "real" golf. But for whatever reason, the USGA won't take that step. Until they do, the ban of carts is no more than a Tour Policy, and even that is waived when money talks, and it would be inconvenient for TV to wait for PGA players to walk to wherever they are going. In our society, the courts have the power to overturn discriminatory policies, and it was their decision to do it in this case. I don't agree with it, but it's not at all hard to understand their logic.

[utztech]

I did not like the original Supreme Court decision then and I don't like it now.

My way of thinking is this:  To be an elite athlete in any sport you need to be born with specific genetic tools.  Call it talent if you want, but at the elite level coaching and practice are not enough, you have to have been born with something extra.

Both Casey Martin and myself were not born with the genetic makeup to be elite golfers apparently.  Just because he is a lot closer to having the stuff than I am does not make it right to bend the rules of the game so he can compete.

I also wasn't born 7 feet tall with great hand-eye coordination and a 40 inch vertical, I will never be a center in the NBA.  There are a lot of things I will never be because my genes just don't have what it takes.  Lets assume technology advances to the point where I can get some super stilts that give me the height, speed, and vertical leap to compete in the NBA.  Should I be allowed to use them?

I know my comments will come across as insensitive because Martin is disabled, not just some uncoordinated nerd on his computer, but on a logical level, I too do not have what it takes from a physical perspective to be a PGA tour pro.

[TourSpoon]

Well, it's "public" enough.  If someone has the entry fee (and a letter of recommendation I think, woo hoo), then they get to play stage 1.  If they play well enough in stage 1, they get to play stage 2, then stage 3, etc.  They can't be excluded on any ground except that they can't compete.

I have to agree here and this is where the PGA's arguements worked against them as they have exceptions to the cart rule. Most notably were the first 2 rounds of Q school and the Senior Tour (along with a few TPC clubs that required carts at the time of the case). If walking was such an important part of the game then why isn't required at the first 2 stages, on the Senior Tour, and at the Tour owned courses where carts where required. In fact, you don't even get scored on walking. This decision went through several courts and up to the Supreme Court where Chevy Chase Maryland [Golf] Club member Justice O'Connor served on the case that wasn't even close (7-2). Now, I see both sides, but I don't see how this decision hurt golf other than in the court of public opinion at the time. Further, Casey did get to show the world that golf is a game for everyone, including those who have challenges, or in a more recent spotlight, some of our injured servicemen who have found golf as a form of recreation and new purpose. In the end this case has done more good for more people than we can even imagine. Again, this let Casey compete in a game and did not fundamentally alter the essence of the Tour for anyone other than Casey.

[brocks]

Again, this let Casey compete in a game and did not fundamentally alter the essence of the Tour for anyone other than Casey.

True to the extent that Casey isn't very good by pro standards, although he certainly altered the US Open for whoever he beat out at the sectional qualifying. But what if Tiger blew out his knee again, in such a way that he could swing freely, but could not walk very far without severe pain? What if he won two majors and six events per year playing from a cart? What if he won his next five majors, breaking Jack's record, playing from a cart? Would that change your opinion?

[TourSpoon]

True to the extent that Casey isn't very good by pro standards, although he certainly altered the US Open for whoever he beat out at the sectional qualifying. But what if Tiger blew out his knee again, in such a way that he could swing freely, but could not walk very far without severe pain? What if he won two majors and six events per year playing from a cart? What if he won his next five majors, breaking Jack's record, playing from a cart? Would that change your opinion?

I don't see any "What Ifs" coming from this decision (certainly we would have had some in the decade that has passed). I can see your point, but this isn't the case before us.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by iacas

2) ALL players are given cart rides back to the 18th tee. So it's balanced.

Frankly, I wouldn't care if the USGA and the PGA Tour allowed everyone to have a cart in events during which Casey Martin plays. It'd go against the way golf has been played at that level for 100+ years, but at least it would be fairer than the situation we have now.

Again, Martin isn't playing by the same rules. Every other contestant is bound by the Conditions of the Competition, including the Transportation one cited above.

Finally got to this thread lol.  I voted no.

Like many of you I can see both sides of the story.  The tough thing is Martin no problem making swings to produce great shots, it's the walking aspect, usually when we think of a playing having an "advantage" it has to do with the performance of the motion (long putters), not necessarily in the endurance of playing tournament golf.  Do I feel bad for Martin having to deal with his birth defect?    Absolutely, but like Erik points out above, he's getting access to the cart, no one else is.  Endurance, sometimes underrated, is a huge part of this game.  It may not seem like it but when you're watching the first round of any tournament, realize there is a good chance these players have already played three rounds for the week and hit hundreds of balls.  A few years ago I followed a few tour players on a normal Tuesday.  Just watching I was exhausted after one day.

I don't think Martin having a cart will open the floodgates, like Jamo said, it's been a while since this first happened and we haven't heard much of it since.  It's about the players all playing at an even level.  Obviously Martin, because of his birth defect, you might say he's already at a disadvantage but you could make the same argument with players like Fred Couples and Arron Oberholser who have fought injuries their whole careers.  H eck, Ben Hogan had to rap himself in bandages before every round and didn't play in more than seven tournaments a year because he legs couldn't take the stress.  Golf is a game of many things you have to do to play, one of them is walking.

Having said all that I hope he plays well, he really is a good guy, even though he coaches Oregon

[joekelly]

Have you seen  that runner from South Africa, Oscar Pistorius?  He lost both his legs, had some kind of carbon fiber fake 'legs' put on and now he runs like the wind. These carbon fiber legs are deeply compressible and generate tons of spring and leverage off the ground. I'll bet if he took up golf he could really get into the long drives. But would the PGA deny him a chance ?

[max power]

It's a competitive sport with a (relatively minor) physical component.  Lots of people have lots of conditions that will ultimately prevent them from competing at the highest level on the PGA tour.  He shouldn't be able to use a cart.

[BallStriker]

Originally Posted by iacas

Not the same thing.

Disagree....with both the Casey Martin situation and the major medical exemptions, you are providing an accomodation due to a player's inability to play/compete within the normal rules....if the sport is truly to be ruled from a "survival of the fittest" perspective, then medical exemptions should not be granted and those who cannot make the top-125 during the year because of injury are simply out of luck.  To be clear, I did not make (or agree with) the 'survival of the fittest' statment, and am only pointing out the fact that the current PGA Tour rules are inconsistent with that position.

Originally Posted by iacas

It un-levels the playing field when ONE guy gets a special privilege not afforded to others.

Name a player that would not be allowed a cart if he were faced with the same disabiltiy as Casey Martin?

[Beachcomber]

I voted yes.  The Supreme court ruled in his favor back in 2001.  I believe they were better informed, and suited to rule on Casey's behalf than I.  And I stand behind their ruling.