Casey Martin: Cart or Not?

[zipazoid]

Well kudos for a post with no insults.

Here's my point, since you seem to think I didn't respond. I did. And the following will be my encapsulation of them:

The goal in the game is getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible. How a player gets from one shot to the next is pretty much irrelevant. I know you disagree with that - that's the crux of your point, that the fatigue of walking is an integral part of the game. I don't agree, and they don't give out prize money for 'best walker' on the tour. It's get the ball in the hole with the fewest strokes. Therefore I believe walking is not an integral part of the game. And further, I do not believe a golfer with a birth defect that keeps him from being able to walk 18 holes, but can otherwise do the key part of the game - get the ball in the fewest strokes - should be excluded from the game. He is a professional golfer. His skill set says so. He just cannot walk 18 holes.

You, Jack, and the minority of posters disagree with that. That's okay! Do you understand that I am okay with that?

Now, do you further understand that I don't appreciate you resorting to insults to try to make your point? And that it does not seem okay to you that I disagree with you?

Disagree without being disagreeable.

[iacas]

Been in and out most of the day (mostly out) doing a bunch of computer stuff. Lots and lots of file copy progress bars. Bleh.

Been thinking about this. Eventually, I voted no. I don't lean that way strongly, primarily because Casey Martin is such an extreme case . I don't think it presents a super-slippery slope because virtually nobody else with a disability as debilitating as Martin's will ever get close to being good enough to qualify for the PGA Tour, the U.S. Open, etc.

Sports are not governed by the same rules of equity as other parts of life. In the end I don't think a sport should be compromised by catering - in any manner - to someone with a disability. Sports is "survival of the fittest," and if you're not fit to compete, you don't get to compete. It's the only truly "fair" way to do something, and if you start monkeying with that trust, that fairness, then I don't think.

I get that life dealt Casey martin a Quadruple Bogey and giving him a cart only gets him back to two over par (if you'll allow me to abuse the metaphor). But life dealt a lot of people Quadruples and Triples and Doubles and Bogeys. It gave some guys birdies and eagles, too. That doesn't mean it's the role or place of sport to adjust those. I get that in comparison to other players, Casey Martin is, in summation, not "advantaged." But in relation to Casey Martin, a cart gives him an advantage. Odds are it won't be 95° with 90% humidity at Olympic Club, and I do believe walking at the PGA Tour level is integral to the game.

Tom Watson said he lost the British Open at 59 because his legs gave out on him. Dufner was doing well but lost to Zach Johnson because his legs gave out. Ken Venturi played 36 in miserable heat at Congressional - that story would not be retold and repeated if he drove a cart around because he was dehydrated.

It is simply not the place of sports to try to level the playing field, when what we get from sports is a playing field that favors the better player. The playing field is where people separate themselves based on their abilities, where the weak lose and the strong win. We don't allow guys with the yips to pick up inside the leather, we don't give short drivers shorter tees, and we don't let people with poor bunker games throw the ball out of the bunker. The NBA didn't give Spud Webb a shorter hoop just so he could dunk, and so on down the line.

Casey Martin is a great coach and a brave guy. It absolutely sucks that he was dealt the blow he was dealt in life. He'd have been perhaps a strong player on the PGA Tour for many years if he was not disabled. But he is, and life isn't fair, and sports are not the place to correct for life's unfairness.

Again, I'm 60/40 on this, at the most, because his case is such an extreme situation (that he has the skills but lacks the ability to walk, which is a small part of the game, even I'll admit that).

That all said, I hope he plays well, makes the cut, enjoys his week, and does his team proud.

Originally Posted by Shorty

If the PGATour, or USGA or whatever could have made a judgement on this without fear of repercussion, they would have voted against it.

Problem was, they knew that in court it was simply going to be seen as a simple case of discrimination that would have cost them many millions.

They chose to take the position they did, which upset a few but had the positive of making them look good.

It basically came down to pragmatism.

I don't understand. It went to the Supreme Court. Didn't you post above encouraging people to learn about it? Surely you knew this.

