Casey Martin: Cart or Not?

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

We don't try to overcome anyone else's natural disadvantages.

I thought that is what glasses, contacts and corrective eye surgery was about; and for that matter things like allergy medicine - hell there are a lot of things done to help overcome certain differences (advantages/disadvantages) - some would say that the long putter is allowing players who have troubles putting overcome a disadvantage.

Those are much more common disadvantages, and you've grown accustomed to the accommodation of them.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

He earned his way by taking his case to the SC and was granted an exception that allows him to play with an advantage over his fellow competitors.  He didn't earn it, he had a better lawyer.

He earned his way by playing great golf on the Nike Tour.  He earned his way into this US Open by playing great through local and sectional qualifying.

[newtogolf]

He'd have earned it if all his competitors were given the ability to ride in a cart.  I'm not against him being allowed to ride in a cart, what I'm against is that not everyone is given the option when he's in a tournament.

If walking is not integral to golf then what is your argument against everyone being able to use a cart when he's competing?

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

He earned his way by playing great golf on the Nike Tour.  He earned his way into this US Open by playing great through local and sectional qualifying.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

He'd have earned it if all his competitors were given the ability to ride in a cart.  I'm not against him being allowed to ride in a cart, what I'm against is that not everyone is given the option when he's in a tournament.

If walking is not integral to golf then what is your argument against everyone being able to use a cart when he's competing?

I've stated a bunch of times earlier that I could care less if they all rode.  You should read the thread.

[carpediem4300]

If he can strike a golf ball like everyone else but needs a cart to get round, i see no advantage to him over the others, so im for it, i dont see it as a bending of the rules

a bending of the rules would be like a professional wheel chair basket ball played being allowed in the nba and being expemmpted from the travelling rule or something else as ridiculous

or a soccer goal keeper with one arm, is allowed a smaller goal because although he is as fit and good as a normal abled keeper, he needs help that directly dis-advantages others within the game

unless martin is powersliding over the greens or micklesons toe's i dont see him having any advantage over the other pros

good for him

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by carpediem4300

If he can strike a golf ball like everyone else but needs a cart to get round, i see no advantage to him over the others, so im for it, i dont see it as a bending of the rules

a bending of the rules would be like a professional wheel chair basket ball played being allowed in the nba and being expemmpted from the travelling rule or something else as ridiculous

or a soccer goal keeper with one arm, is allowed a smaller goal because although he is as fit and good as a normal abled keeper, he needs help that directly dis-advantages others within the game

unless martin is powersliding over the greens or micklesons toe's i dont see him having any advantage over the other pros

good for him

LOL

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

He'd have earned it if all his competitors were given the ability to ride in a cart.  I'm not against him being allowed to ride in a cart, what I'm against is that not everyone is given the option when he's in a tournament.

If walking is not integral to golf then what is your argument against everyone being able to use a cart when he's competing?

The Supreme Court didn't rule that nobody else can use a cart - so your issue is the the PGA (and other ruling bodies), as they are the ones who have the no cart rule, right?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

I've never claimed that the cart gives him an overall advantage over the entire field.  That's not the point....not even a little bit.

Okay, if the point isn't that the cart gives him an overall advantage over the field, then what's the problem?

This is the problem:

Originally Posted by Justice Scalia

The[ADA] statute seeks to assure that a disabled person’s disability will not deny him equal access to (among other things) competitive sporting events – not that his disability will not deny him an equal chance to win competitive sporting events.

As to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

We don't try to overcome anyone else's natural disadvantages.

I thought that is what glasses, contacts and corrective eye surgery was about; and for that matter things like allergy medicine - hell there are a lot of things done to help overcome certain differences (advantages/disadvantages) - some would say that the long putter is allowing players who have troubles putting overcome a disadvantage.

Those are much more common disadvantages, and you've grown accustomed to the accommodation of them.

All the things you mention there are allowed under the rules on the PGA Tour. Riding in a cart is not. Casey Martin got the Supreme Court to force the PGA Tour to make an exception to their rules for him , in order to overcome his natural disadvantage.

