2013 Women's US Open Discussion Thread

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

And I can probably average 70 on a 5800 yard course. Doesn't mean it would be fun to watch.

Maybe you were just going for hyperbole here, but just as an FYI ...

The shortest course they have played this year was 6,108 yards.  The longest course (last week US Open) was 6821, and the average of the 15 tournaments so far (all according to distances listed on lpga.com) is 6,488 yards.

Maybe this is why I'm defending them ... they are playing about the same tees I would usually play, and with considerable less distance off the tee than even me (on average), they are leaving any score I could even dream of (at this point - I'm still working) in the dust.

Dave67az makes a fantastic point here as well, regarding a big negative:

Quote:

Their caddies sometimes appear too intrusive into their games (my major complaint).

This bothers me most of all as well, and its really starting to creep onto the mens tour too.  Really annoying watching the guys/gals having to rely on the crutch of the caddy making sure they are lined up correctly all the way until 2 seconds before they pull the trigger.  Ugh.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by chriskzoo

I think what you're missing is that the men are playing on longer, harder courses - if you adjust those scores for the venue on which they are played, the difference is likely more apparent.  It's the same reason you can't use greens in regulation average as any sort of comparison - guys who play on easier courses throughout the year have higher GIRs than guys like Adam Scott and Tiger who pretty much only play in the toughest tournaments.

Now, speaking of scoring average and strength of competition (and whether what Park is doing truly is amazing), I thought it would be interesting to see how many players you have to go through to get to 1 more stroke above average.

This is how they shake out:

69.082 - Tiger Woods - PGA Tour #1 in Scoring

70.049 - #15 Keegan Bradley

71.083 - #96 John Senden

72.058 - #168 Ben Curtis

73.593 - #183 Paul Haley II - Last on PGA Tour in scoring

69.674 - Inbee Park LPGA #1 in Scoring

70.659 - #7 So Yeon Ryu

71.674 - #29 Gerina Pillar

72.667 - #62 Juli inkster

73.682 - #108 Pat Hurst

74.667 - #139 Laura Davies

75.727 - #147 Kayla Mortellaro

76.842 - #151 Karlin Beck

77.300 - #152 Hannah Yun - Last on LPGA Tour in scoring

What this shows you is that in a given week, Park really has only about 29 competitors to deal with (those that average within 2 strokes of her) and if you want to expand it to 3 stroke, it only brings in 61 players in an average week.

Compare that to the PGA where Tiger and guys at the top have 95 other golfers who average within 2 strokes of the leader and if you expand it just one more stroke to 3, you bring in 167 golfers - more than ever compete in a PGA field each week and 100 more golfers than average within 3 strokes of the top scorer on the LPGA tour.

It's not even close to an apples to apples comparison.  It's like arguing that a team that wins 20 consecutive championships in a 5 team league is as impressive as a team that wins 20 consecutive championships in a 30 team league.  There is simply not as much competition, period.

I think what you guys are missing is that the men AREN'T playing longer courses.

The length of a course (i.e. the length from the tees you're supposed to be playing from) is the same for the women than the men.  We've got other threads on how to choose tees based on how far you hit your drives, if you don't get what I'm saying.  Just because you're playing from longer tees doesn't mean you're playing a longer course.  The length of a course is a ratio based on your shot distance...not an arbitrary yardage.

The ladies hit the ball, on average, maybe 80% as far as the guys (I'll do that stats on that if you want, but my guess is 80%)?  So for them to play a course 80% as long as the PGA Tour plays requires the same effort and excellence in order to play under par.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Maybe you were just going for hyperbole here....

I was indeed.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Maybe this is why I'm defending them ... they are playing about the same tees I would usually play, and with considerable less distance off the tee than even me (on average), they are leaving any score I could even dream of (at this point - I'm still working) in the dust.

As I said above, I don't discount their golfing ability. Just pointing out that, in my book, low scores don't always equal high entertainment.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

The ladies hit the ball, on average, maybe 80% as far as the guys (I'll do that stats on that if you want, but my guess is 80%)?  So for them to play a course 80% as long as the PGA Tour plays requires the same effort and excellence in order to play under par.

While I totally agree with you regarding the length - and if you're right that they're 80% as far as the guys, then they are actually playing much longer courses than the men (6488/80% = 8110!) - you are wrong about the "same effort and excellence in order to play under par" part.  You are discounting fairway widths, rough height, green speed, and pin locations, all of which probably play a bigger part in course difficulty than length for expert players (as was quite excellently proven at the mens Open a couple of weeks ago).