And it's not discrimination. It's sports. Discrimination is disallowing someone something because of an unrelated factor (color of their skin, gender, hair color, religious beliefs, etc.). The PGA Tour's argument was that the ability to walk 72 holes is intrinsic to competing on the PGA Tour, which Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, and several other people came out and said as well.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

The goal in the game is getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible. How a player gets from one shot to the next is pretty much irrelevant. I know you disagree with that - that's the crux of your point, that the fatigue of walking is an integral part of the game. I don't agree, and they don't give out prize money for 'best walker' on the tour. It's get the ball in the hole with the fewest strokes. Therefore I believe walking is not an integral part of the game. And further, I do not believe a golfer with a birth defect that keeps him from being able to walk 18 holes, but can otherwise do the key part of the game - get the ball in the fewest strokes - should be excluded from the game. He is a professional golfer. His skill set says so. He just cannot walk 18 holes.

There's more to it than that, zip. You can disagree, and that's fine, but you have to accept as you're asking others to do that there's more to golf at the PGA Tour level, and "how you get from one shot to the next" is a part of that. It's beside the point to make silly jokes about "best walker" because I guarantee you people have lost tournaments or not placed as highly as they could have because they got tired on the back nine on Sunday. There's a level of conditioning and endurance required to play golf at the PGA Tour level, and absolutely riding a cart is an advantage.

That's all the PGA Tour, Jack, Arnie, me, and probably even Phil are saying, some perhaps more eloquently than others.

[zipazoid]

There's more to it than that, zip. You can disagree, and that's fine, but you have to accept as you're asking others to do that there's more to golf at the PGA Tour level, and "how you get from one shot to the next" is a part of that. It's beside the point to make silly jokes about "best walker" because I guarantee you people have lost tournaments or not placed as highly as they could have because they got tired on the back nine on Sunday. There's a level of conditioning and endurance required to play golf at the PGA Tour level, and absolutely riding a cart is an advantage.

And, again, if we were talking about an otherwise totally ambulatory player, I would agree. If, for example, it was Tiger & Phil down the stretch and Phil rode a cart all four days, you would have a point. Have you seen Casey walk from cart to the green or his shot? There's a noticeable limp. I think, in his case, he's not getting an advantage by using the cart. Instead, the cart allows him to compete in the true essence of the game, which is lowest score. I don't know what Martin does after a round, but I would imagine, given his condition, a lot of convalescing is likely required. Maybe even more so than a 'normal' person. Again, I'm just guessing...I don't really know.

So if that makes me some kind of ADA apologist, or whatever, fine. But even you said it - this is an extreme case. And an isolated one. It' not going to open some floodgates or allow Monty to use a cart cuz he's overweight or whatever. It's allowing a player who qualified to play in the US Open the opportunity to do just that.

[David in FL]

It's allowing a player who qualified to play in the US Open the opportunity to do just that.

No one has said that he shouldn't be allowed to play in the Open......

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

You bet your ass blind golfers are SOL.  [...] Bunch of politically correct wankers, the lot of you.

I read through this thread hoping to see some good arguments for and against the cart decision, and instead I mostly just learn the value of the Block feature...

Originally Posted by iacas

Sports are not governed by the same rules of equity as other parts of life. In the end I don't think a sport should be compromised by catering - in any manner - to someone with a disability. Sports is "survival of the fittest," and if you're not fit to compete, you don't get to compete. It's the only truly "fair" way to do something, and if you start monkeying with that trust, that fairness, then I don't think.

This is a good, and fairly convincing argument. However, I voted (and would still vote) yes.

In terms of the law, as written, I think it's fairly clear. (Actually, this is an obvious point since it would require a Supreme Court reversal or a change in the ADA to invalidate the binding precedent.) As I understand it (based on memory and general layman's grasp of law), the ADA requires that reasonable accommodations be made, and it was determined that this was a "reasonable accommodation" considering the full facts of the case. This is all interesting, but it's settled law, and there's no sense arguing it.

The more interesting question, obviously, is whether this is right --- whether the ADA should be modified to exempt sports. I don't believe so. While some big name golfers and various voices from the PGA Tour have made various statements about the walking being integral to the competition, I just don't agree. It's not a rule of golf, and in the US at least, I don't think walking is even the most common mode of playing the game. The facts just don't bear out to making walking integral to the point that accommodating someone who physically cannot do it is permitted is a travesty. It's still essentially the same game (i.e., it has all the essential elements of being golf).

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

... and I do believe walking at the PGA Tour level is integral to the game.

Tom Watson said he lost the British Open at 59 because his legs gave out on him. Dufner was doing well but lost to Zach Johnson because his legs gave out. Ken Venturi played 36 in miserable heat at Congressional - that story would not be retold and repeated if he drove a cart around because he was dehydrated.