[Phil McGleno]

Thank you for demonstrating how stupid your post was about asking me to quantify the advantage he gets by riding a cart when nobody else is allowed to use one. [quote name="Mr3Wiggle" url="/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not/252#post_724999"]You're chasing your tail Phil.  You do remember asking me to prove a negative right? [/quote] It is not an entitlement you are right. The Supreme Court screwed up. [quote name="newtogolf" url="/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not/252#post_725016"]Playing on the PGA Tour is not an entitlement, you don't seem to understand that.  We all like Casey Martin and feel for his plight, but that doesn't mean we bend the rules to make it possible for him to compete.   [/quote] [quote name="newtogolf" url="/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not/252#post_725023"]He earned his way by taking his case to the SC and was granted an exception that allows him to play with an advantage over his fellow competitors.  He didn't earn it, he had a better lawyer and sympathetic justices.  [/quote] DING DING DING! Stupid to say "what about people with glasses?" Wearing glasses is not against the rules of an arbitrary sport. Riding in a cart is. It would be dumb but if the PGA Tour had a rule that said you had to play with right-handed clubs then that's their right to say so. It's their right to say you must use a conforming golf ball. It's their right to say that you get stroke and distance penalty when you hit one OB. And its their right to say some day perhaps that everyone must use a shorter distance ball. Its arbitrary rules in an arbitrary sport. The Supreme Court overstepped their bounds BIG TIME in ruling on this. [quote name="sacm3bill" url="/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not/270#post_725059"] All the things you mention there are allowed under the rules on the PGA Tour. Riding in a cart is not. Casey Martin got the Supreme Court to force the PGA Tour to change their rules in order to make an exception for him, in order to overcome his natural disadvantage. [/quote]

[Timothy Voyles]

I voted yes.

I think all guys should get a cart... imagine if ALL the players hadn't walked 3-5 miles before trying to sink their putt on #18 to finish a round. I think the walking aspect is part of how golf is made for TV. It's easy to watch every shot from several players when they've got a 4 minute walk to every shot.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

He'd have earned it if all his competitors were given the ability to ride in a cart.  I'm not against him being allowed to ride in a cart, what I'm against is that not everyone is given the option when he's in a tournament.

If walking is not integral to golf then what is your argument against everyone being able to use a cart when he's competing?

The Supreme Court didn't rule that nobody else can use a cart - so your issue is the the PGA (and other ruling bodies), as they are the ones who have the no cart rule, right?

The SC is to blame for putting the PGA in the position of either letting one guy have an advantage no one else has, or completely changing the way they've held their tournaments since their inception.

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

The SC is to blame for putting the PGA in the position of either letting one guy have an advantage no one else has, or completely changing the way they've held their tournaments since their inception.

They used to exclude people of color .... had to change the rules for that too (just pointing out that sometimes it takes an external force to overcome internal inertia)

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

The SC is to blame for putting the PGA in the position of either letting one guy have an advantage no one else has, or completely changing the way they've held their tournaments since their inception.

They used to exclude people of color .... had to change the rules for that too (just pointing out that sometimes it takes an external force to overcome internal inertia)

I'm all for external forces overcoming internal inertia when the cause is just, as in your example. But what's under discussion here is not whether the Supreme Court should have that authority. What's under discussion is whether they made the right call in this particular case.

(And really my only point with what you quoted was to say that if someone has an issue with this, the issue can legitimately be with the SC, as the external force "forcing" an entity to bend to their will - just wanted to make that clear since you didn't also quote what I was responding to.)

[the19thhole]

I'll ask the question again. If one of the top golfers blow their knee (let's call him Tiger McIlroy) to the point he can't really walk anymore, but can still play. He is now registerd disabled, so should he be allowed to use a cart? Would all the yes voters still vote yes? They are legally no more disabled than each other other. Only difference Casey was born with it and that's were the SC went wrong (in my opinion). They didn't want the backlash of saying no to someone who is disabled. Life sucks and we just have to accept that we cannot do everything we want. Some things are just out of our control.