EDIT:  The rough average driving distance of the top 50 in driving on the LPGA tour is 265-ish.  The rough average of the top 50 on the PGA tour is in the high 290's.  Let's call it 295 to be safe.  That puts the women at closer to 90% of the men in distance/power.  But still, their average course length of 6488 divided by 90% equals 7200, so I think distance can be discounted as a difference between the two.

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

As I said above, I don't discount their golfing ability. Just pointing out that, in my book, low scores don't always equal high entertainment.

I don't disagree with this at all.  How many people prefer the Bob Hope, where the winner is -30, to the US Open or British Open, where the winner can be -5 or +5?  Except for maybe Brian Gay (this years Hope winner) I'm guessing none. ;)

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't disagree with this at all.  How many people prefer the Bob Hope, where the winner is -30, to the US Open or British Open, where the winner can be -5 or +5?  Except for maybe Brian Gay (this years Hope winner) I'm guessing none. ;)

My point exactly. I just didn't communicate it well I suppose.

My wife says I have an issue with communication, or something like that. I don't know, I wasn't really listening.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

While I totally agree with you regarding the length - and if you're right that they're 80% as far as the guys, then they are actually playing much longer courses than the men (6488/80% = 8110!) - you are wrong about the "same effort and excellence in order to play under par" part.  You are discounting fairway widths, rough height, green speed, and pin locations, all of which probably play a bigger part in course difficulty than length for expert players (as was quite excellently proven at the mens Open a couple of weeks ago).

EDIT:  The rough average driving distance of the top 50 in driving on the LPGA tour is 265-ish.  The rough average of the top 50 on the PGA tour is in the high 290's.  Let's call it 295 to be safe.  That puts the women at closer to 90% of the men in distance/power.  But still, their average course length of 6488 divided by 90% equals 7200, so I think distance can be discounted as a difference between the two.

I don't disagree with this at all.  How many people prefer the Bob Hope, where the winner is -30, to the US Open or British Open, where the winner can be -5 or +5?  Except for maybe Brian Gay (this years Hope winner) I'm guessing none. ;)

Just ran the stats, and I was off a little.

PGA Tour, top-20 in driving distance average is 301.37 yds.

LPGA Tour, top-20 in driving distance average is 264.63 yds (or 88% of the men).

So that 6488 yd course would play the same distance as a 7372 yd course for the men.

And I get that some don't find it entertaining, and that's entirely subjective.  But I'd rather see a generic "I'm not entertained" comment than fabricating comparisons to 5800 yard courses.  That just makes it look like someone doesn't understand why we have separate tee boxes on golf courses.  It also explains why some people don't want to tee it forward, since there are people out there that refuse to acknowledge a good game unless it's played from the tips.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by dave67az

And I get that some don't find it entertaining, and that's entirely subjective.  But I'd rather see a generic "I'm not entertained" comment than fabricating comparisons to 5800 yard courses.

I'm not entertained.

Originally Posted by dave67az

That just makes it look like someone doesn't understand why we have separate tee boxes on golf courses.  It also explains why some people don't want to tee it forward, since there are people out there that refuse to acknowledge a good game unless it's played from the tips.

I don't necessarily agree that it's always best to tee it forward, in the sense that you can't judge the challenge of a course simply from the length. I have played 6500 yard courses that are extremely difficult. I've also shot some of my lowest scores on courses over 7000. It's not because I'm a long hitter, but because there's a lot more that goes into the difficulty of a course than just yardage.

Just as a quick example: Huntington Park, a municipal course in Shreveport, LA is 7294 yards from the back tees with a slope rating of 113. Bethpage Black's white tees measure 6684 yards with a slope rating of 145. Yardages are only a small factor in the difficulty of a course, and I think players should pay more attention to slope ratings than just yardages when selecting tees.

Originally Posted by dave67az

fabricating comparisons to 5800 yard courses.

Hyperbole. Look it up.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

I don't necessarily agree that it's always best to tee it forward, in the sense that you can't judge the challenge of a course simply from the length. I have played 6500 yard courses that are extremely difficult. I've also shot some of my lowest scores on courses over 7000. It's not because I'm a long hitter, but because there's a lot more that goes into the difficulty of a course than just yardage.

Just as a quick example: Huntington Park, a municipal course in Shreveport, LA is 7294 yards from the back tees with a slope rating of 113. Bethpage Black's white tees measure 6684 yards with a slope rating of 145. Yardages are only a small factor in the difficulty of a course, and I think players should pay more attention to slope ratings than just yardages when selecting tees.

