• Announcements

    • iacas

      Visit FlagstickRule.com   03/13/2017

      Visit the site flagstickrule.com to read about and sign a petition for the USGA/R&A regarding the one terrible rule in the proposed "modernized" rules for 2019.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Robster 7

Why aren't there any women playing on the men's tour?

126 posts in this topic

The accepted reason is power but there are lots of women who hit it just as far as some of the average PGA Tour players so I just don't understand why they can't compete. In a sport where it actually is possible for them to compete on a level playing field, unlike other more physical sports, I just don't understand why they don't?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Originally Posted by Robster 7

The accepted reason is power but there are lots of women who hit it just as far as some of the average PGA Tour players so I just don't understand why they can't compete. In a sport where it actually is possible for them to compete on a level playing field, unlike other more physical sports, I just don't understand why they don't?

Sorry, but that's not right.

They're just not long enough. Just looking at driving, the top 3 women on the LPGA would barely make it into the bottom 5 in driving average on the PGA tour. They're obviously proportionally shorter with the rest of their clubs too.

Contrary to popular belief, most aren't as solid in the short game either, but again, a lot of that comes from the same lack of speed that keeps them shorter with the full swing....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Ok but there are quite a few who average over 270yds, more than Mike Weir (Masters Winner) so what I'm basically saying is that they have the game in terms of distance so why doesn't it transfer? Are we saying they're simply not good enough?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another question would be, if they can't hit it as far as men, why not? There are plenty of big women out there on the LPGA and anyway its not about brute force but about technique.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric has a good post about watching an LPGA event in person, and the differences in short game between the two tours. Basically, it said PGA players, for the most part, had a much greater variety of shots around the greens.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Robster 7

And another question would be, if they can't hit it as far as men, why not? There are plenty of big women out there on the LPGA and anyway its not about brute force but about technique.

Actually it is about brute force. Testosterone versus Estrogen is huge in the growth of muscle mass in males versus females. Study done showed that by the end of Puberty, males have on average twice as much muscle mass as woman. That is a big advantage. Not to mention, height as well.

Though with resistance training, women can close the gap, but overall men have a higher potential for muscle gains. Not to mention, men are just bigger than females overall. I also wonder about how the hips are designed, since there is a big difference there, that women have a disadvantage in the golf swing in how the hips work, not sure.

But, its not technique, women are getting the same treatment as men. There are woman golfers being taught by the same people who teach male golfers.

But purely its genetics.

Look at Anika, she lifted weights for years, got into the best shape of her life, and she was still hitting it as far as the lower end of the distance spectrum for male golfers. There's just that genetic gap that adds that extra distance. That would be huge in an LPGA event. If the bottom end of the distance spectrum for a PGA golfer is the top end of the LPGA, that is a big time advantage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Clubhead speed.

/thread (j/k)

I have more clubhead speed than most LPGA players, yet mine pales in comparison to most PGA guys. Imagine an LPGA player playing a 630 yard par 5. That might be Ugly....driver, 3-wood, hybrid just to try and hit a GIR. Not a very high percentage hole there...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

This is, to be blunt, a stupid question.

If you think there is no physical difference between men and women, you are sadly mistaken.  Look as Saevel25's posts and you'll get your answer.

Why do you think men and women don't compete against one another in swimming, basketball or tennis for that matter?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The very best women of today, with extensive physical training and practice, using today's most advanced training methods, may be able to compete with the pro men of a few decades ago (and today's typical male golfer).  But not the men pros.  The men of today also have those same training advantages and the physical advantage.

Maybe if the courses were all executive length.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

What keeps them back? Lack of a short game in quality and variety, and putting. Power.

IMHO, a woman with a high quality short game who makes putts could make the cut on some courses - those that are not long and do require accuracy. But that's a handful of times on the PGA Tour.

I think Anika missed the cut by a stroke at Colonial -- she did not make enough putts. I can't remember if she was close enough on approaches to give her a chance at a lot of birds, but I do remember her missing putts that would have had her playing on the weekend.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Robster 7

The accepted reason is power but there are lots of women who hit it just as far as some of the average PGA Tour players so I just don't understand why they can't compete. In a sport where it actually is possible for them to compete on a level playing field, unlike other more physical sports, I just don't understand why they don't?

Don't feed the trolls.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing that I thought about was a potential disparity in carry distance. It seems like in most of the LPGA events that I've watched, the players may get 260-270 out of a drive, but with a fairly significant amount of roll. This would make sense; they have lower swing speeds resulting in 1) less spin and therefore 2) a much shallower angle of descent. After a quick google search, I came across these tables, which I thought were pretty interesting. They were put together using Trackman data for LPGA and PGA tour players.

And for comparison:

The most striking difference to me is the average carry distance. 220 yards vs. 269. 220 won't get you to some fairways on PGA tour courses.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by 460CompMark

they are not strong enough, mentally and physically.

I agree with the physical part, but I think some of the LPGA players over the years had/have the mental game to play with the boys.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by 460CompMark

playing with the boys is one thing, but making the cut is another.

Yeah, but it isn't the mental game that's holding them back in that case. If anything, I've seen a lot more mental collapses on the PGA tour than LPGA. Although Kim may take the cake with that 1 footer...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yeah Im not sure she's fully recovered from that either.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by RonTheSavage

Yeah Im not sure she's fully recovered from that either.

