PGA vs LPGA

[jetsknicks1]

Originally Posted by iacas

The PGA Tour would have nothing to gain by doing this, and the LPGA would have nothing to gain, either.

A goofy little exhibition (Wendy's) is one thing, an actual event is another thing altogether.

The PGA especially. I always thought it would be kinda neat to get the top 10 players from both tours to go at it for a full fledged 4 day tourny. But who wants to be the PGA player that finishes out of the top 10?

[Mr3Wiggle]

I'd like to see them take the 4 best players on the LPGA tour and have them play the US Open venue under the same conditions the men do.  Just like they were doing with the celebrities.  See if any of them can break 85.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I'd like to see them take the 4 best players on the LPGA tour and have them play the US Open venue under the same conditions the men do.  Just like they were doing with the celebrities.  See if any of them can break 85.

You'd like to see that, sure, but they wouldn't do it because I don't think they'd be confident they could.

We play a section event at Locust Hill in almost identical conditions as the LPGA Championship... except we play farther back. The winning scores - from local club pros (and we're not an awesome section like the Met PGA, etc.) - are about the same as the scores of the winners in that event.

And there's a HUGE gap between the local club pros and the PGA Tour. HUGE.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by iacas

You'd like to see that, sure, but they wouldn't do it because I don't think they'd be confident they could.

We play a section event at Locust Hill in almost identical conditions as the LPGA Championship... except we play farther back. The winning scores - from local club pros (and we're not an awesome section like the Met PGA, etc.) - are about the same as the scores of the winners in that event.

And there's a HUGE gap between the local club pros and the PGA Tour. HUGE.

I'd be curious what the highest clubhead speeds are on the LPGA tour.  I would assume Michelle Wie would have one of them.  They are always talking about her big drives.  I suppose the scenario I just laid out would be more of an exercize in embarrassment for them.

For me the only sports more exciting to watch women instead of men are gymnastics and tennis.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by iacas

Because the sport of golf is an athletic endeavor, and men are better athletes than women.

But nice try.

P.S. I said it in the other thread, but I know a guy who says "if a woman can do it as well as a man, it's not a sport" in regards to the "game/sport" question. This applies to this thread in that way.

Meh, most top chefs in the world are men as well.

Originally Posted by MSchott

Not sure where to begin in refuting your post. First of all I'd guess that Ivy league schools in general and especially the specialized schools within are heavily male dominated. Second, if you think women are not competitive you haven't met my wife, sister, mother and the woman that owns and runs the $30 million/year company I work for.

Second, the USA has traditionally been a male dominated society and up until the last 50 or so years, most women were conditioned to stay home and raise families rather than be the bread winners. This is slowly changing and woman IMO are at least as competitive as men and in the next few decades will become more and more powerful in the world.

How about you begin by addressing the actual points I make.

Specifically mentioned that there are more male GB scholars past the proportionality ration, i.e. you should see around 38% of female GB Scholars, but you see much less.

Never said women are not competitive. I definitely said they are less competitive.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Meh, most top chefs in the world are men as well.

That's irrelevant and demonstrates that you don't understand what he said.

[x129]

Woman might be less competive on average. Doesn't mean that someone like Yani is more or less competitive than Tiger.  I don't know why (I also nothing about the program) about why you see less GB scholars. In academics there are theories that more men are outliers (geniuses and idiots) but there are also huge society factors involved.  There is a huge difference between none and some. Why are there not more woman top chefs? Because they don't want to be. Maybe the reward isn't worth the work. Maybe they are discouraged from trying. The none case (i.e. number of woman you will see competing in the men's 100m in London) is due to physical limitations.

Golf is right at the edge. The top half dozen woman are close physically to the men in terms of things like hitting the ball far enough. But there are only a few (top 10 or so). That is not a lot of people when you would also need one to be top 10 in putting and the short game.  I am sure we will see a woman make the cut in a PGA event in the next 50 years since annika and wie were both close. But I don't expect to see a lot of them

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Meh, most top chefs in the world are men as well.

How about you begin by addressing the actual points I make.

Specifically mentioned that there are more male GB scholars past the proportionality ration, i.e. you should see around 38% of female GB Scholars, but you see much less.

Never said women are not competitive. I definitely said they are less competitive.

I figure the top woman (Yani, Brittany Lincicome) are driving it an average of 275 or so or about the same as a Steve Stricker or a Luck Donald (granted different courses but lets say that is accurate +-10 yards). Those guys are all about 110mph so I am guess they are similiar

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I'd be curious what the highest clubhead speeds are on the LPGA tour.  I would assume Michelle Wie would have one of them.  They are always talking about her big drives.  I suppose the scenario I just laid out would be more of an exercize in embarrassment for them.