So do you think in comparing the PGA Tour to the LPGA, looking at the respective slope ratings of their courses when comparing would be a better indicator of their abilities?  Again, this has nothing to do with entertainment value because each has their own interests.  But an argument had been brought up that the ladies didn't play "good golf" and I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind the comment.

[Wisguy]

Some points:

Those arguing for relative parity between the PGA and the LPGA are statistically wrong, as several people above have pointed out.  The LPGA hasn't really seen someone since Annika who could compete stats-wise with the top PGA pros, and the men simply putt better and make fewer mistakes than the women do (and aren't spending 2+ minutes per green having their caddies read the breaks and line them up, like the LPGA players do).

However, that matters very little in terms of television viewing - how can you claim watching the PGA on TV is exciting and the LPGA is boring unless you are mainly talking about following favorite or disliked players on the men's tour?  They edit golf on TV so much that you're typically not seeing too much mediocre play, whether it's a PGA or LPGA tournament - it's basically a 2-3 hour highlight show.  If one of the leaders has a bad hole, they'll cut over to someone in a later hole who just hit an approach or bunker shot to within two feet, or who just sank a 40 foot birdie putt.  If someone comes up a club short and puts a ball into the lake, if the player is at all prominent, either on the tour or in that tournament, the network is going to show that bad shot.  Are you seriously trying to tell me that the splash from a PGA player's ball is poignant and exciting, but the 1" lower splash from an LPGA player's ball is dull and uninteresting?

Sorry, but getting the ball close to the hole or in the hole is matter of feet/meters and inches/centimeters, not a matter of whether the player who hit the shot is wearing a skirt or pants.  A man making a 20' birdie putt isn't any more exciting than a woman making a putt of the same distance, unless you have a personal bias in favor or against the particular golfer.  No doubt the WNBA plays a much slower, tamer, lower-scoring variety of basketball than the NBA and that is very evident while watching it on television, but there aren't those sorts of notable difference in watching PGA vs. LPGA golf.  No one is saying "I just can't watch a barely-triple digit swing speed -it's too slow."  You cannot appreciate distances from the visual aspect of watching golf on television - you know intellectually that an approach shot to gimme range is more impressive on a 470 yard par-4 than on a 380 yard one, but it doesn't show on TV like a jumper from half-court is more impressive than one inside the foul line.  If you watched all of the players playing all of the holes, you'd see a lot more mediocre and bad shots from the women than the men, but that's not what televised golf looks like, is it?

Anyone thinking that the LPGA players don't have some pretty remarkable athletic abilities compared to a better male golfer not on the PGA tour really ought to go see an LPGA event in person.  At last year's US Women's Open at Blackwolf Run, I watched the final twosome hit their second shots onto the 9th hole.  They were something like 210-220 out, the green was sloped with a forward pin placement and the front and part of the side of the green was surrounded by a creek.  Both Na Yeon Choi and Amy Chang hit hybrids that were so solidly struck, their shots went high and far, and they both gently placed their balls on the green in makeable birdie range, truly excellent shots.  I don't gamble, but I'd put a fair amount of coin on a wager that not a single golfer on this website could have hit a better shot from exactly that location onto that green - realistically, I would put my ball in the creek at least 15 times from that location before I could even get one on the green; hell, I bet only 10 percent of the people on this board could hit that green.  I saw more players hit their balls into the water on a few holes than I think I would have at a PGA event, but it was still very exciting to watch and I saw some terrific shots.

Bottom line is that the PGA players are better from a statistical standpoint, unquestionably.  But anyone saying that LPGA golf is boring is either not giving it a fair chance or is measuring "interesting" only in terms of watching favorite athletes, much the same as watching the European tour is less interesting to me than watching the PGA tour, because I've never heard of 80+% of the European players.  That doesn't make their golf boring, it just means I'm less interested in the overall competition since I've got less emotional stake in many/any of the players.

[boogielicious]

It's OK that you don't enjoy it.  To each his own.  I find college football dull.  It's like watching the game at half speed.  I do like watching the LPGA during the Majors though.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by dave67az

So do you think in comparing the PGA Tour to the LPGA, looking at the respective slope ratings of their courses when comparing would be a better indicator of their abilities?  Again, this has nothing to do with entertainment value because each has their own interests.  But an argument had been brought up that the ladies didn't play "good golf" and I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind the comment.

Yes, slope rating would be a much better measure.

And I never made the argument that LPGA players don't play "good golf". In fact, I've said the opposite several times.