Would you be?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    Leupold Golf
    Snell Golf
    Talamore Golf Resort
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • There are several statements that I disagree with which I feel are important to discuss: All golf balls do not go about the same distance.  A low compression, 2-piece Surlyn covered model will launch higher and with less spin than a 5-piece, high compression urethane covered model which will result in a noticeable difference in distance off the tee.  Dean even stated in another answer "The soft golf ball market has taken off due to the lower spinning balls means players can be longer in distance." Regarding balls for different swing speeds and compression:  3) Bridgestone (and I think Callaway) has come out with tour caliber balls for players who swing under 105mph. Is it possible to design a tour caliber ball for a specific segment of swing speed or is this just mostly a marketing thing?  DEAN: The whole swing speed story to me is one of the most over-rated stories in golf. Companies force or teach golfers to play low compression balls so their low swing speed can compress the ball. The problem with this is that low compression balls have the lowest spin in all shots, so they are pushing players to play a ball with no performance at all… and when you need that spin around the green, it's not there…            I almost don't know where to start on this one.  The concept of designing golf balls based on swing speeds doesn't teach or force players to use a low compression ball...it's about using a ball that has the appropriate compression for your swing speed.  Some players will have better results with a higher compression ball, others will have better results with a lower compression.  Keep in mind, there is a difference between "lower compression" and "low compression".  Most of the urethane tour balls have a compression rating somewhere between the mid 70s to mid 90s.  Tour models like the Chrome Soft, B330-RX and B330-RXS are in the mid 60s, which is lower.  Balls like the Supersoft and e6 are in the upper 30s and 40s, which is considered low.  Dean's statement that "low compression balls have the lowest spin on all shots" is somewhere between a little misleading and flat-out wrong.  It's true that a lower compression ball will spin less (and launch higher) than a firmer ball on full shots.  But on short game shots around the green, the ball is not compressed.  On pitch shots, chip shots, and greenside bunker shots for example,    the only part of the ball that is being activated is the cover. Notice on this chart that the lowest compression ball is very close to the highest spinning, and the lowest spinning ball has almost the same compression rating!  The point is, compression has little to no affect on short game shots...the cover is the main factor.  All 4 of these models have a urethane cover, but the two that provide the most spin have softer covers.  To put this in context, the chart below was a test Golf Digest did in 2015 which shows the performance on a partial wedge shot (I think it was 40 yds) with most of the balls on the market at the time The different colors represented the price point.  These results don't match the first chart I posted exactly which can happen when player testing (this one shows the B330 has higher spin than the RXS). Is there a difference between the lower spinning "red dots" and the highest spinning?  Sure.  There should be though.  Golf balls are designed to have different types of performance for different types of players.  The B330-RX has the lowest spin among the red dot models, but that doesn't mean it's lacking in performance...it spins exactly how the ball designers intended it to, because not everyone wants/needs maximum spin.  Notice the e7...this is a high compression ball very comparable to the B330, but has very different spin characteristics. So again, higher compression doesn't mean higher spin around the green and lower compression doesn't necessarily mean low spin.  About the only thing that I could agree with Dean's comment on would be that all the ultra-low compression balls are Surlyn covered models designed for distance, so it's true that these balls have low spin on all shots and will not offer the same level of performance around the greens, but again, that has more to do with the cover than the compression.  The fact is, there are lower compression balls that perform at the highest level. The B330-RXS is the same type of ball as the Pro V1 in many respects, and performs just as well as, or even better for many players, so I'm surprised by his comments that fitting for swing speed is over-rated and lower compression balls have no performance.  That's like saying getting fit for the correct shaft flex is over-rated, and softer flex shafts don't perform as well as stiffer shafts!  Does anyone consider the Dynamic Gold S-300 to be a lower performing shaft than the Dynamic Gold X-100?  No, of course not. They are designed to do the same thing, but because some players don't swing as fast as others the softer flex will give them better results, just like the B330-RXS is the equal to the B330-S, but will fit players who don't swing as hard better. I'm also not on-board with the opinion that fitting with a driver is a "mistake" and when testing to choose a ball based on 100 yds and in.  I'm not saying that short game performance isn't important, but wow...to claim that testing with a driver is a mistake is ridiculous.  I'll make a simple point on this...anyone can hit good wedge shots with a Pro V1 or B330 or Z-Star.  Fast swingers, slower swingers, high handicappers, low handicappers...it doesn't matter, they can all get good results on wedge shots.  Does that mean that's the ball they should play, and it will work equally as well for the other aspects too?  No.  A wedge can mask any issues in performance because of the loft and backspin, but the driver exaggerates issues.  The same players who hit respectable wedge shots with various tour balls might struggle to keep shots in play or lose potential distance. And before anyone tries to use the old "the driver is used 14 times a round, but half of the shots are inside of 100 yds" argument...save it.  If you play a high spin ball and you're struggling to hit the fairway with your tee shots, that ball will not help you save shots around the green.  Too much spin for players who can't control it is worse than a lower spinning model. Sorry Dean...not trying to blast you or anything, just putting in my two cents.  Ok, maybe more like four cents!
    • So......Is this your point @Jack Watson?
    • https://thesandtrap.com/b/clubs/titleist_716_ap1_review My review for the site is above. I've been using them since writing this review. Excellent clubs. One watch out is with short game shots with the PW and GW. They will go a bit farther than a corresponding chip or pitch with the equivalent wedge. The ball feels like it jumps off the face with good contact. So be careful with that.
    • Thanks for all the comments. I realize change is always hard but single length, lie and weight make so much sense to me. I am going to build a set of Value Golf clubs and see what happens. As improve I may go back to normal but who knows.  I think it will be better for learning the overall game. Which in my opinion and observance needs a lot of help. In my other hobbies that required learned skills it was easy to find groups to help you with the skills and drills to improve them. Businesses that the hobby supported held seminars and workshops covering all aspects. Trying to find help, other than paid lessons, is impossible, at least in my area. 
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Golfgirl10543
      Golfgirl10543
      (43 years old)
    2. jkettman
      jkettman
      (28 years old)
    3. old man1953
      old man1953
      (64 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon