Big Break Mexico

[bottlesflying]

Sarcasm and surrealism is the only way to deal with PC types.

[bplewis24]

I always get a kick out of the social conservatives when they start masking their bigotry as simply not being "PC."  And the masses generally fall for it and support it.

"Yeah, I'm not PC either!  So I guess it's okay to be a bigot, which is obviously the opposite of being politically correct!"

Like I said, his reality is distorted.  He clearly doesn't know the definition of basic words enough to comprehend what the antonyms would be.

[bottlesflying]

Being liberal isn't the same as being humorless, PC and anal retentive.

[iHack]

Am I being considered the PC?

[saturday]

Y[quote name="bottlesflying" url="/t/66694/big-break-mexico/180#post_874608"]Being liberal isn't the same as being humorless, PC and anal retentive. [/quoteYou're quite possibly the dumbest person I've encountered on this forum.

[bottlesflying]

No, you're the anal retentive one.

[bottlesflying]

Women shouldn't be allowed on the golf course until after 5 p.m. to give men plenty of time to finish.

[barbm12thtee]

Women shouldn't be allowed on the golf course until after 5 p.m. to give men plenty of time to finish.

Bottles flying and disdain for women don't mix. Hope you find the right woman.

[bottlesflying]

Women are not completely useless on the golf course - they can carry our bags, walk off yardages and such as that, as long as they stay out of the way.

[iHack]

"anal retentive" doesn't even make sense.

If you just start referring to the tees as forward tees instead of ladies tees, they will no longer have tees to use.

example  "This course does not have ladies tees.  Sorry."

[saturday]

Women are not completely useless on the golf course - they can carry our bags, walk off yardages and such as that, as long as they stay out of the way.

Seems you've joined the forum to just act like a moron. Thanks for your contributions.

[sacm3bill]

As I see it there was bad behavior on both sides here.

Bottlesflying brought up the topic, "Is it fair to have a man vs woman match if they play from different tees?"  He may not have argued the point in a very eloquent fashion, but it is an interesting point. (How do you decide how much extra difference the man has to play, for example?)

He was then accused of having a distorted sense of reality and of being a misogynist, so he played along and made several comments playing that role, which were taken seriously by several of you, which fanned the flames.

Any chance we could start over and get back on topic?

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Any chance we could start over and get back on topic?

If the tees are set up such that both players are selecting close to the same clubs for the hole, and they see similar amounts of grief, then it's fair.  If not, too bad.

So how do you assess the issue without seeing the holes?  It all depends on each courses' setup.

The distance/strength argument really only applies to 1st and 2nd shot on any Par4 or 5 hole, and just the tee shot on the Par 3's.

Everyone is on equal ground from scoring club distance on in (unless playing those mutants that hit SW 200 yards).  Let's call it 8i, and a woman hits that like a weekend male - say 150 yards, maybe 140 yards.

For Big Break, I think the women have a bigger challenge.  Consider that they are just hoping to come up even with the guys after a drive and are delighted if they are even slightly longer.  Clearly the girls are hitting more difficult approach shots on the par 5's for reaching the green in 2 (4hybrid vs an 8i for a 200 yard approach for example).  I think the par 3s are set up with nearly the same clubs, so the girls should have a slight advantage as the lane to the green is bigger when closer.  I don't recall the club selections/tee offsets on the Par 4s so I can't really assess it.

I think the alternate positions can be made (I don't find it very compelling though for the BB course) that the men hit longer, but then are more subject to the hazards on the fairway edges.  So the women should be hitting from, at least, closer yardages than they are getting now.  Thus the women don't have as much of a risk/reward tradeoff for driver as the men.

Personally?  I see no reason to have different tee boxes on SHORT Par 3's (140 yards and less - see above about scoring club distance)

that said - I pretty much expect two positions here.

1 - the group that will discuss it and consider it fairly - seriously, this is an activity that has an accepted handicap system.  this isn't much different in concept.

2 - the (not so tiny) group of chauvinists (the serious ones and those just using mockery) that perpetuate a crappy image of male golfers

[newtogolf]

Why not use their average drive distance to determine tee box locations?