Several people earlier in the thread were saying that women's scores are just as low as men's, and therefore must be interesting. I was only refuting that argument.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Yes, slope rating would be a much better measure.

And I never made the argument that LPGA players don't play "good golf". In fact, I've said the opposite several times.

Several people earlier in the thread were saying that women's scores are just as low as men's, and therefore must be interesting. I was only refuting that argument.

My apologies if that sounded like it was ALL directed at you.

You're not the one who said they don't play good golf.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by dave67az

My apologies if that sounded like it was ALL directed at you.

You're not the one who said they don't play good golf.

I don't understand the argument that LPGA isn't interesting because it's bad golf. I've played a few rounds with ladies that were on the LPGA tour at the time, and they were as good as 99% of the men I've played with in my life.

That being said, I still find it boring. Part of it the long, loopy swings that most women have. Part of it is the fact that it seems really gimmicky and doesn't pay homage to the tradition and class of the game. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that makes it boring. I just know I would rather watch paint dry.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

I don't understand the argument that LPGA isn't interesting because it's bad golf. I've played a few rounds with ladies that were on the LPGA tour at the time, and they were as good as 99% of the men I've played with in my life.

That being said, I still find it boring. Part of it the long, loopy swings that most women have. Part of it is the fact that it seems really gimmicky and doesn't pay homage to the tradition and class of the game. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that makes it boring. I just know I would rather watch paint dry.

I hope your being hyperbolic again? My weekend watch priority list (currently ... during football season?  forget golf) is something like:

1.  PGA Tour if its a quality tournament with a good field (and not a blowout)

2.  Champions Tour if its a pretty course

3.  The Avengers, Rango, A Few Good Men, Dodgeball, 40 Year Old Virgin, Oceans 13, Italian Job, Princess Bride, or any other frequently shown, very rewatchable movie on Epix, Bravo, Spike, etc.

4.  Dodgers or Angels game if its close or if they're playing the Padres

5.  Last 5 laps of Nascar race.

6.  Installing shelves in laundry room AND painting them, HOWEVER ...

7.  While the paint is drying and nothing else in on TV, I'd much rather watch the women play golf than stare at the walls in the laundry room.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dave67az

The top-20 PGA Tour golfers currently have a combined scoring average of 69.82.

The top-20 LPGA Tour golfers currently have a combined scoring average of 70.81.

They're playing easier golf courses. So what?

Originally Posted by dave67az

If you're going to find a reason not to watch, you might want to pick something other than how they don't score as well because the numbers don't back you up.

They don't "score" as well. Put them on a PGA Tour level course and see how well they "score." Heck, shorten it to their yardages, and again - see how well they "score." It won't be good.

Originally Posted by dave67az

But the shot-making, particularly in the short game, is just as good as the men (barely a 1-stroke difference) and the scoring shows it.

It's not even close, no. They're not nearly as good. Heck, I could find plenty of guys who can't make a living on the mini tours are better than the vast majority of LPGA players at "shotmaking."

Originally Posted by dave67az

I'd hazard a bet that most people would disagree with you.

I'd bet the opposite, and I can show you their TV ratings to back that up.

Originally Posted by dave67az

Seeing people playing from appropriate tees and scoring consistently below par is what most people find entertaining (read this thread again if you don't agree, because it's a pretty common theme).

That's not entertaining to me. I won't say I hate watching the LPGA, but I would rather vacuum the carpets or power wash the house and windows.

Originally Posted by dave67az

I think what you guys are missing is that the men AREN'T playing longer courses.

Yes they are. Look at the total yardages. Look at the fact that the women will almost all lay up on a 480-yard par five. Yawn.

Are they playing the same length courses if you adjust for their shorter driving distances? Yes, but that's stupid. That's like saying watching the Little League World Series is as exciting as watching THE World Series. After all, they can't run as fast or swing as hard, so their bases are smaller, the fences closer, etc.

They play shorter, easier courses with slower greens, less rough, and wider fairways, easier pin placements, etc.

The best player in the world didn't make the cut at an event she hand-picked as being the easiest course on which a woman could succeed. Michelle Wie never made the cut (but almost qualified for the U.S. Open).

They aren't as good, and as such, it's far less entertaining. It's really that simple.

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

That being said, I still find it boring. Part of it the long, loopy swings that most women have. Part of it is the fact that it seems really gimmicky and doesn't pay homage to the tradition and class of the game. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that makes it boring. I just know I would rather watch paint dry.

I think you have a pants fetish.

Seriously, what makes it boring is that you haven't consciously or subconsciously made any of the LPGA players into heroes or villains, like you have with Tiger vs. Phil, Jack vs. Arnie, etc...