I based my [yes] vote on the fact that I do not believe that walking is really an integral part of the game.  The only argument I had heard against it was "yes it is."  (Which I admit, for the record, has no LESS evidence backing it than my "no it doesn't" stance)  Until I heard the above.  Those 3 cases make it pretty darn clear that walking is an integral part of the game.

Now I have a problem ... because I'm still gonna say yes.  Like several have said, it is such an extreme case ... and it just seems like the right thing to do.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I think, in his case, he's not getting an advantage by using the cart.

Yes, he is. That much is undeniable. If he wasn't getting an advantage by using the cart why would he use the cart?

As I said, overall, he's probably still at a disadvantage, but in his case he's artificially been given a "bump" while other players are left to compete solely on their own skills and facing a different set of rules and conditions. The playing field has been made UN-level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Instead, the cart allows him to compete in the true essence of the game, which is lowest score.

I believe that walking - and the endurance and so on required to do so - is part of that game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid

So if that makes me some kind of ADA apologist, or whatever, fine. But even you said it - this is an extreme case. And an isolated one. It' not going to open some floodgates or allow Monty to use a cart cuz he's overweight or whatever. It's allowing a player who qualified to play in the US Open the opportunity to do just that.

It has nothing to do with the ADA. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Without a cart if he'd have qualified he'd still be able to play in the U.S. Open. If his disability prevented him from even qualifying, well, then he'd be in the boat with millions of others who really, really want to play but can't because of a disability, whether medical or otherwise, or simply a deficiency.

And let's talk about qualifying. Martin was allowed to use a cart to qualify, too. Everyone else had to walk. 36 holes in ONE day. Under the same rules, with a level playing field, he probably doesn't qualify (because he probably doesn't even try). Were contestants who got tired or were out of shape slightly given carts to play the last 10 holes? Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg

As I understand it (based on memory and general layman's grasp of law), the ADA requires that reasonable accommodations be made, and it was determined that this was a "reasonable accommodation" considering the full facts of the case.

I think the Supreme Court over-reached in applying the ADA.

From Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Martin in a 7-2 decision, with Justice Antonin S calia writing a dissent. In his dissent, Scalia drew upon Kurt Vonnegut's story, Harri son Bergeron . The Supreme Court found that the PGA Tour should be viewed as a commercial enterprise operating in the entertainment industry for the economic benefit of its members rather than as a private club. It agreed with the Magistrate Judge, Thomas Coffin, that the statutory definition of public accommodation included a "golf course," rejecting the Tour's argument that its competitions are only places of public accommodation in the areas open to spectators. The operator of a public accommodation could not, in Judge Coffin's view, create private enclaves within the facility "… and thus relegate the ADA to hop-scotch areas." The finding was originally upheld by the United States Court for the Ninth Circuit.

I agree that a person in a wheelchair who wants to go watch a major league baseball game should have all of the ramps, elevators, etc. that they need to get into the game, etc. I disagree that they should be permitted to play and the rules of the competition be changed to allow for them to take the field.

I agree that the PGA Tour is public "for the spectators" but not the competitors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg

It's not a rule of golf, and in the US at least, I don't think walking is even the most common mode of playing the game.

It's a condition of the competition, and as such, is considered a Rule of Golf as an acceptable condition of the competition:

Quote (http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Appendix-I/):

8. Transportation

If it is desired to require players to walk in a competition, the following condition is recommended:

“Players must not ride on any form of transportation during a stipulated round unless authorized by the Committee.

There you go. That Condition of Competition is in effect for every PGA Tour event, and has been for quite some time. It also explains why, on one particular course, players are sometimes carted from the green to the tee, or back to the tee to play a second tee ball in the case of a lost ball, or to the tee during playoffs, etc.

[x129]

Random question: Couldn't Casey find a caddie who could carry him around the course? And yes it would look stupid but it doesn't seem like some crazy physical feat.

4 miles over 4+ hours is not a lot of walking. It is something that a 90 year old can do. Now is walking 4 miles over 4 hours in 95 degree heat tiring? You bet. But so is standing (or sitting) around for 4 hours in 95 degree heat.  The heat and time are more important than walking.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by iacas

1.I don't understand. It went to the Supreme Court. Didn't you post above encouraging people to learn about it? Surely you knew this.