My home course is very hilly and I know it is easier to play riding a cart than it is walking. Riding a cart makes it a flat track. When I walk it, by the last few holes I'm pretty tired. Fatigue plays a big part in any sport. Our local rule is during comps everyone must walk because we know the course plays easier riding and if you don't like it then you don't compete, your choice.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by the19thhole

I'll ask the question again. If one of the top golfers blow their knee (let's call him Tiger McIlroy) to the point he can't really walk anymore, but can still play. He is now registerd disabled, so should he be allowed to use a cart? Would all the yes voters still vote yes? They are legally no more disabled than each other other...

Good question. (I must have missed the first time you asked it.)  And if you allow such a golfer a cart because of such an injury, at what point do you draw the line between injury vs. the normal aches/pains/tightness of the natural aging process?  The decision in favor of Martin may not have been the start of an immediate slippery slope, but I bet the above scenario would be.

And if you *wouldn't* allow a golfer a cart because of injury, why not?  Should there be a distinction between illness and injury? If so, is that distinction always easy to make?

Should there be a distinction between permanent injury and temporary, and if so how do you make that distinction without being able to predict the future?

Should there be a distinction between something you were born with vs something that developed later in life?

In general, should the cause of the disability matter, or only the effects of it?

If you voted "no" on this poll, all the above questions are moot. If you voted yes, all the above questions naturally follow as a result, and I'm curious to hear how they'd be answered.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by the19thhole

I'll ask the question again. If one of the top golfers blow their knee (let's call him Tiger McIlroy) to the point he can't really walk anymore, but can still play. He is now registerd disabled, so should he be allowed to use a cart? Would all the yes voters still vote yes? They are legally no more disabled than each other other. Only difference Casey was born with it and that's were the SC went wrong (in my opinion). They didn't want the backlash of saying no to someone who is disabled. Life sucks and we just have to accept that we cannot do everything we want. Some things are just out of our control.

My home course is very hilly and I know it is easier to play riding a cart than it is walking. Riding a cart makes it a flat track. When I walk it, by the last few holes I'm pretty tired. Fatigue plays a big part in any sport. Our local rule is during comps everyone must walk because we know the course plays easier riding and if you don't like it then you don't compete, your choice.

Well for one, it's hard to picture a guy blowing out his knee & still being effective as a top-flight golfer.

But there is one example that I can think of. Bill Glasson. He had a ton of knee surgeries. He walked. And here's the key reason: He could.

So I would conclude that your example is not relevant. Glasson could walk 18. Martin cannot.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

The Supreme Court overstepped their bounds BIG TIME in ruling on this.

I'm not going to read all 16 pages of this thread but the Supreme Court did not rule based on the PGA Tour (or USGA) forbidding the use of carts which is how I interpret your argument against the SCOTUS. They ruled (actually upheld a lower court ruling) involving the American's with Disabilities Act and the PGA Tour's ruling that they would not make "reasonable accommodations" for someone with a disability. They basically ruled that the golf course is a place of public accommodation and that ADA applies.

[the19thhole]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Well for one, it's hard to picture a guy blowing out his knee & still being effective as a top-flight golfer.

But there is one example that I can think of. Bill Glasson. He had a ton of knee surgeries. He walked. And here's the key reason: He could.

So I would conclude that your example is not relevant. Glasson could walk 18. Martin cannot.

With his disabilty how effective is Casey as a top flight golfer, but anyway.

Wrong. You are missing the point, Glasson HAD to walk because of the rules of competion of the PGA, he didn't have the option of using a cart. Remember no one is allowed to use a cart (only Casey because of the SC ruling).

Originally Posted by MSchott

I'm not going to read all 16 pages of this thread but the Supreme Court did not rule based on the PGA Tour (or USGA) forbidding the use of carts which is how I interpret your argument against the SCOTUS. They ruled (actually upheld a lower court ruling) involving the American's with Disabilities Act and the PGA Tour's ruling that they would not make "reasonable accommodations" for someone with a disability. They basically ruled that the golf course is a place of public accommodation and that ADA applies.

Exactly why I asked my question. Get injured, get registered disabled and the ruling states you have to be accommadated under the ADA. STUPID.