For me the only sports more exciting to watch women instead of men are gymnastics and tennis.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by x129

Woman might be less competive on average. Doesn't mean that someone like Yani is more or less competitive than Tiger.  I don't know why (I also nothing about the program) about why you see less GB scholars. In academics there are theories that more men are outliers (geniuses and idiots) but there are also huge society factors involved.  There is a huge difference between none and some. Why are there not more woman top chefs? Because they don't want to be. Maybe the reward isn't worth the work. Maybe they are discouraged from trying. The none case (i.e. number of woman you will see competing in the men's 100m in London) is due to physical limitations.

Golf is right at the edge. The top half dozen woman are close physically to the men in terms of things like hitting the ball far enough. But there are only a few (top 10 or so). That is not a lot of people when you would also need one to be top 10 in putting and the short game.  I am sure we will see a woman make the cut in a PGA event in the next 50 years since annika and wie were both close. But I don't expect to see a lot of them

I figure the top woman (Yani, Brittany Lincicome) are driving it an average of 275 or so or about the same as a Steve Stricker or a Luck Donald (granted different courses but lets say that is accurate +-10 yards). Those guys are all about 110mph so I am guess they are similiar

I just found a site on the web that says Yani's CHS is 98 mph...per Trackman.  Ball speed 144.6, launch 11.3 degrees, spin 2619, carry 229.0.  I'm not sure how accurate this data is or how up to date it is.  I can't find Trackman data on Wie.  Just that her CHS is rumored to be close to 105 mph.

[x129]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I just found a site on the web that says Yani's CHS is 98 mph...per Trackman.  Ball speed 144.6, launch 11.3 degrees, spin 2619, carry 229.0.  I'm not sure how accurate this data is or how up to date it is.  I can't find Trackman data on Wie.  Just that her CHS is rumored to be close to 105 mph.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Meh, most top chefs in the world are men as well.

How about you begin by addressing the actual points I make.

Specifically mentioned that there are more male GB scholars past the proportionality ration, i.e. you should see around 38% of female GB Scholars, but you see much less.

Never said women are not competitive. I definitely said they are less competitive.

So your point is that because Harvard, an old boys network school has a disproportionately high ratio of men to women in one of it's schools that this proves men are more competitive by nature than women. I find that argument itself statistically biased and to have no relation to your poorly made assertion. And the point I am making is that in my experience, women are not less competitive than men. Show me some real stats to prove your point or some sort of DNA study to prove your point.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I'd like to see them take the 4 best players on the LPGA tour and have them play the US Open venue under the same conditions the men do.  Just like they were doing with the celebrities.  See if any of them can break 85.

What would be the point of such an exercise? We know PGA players are much stronger than LPGA players. A 7100 yard course with brutal rough would be a huge challenge for an LPGA player. There seems to be some misogynistic dislike of the LPGA in this thread.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by MSchott

What would be the point of such an exercise? We know PGA players are much stronger than LPGA players. A 7100 yard course with brutal rough would be a huge challenge for an LPGA player. There seems to be some misogynistic dislike of the LPGA in this thread.

Me thinks you just like to argue with people.

[caniac6]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I'd like to see them take the 4 best players on the LPGA tour and have them play the US Open venue under the same conditions the men do.  Just like they were doing with the celebrities.  See if any of them can break 85.

Just wait a few years, and you will kind of get your wish. I believe the 2014 US & US Womens Opens are going to be played at Pinehurst #2 on consectutive weeks.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by caniac6

Just wait a few years, and you will kind of get your wish. I believe the 2014 US & US Womens Opens are going to be played at Pinehurst #2 on consectutive weeks.

That should be interesting to watch.  It's not that I want to see the women embarrassed.  It's just interesting to see an apples to apples comparison sometimes.  I'm sure the tees will be almost 1000 yards different, but still should be fun to watch.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

Me thinks you just like to argue with people.

I don't want to argue, I want to discuss. When I read something that I think is unfair, I have no problem pointing out what I think is unfair. That's not arguing.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by MSchott

I don't want to argue, I want to discuss. When I read something that I think is unfair, I have no problem pointing out what I think is unfair. That's not arguing.

What is unfair about what I said?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I'd like to see them take the 4 best players on the LPGA tour and have them play the US Open venue under the same conditions the men do.  Just like they were doing with the celebrities.  See if any of them can break 85.

What would be the point of such an exercise?

If the course was shortened to typical LPGA lengths, and all else was equal, then I'd be shocked if there weren't any rounds below 80.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

What is unfair about what I said?

Nothing. I am referring to Kapanda.