2. And it's not discrimination. It's sports. Discrimination is disallowing someone something because of an unrelated factor (color of their skin, gender, hair color, religious beliefs, etc.). The PGA Tour's argument was that the ability to walk 72 holes is intrinsic to competing on the PGA Tour, which Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, and several other people came out and said as well.

1. Yes I did. My point is that they knew that there was a point where they had to accept that appeals would get them nowhere. Worse than nowhere, in fact.

2. You know that. I know that. But the issue here is that non golfers don't see it that way and the flak would have been a heavy burden. The line would have been that golfers with disabilities are discriminated against and the fine and medium print would have ben discarded in favour of the headlines.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by x129

4 miles over 4+ hours is not a lot of walking. It is something that a 90 year old can do. Now is walking 4 miles over 4 hours in 95 degree heat tiring? You bet. But so is standing (or sitting) around for 4 hours in 95 degree heat.  The heat and time are more important than walking.

It's not 4 miles. Heck, it's closer to 9 than 4. The raw yardage of the holes may be 4.2 miles, but you walk green to tee, you stand, you circle putts, you walk not in straight lines, etc. Ends up being just over 7 miles. Walking 7 miles is more tiring than riding a cart for 6 of those 7 miles.

Originally Posted by Shorty

1. Yes I did. My point is that they knew that there was a point where they had to accept that appeals would get them nowhere. Worse than nowhere, in fact.

2. You know that. I know that. But the issue here is that non golfers don't see it that way and the flak would have been a heavy burden. The line would have been that golfers with disabilities are discriminated against and the fine and medium print would have ben discarded in favour of the headlines.

1. Well, they couldn't really appeal beyond the Supreme Court.

2. I agree with the second part. I still think it was right of the PGA Tour to contest it (still not by a wide margin, my personal take, that is), but I knew the whole time it looked bad for them.

[B-Con]

[edit] Realized there was way more of this thread than I'd seen, read more of it, no longer sure of my position, but can't delete post.

[Paradox]

The argument that I don't think holds much weight is that sports is "survival of the fittest" when we're talking directly about a sport with a handicap system.  If it were survival of the fittest..why are there handicaps?  Why is a better player required to give a lesser player strokes?  Why aren't all tournaments played straight up?

Just think of it as the rest of the field giving Martin a couple strokes due to his handicap.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Paradox

The argument that I don't think holds much weight is that sports is "survival of the fittest" when we're talking directly about a sport with a handicap system.  If it were survival of the fittest..why are there handicaps?  Why is a better player required to give a lesser player strokes?  Why aren't all tournaments played straight up?

There are no handicap strokes on the PGA Tour or in the U.S. Open.

[Kapanda]

Again, didn't this go to the Supreme Court?

And didn't the SC say that using a cart was not diminishing the spirit of the game?

Why are you guys arguing about giving an advantage to a handicap? According to the SC, that's irrelevant.

[k-troop]

There are no handicap strokes on the PGA Tour or in the U.S. Open.

I thought they were getting 90% of their GHIN based on their last 20 rounds. Why else would Rory keep posting 78s?

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by iacas

There are no handicap strokes on the PGA Tour or in the U.S. Open.

did you think I didn't know that?..really? Anyway,  you can't make the argument that sports are survival of the fittest and then accept that the sport in question also handicaps people so "anyone can compete".

Believe me, I'm all for a "get good or go home" mentality in sports..I live by it myself.  The problem is that you can't support both things and make that argument.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I thought they were getting 90% of their GHIN based on their last 20 rounds. Why else would Rory keep posting 78s?

That's funny.

Originally Posted by Paradox

did you think I didn't know that?..really?

Quite honestly, it's puzzling to me why you'd try to make that kind of argument. It has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. Zero, zip, zilch.

Originally Posted by Paradox

Anyway,  you can't make the argument that sports are survival of the fittest and then accept that the sport in question also handicaps people so "anyone can compete".

Sure I can. Really easily, in fact, and here's how: We are talking about sports at the highest level. They are survival of the fittest.

It's not even close to pertinent what happens on the club level or to you in your Tuesday night beer league.

[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.

The majority here agree, his disability doesn't prevent him from hitting the ball - only getting to it. He got good enough at the sport to compete at the highest level despite his "shitty deck" he was dealt, and now all he needs is a mode to navigate the course. His ball will navigate the course the same way as everyone else, and he will compete to get that ball into the cup in the fewest amount of strokes, the same way as everyone else.