Paying "homage to the tradition and class of the game"??  What does that even mean?  Because one major was named after a snack foods company, the fourth major has changed venues, events, sponsors and finally host countries so many times that no one can keep track of it and they added a fifth major in France,  that it makes the entire tour crass and mean?  Because the media ignored women's sports until Nancy Lopez came along, the sport has no history?  To me, anyone talking about "tradition and class" is creating a pretty strong presumption of snobbishness.

I recently noticed that a course in my state has a female head pro, her name looked familiar, and I looked her up on the LPGA website.  She had played on the LPGA tour over a decade, and had multiple top-5 finishes and multiple top-10 finishes in majors, but what was most astonishing as I flipped through a few of her year's stats from the 90's was how many tournaments where she made the cut but won less than $1000 - as recently as the mid-90's, LPGA tournaments were paying so little that placing worse than 40-50th place didn't pay enough to break even,  not even in terms of gas money to the next tournament, six nights at a Motel 6, and fast food 10+ meals a week.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

I don't understand the argument that LPGA isn't interesting because it's bad golf. I've played a few rounds with ladies that were on the LPGA tour at the time, and they were as good as 99% of the men I've played with in my life.

That being said, I still find it boring. Part of it the long, loopy swings that most women have. Part of it is the fact that it seems really gimmicky and doesn't pay homage to the tradition and class of the game. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that makes it boring. I just know I would rather watch paint dry.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I hope your being hyperbolic again?   My weekend watch priority list (currently ... during football season?  forget golf) is something like:

1.  PGA Tour if its a quality tournament with a good field (and not a blowout)

2.  Champions Tour if its a pretty course

3.  The Avengers, Rango, A Few Good Men, Dodgeball, 40 Year Old Virgin, Oceans 13, Italian Job, Princess Bride, or any other frequently shown, very rewatchable movie on Epix, Bravo, Spike, etc.

4.  Dodgers or Angels game if its close or if they're playing the Padres

5.  Last 5 laps of Nascar race.

6.  Installing shelves in laundry room AND painting them, HOWEVER ...

7.  While the paint is drying and nothing else in on TV, I'd much rather watch the women play golf than stare at the walls in the laundry room.

I don't know, I just repainted my living room and kitchen this year and it was pretty damn satisfying watching the paint dry while sucking down an ice cold brew.  lol

I honestly think the reason the LPGA is so painful to watch for some people (and so difficult to get into to begin with) goes back to what Erik said about being able to identify and relate with the players.  I really enjoyed watching Stacy Lewis because we share that great Lewis name and I wondered if we were related (I do a lot of genealogy work so I wonder that a lot when I run into other Lewis families).  After watching for a while, I got to know more about the other golfers, got to know their games (who's a good putter, who's good from greenside traps, etc).  Now when I watch coverage, I "know" someone in just about every group they show on the telecast.

With any sport, it's always easier to watch when you know the players and their histories.  NASCAR is a lot more interesting when you know about the dynamics both on and off the track.  Baseball is a lot more entertaining when you know who the most loved and hated players are on any given team.

I loved watching that 14-year-old Chinese kid at the Masters even though I'd have to Google it to remember his full name.  But the reason I enjoyed it was because they made it a point to give us the back-story, shots of him back home at his Junior High School, and background so we COULD relate to him.  Had they not done that, I wouldn't have cared one iota whether or not he made the cut.  He played great golf for a teenager, but that still didn't make it enjoyable because I didn't know who he was.

I'd bet that if most of you started watching on a regular basis, you'd find the LPGA just as entertaining as any other sport you committed to watching on a regular basis.  I doubt you'll get through your first few tournaments, though.  The pace of play makes the PGA Tour look like speed golf, and if you're anything like me you'll be yelling at the caddies to mind their own damn business and stop trying to line up every freaking shot (INCLUDING TEE SHOTS!).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

I recently noticed that a course in my state has a female head pro, her name looked familiar, and I looked her up on the LPGA website.  She had played on the LPGA tour over a decade, and had multiple top-5 finishes and multiple top-10 finishes in majors, but what was most astonishing as I flipped through a few of her year's stats from the 90's was how many tournaments where she made the cut but won less than $1000 - as recently as the mid-90's, LPGA tournaments were paying so little that placing worse than 40-50th place didn't pay enough to break even,  not even in terms of gas money to the next tournament, six nights at a Motel 6, and fast food 10+ meals a week.

Yeah… because so few people care to watch women play golf.