[Meltdwhiskey]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

If the tees are set up such that both players are selecting close to the same clubs for the hole, and they see similar amounts of grief, then it's fair.  If not, too bad.

.

The distance/strength argument really only applies to 1st and 2nd shot on any Par4 or 5 hole, and just the tee shot on the Par 3's.

Everyone is on equal ground from scoring club distance on in (unless playing those mutants that hit SW 200 yards).  Let's call it 8i, and a woman hits that like a weekend male - say 150 yards, maybe 140 yards.

To further complicate the issue - I'd throw out a challenge to this line of thinking.  Sure, there is a strength/distance component to this. And I wouldn't argue that it isn't the most important aspect.  I thinkn it is.  But is it the only one?  Could whatever evolutionary circumstances that led to men being bigger and stronger also contributed to better touch, hand-eye coordination or overall athleticism?

This theory contends that around the greens - all is fair.  But is that true?  That is to say, do the top women on the tour have similar scrambling, putting, sand save, etc stats as Luke and Phil and the gang on the same courses with the same stimps/roughs?  And maybe a further illustration would be do women fair the same in other games of physicality that do not require greater strength?  Things like billiards competitions, shooting competitions, darts, etc.

I don't know the answer on those, but something tells me there is a reason that there are men's and women's categories in those sports as well.

[SoundandFury]

Originally Posted by bottlesflying

Being liberal isn't the same as being humorless, PC and anal retentive.

I respectfully disagree.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

And maybe a further illustration would be do women fair the same in other games of physicality that do not require greater strength?  Things like billiards competitions, shooting competitions, darts, etc.

I don't know the answer on those, but something tells me there is a reason that there are men's and women's categories in those sports as well.

evolution and anthropology is a valid path of discussion, but it's hazy at best

From what I've seen (personal observation only) those activities and few others do not require a separate category at even the very top levels.  I know in a couple activities, the only valid reason for a separate women's category is to just "encourage" women to participate.  In skydiving (just one example) - even though the Open category is the very top level of competition that consists of men and women in any combination available - and at the top levels, the world champs in many years are proportionally represented by co-ed teams.  But, invariably, if a team is an all women's team, they always choose to compete in the Women's category even though clearly eligible for the Open group and many of these teams are clearly competitive in that category, too.  Many of the top woman competitors will even forego being on a higher level co-ed team, just to be on the women's team.....

In other words, even when a separate women's category is not necessary, women will still choose to have one, thus perpetuating the practice - all the while proudly proclaiming pride in their gender, even in the act of self segregating - in fact, the act of self segregation being stated as a REASON for that pride.

I don't understand that at all - if you can have an activity that allows an opportunity to compete on an equal level (shooting, archery, darts, certain endurance sports, etc), I'd think the tendency would be to avoid segregation at all costs.  But the opposite is, from my observations at least, just the opposite - and for really goofy reasons.

for that matter - one can't even have this discussion about people at the top levels, their performance is, by definition, outlier performance.

There might be a path to discussing it for those at an average level of performance though.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

And maybe a further illustration would be do women fair the same in other games of physicality that do not require greater strength?  Things like billiards competitions, shooting competitions, darts, etc.

I don't know the answer on those, but something tells me there is a reason that there are men's and women's categories in those sports as well.

I don't know.  A woman has actually won a men's major bowling tournament.  Not just qualified or was given a sponsors exemption to "compete," but actually WON a MAJOR bowling tournament.  (Kelly Kulick - 2010 TOC)  Also, just this last weekend after the simultaneous US Open mens and womens finals, they had a $10,000 "battle of the sexes" where the two winners (Wes Malott and Liz Johnson) went head to head, and the woman won that one too.

In regards to bowling, the difference is smaller, I believe, because power is not a requirement to be a great bowler.  Several of the best mens bowlers out there are finesse players.

I would think the other sports you mentioned would be similar.  Once the strength aspect is gone, I think we're all on equal footing.