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

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24

It's in the rest of the post.

Regarding making $200k and making a living, I don't know enough to spout off real-life examples, but you must understand that the $200k is only revenue, not profit.  They still have tournament related expenses (maybe they are sponsored for these?  Not sure), other training expenses, and taxes on their revenue to pay.  $200k in winnings may sound like a lot to you and me, but I'd be surprised if they actually take home even half of that.

Depends on the state they live in how much they get taxed too. Some professional athletes will have their official residence in a state that has no income tax.

For someone making $100K-$200k a year, state income taxes aren't all that significant. For example, in California, which has some of the highest state income tax rates, a single taxpayer earning $200k would pay about $16k in state taxes. Federal taxes would be the major hit.

[Jeremie Boop]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

For someone making $100K-$200k a year, state income taxes aren't all that significant. For example, in California, which has some of the highest state income tax rates, a single taxpayer earning $200k would pay about $16k in state taxes. Federal taxes would be the major hit.

Yes, federal taxes will be the lions share of what is taken, but if you move to a state with 0 income tax and keep that $16k?

[460CompMark]

glad i live in Texas

[Pappy091]

It's in the rest of the post.   Regarding making $200k and making a living, I don't know enough to spout off real-life examples, but you must understand that the $200k is only revenue, not profit.  They still have tournament related expenses (maybe they are sponsored for these?  Not sure), other training expenses, and taxes on their revenue to pay.  $200k in winnings may sound like a lot to you and me, but I'd be surprised if they actually take home even half of that.

Sorry, the rest of your post didn't pop up. Yes, I understand the difference between gross and net, but my point still stands. That is a living wage. They aren't going to be rich, but they could make a living.

[Jeremie Boop]

Originally Posted by Pappy091

Sorry, the rest of your post didn't pop up.

Yes, I understand the difference between gross and net, but my point still stands. That is a living wage. They aren't going to be rich, but they could make a living.

To be honest, if I could play golf for a living and make what I do now I'd be happy as hell, let alone close to 6 figures.

[Pappy091]

You have got to be joking. If a male member joined the PGA Tour and was the shortest driver in addition to being in the bottom 5% in every category, I promise you, they aren't making cuts and making a living.

Jesus, of course I'm joking.

[bplewis24]

Yes, federal taxes will be the lions share of what is taken, but if you move to a state with 0 income tax and keep that $16k?

True, but you may lose it elsewhere.  For example, I've read that in a state like Texas, they have higher than average sales and some of the highest property taxes around.  For our purposes it's probably not worth factoring in, but my point is simply that earning $100-200k on tour as the worst player who occasionally makes a cut does not necessarily mean you are making a great living, especially if you're at risk of losing your tour card each year (I'm not sure how that works either).

Originally Posted by Pappy091

Yes, I understand the difference between gross and net, but my point still stands. That is a living wage. They aren't going to be rich, but they could make a living.

That's the thing though, it's not exactly a living wage.  If I have an employment agreement with a $200k salary, that's what I see in my bank account and then I have other living expenses.

But--and I don't know this for sure--if they make $10,000 from a single tournament, those are winnings that may be net of, say, a $5,000 entry fee and $1,500 in travel expenses.  Do they have entry fees on tour?  Do their sponsors pay it?  I don't know any of this, but I'm guessing it's not as cut-and-dry as you or me taking home a paycheck for our salary/hourly wage.

They also have living expenses like the rest of us, but their pre-tax earnings have to be viewed a bit differently than the average worker's pre-tax wage.

[WUTiger]

Originally Posted by saevel25

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.

Differences in male and female body structure influence tendencies in golf swings. For women, the center of gravity is in the hips. For men, the center of gravity is in the torso.

This may play out as potential for developing power in a golf swing.

Can any teaching pros or athletic trainers expand on this?

It's about the distance thing. For example, the LPGA will play in the Ricoh Women's British Open this week at St. Andrew's. Some comparisons with the men's Open Championship there in 2007:

• Men's 2007: Course Par 72 at 7,302 yards. No. 17 Road Hole played as 495 yd. par 4
• Women's 2013: Course Par 72 at 6,672 yards. No. 17 plays as 443 yd. par 4

The women will play a course 630 yds. shorter, or an average of 35 yds. less per hole, than the male pros did.

That said, the tees I normally play at my home course are more than 600 yards shorter than what the women will play at St. Andrew's, or about 35 yds. less per hole.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Pappy091

Jesus, of course I'm joking.

NO you aren't.

You seem to seriously believe that a woman could make cuts on the big tour and you make quasi scientific arguments to back it up.

Despite evidence against you. Sorenstram and Wie to start with.

Fact is, there are many par 4s the women couldn't reach in 2 on tour and very few have distance or accuracy all through the bag.

As for short game, that's been covered throughout the years pretty well.

A person who makes claims such as yours has clearly never seen a top level player hit a ball in person.

That's not a criticism, it's just that if you had, you wouldn't be saying what you are.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

For example, I've read that in a state like Texas, they have higher than average sales and some of the highest property taxes around.

Very true. If you live in a $300k house in Texas, you're probably paying as much or more than people in other states pay in income taxes.

But back to the topic at hand, I still want to see the empirical formula that shows that LPGA players can compete on the PGA tour.

[Hacker James]

I have not really looked into it. The only professional player that I know personally (and actually, it is his spouse that I know), is Lennie Clements. He survived for years just staying in there. He nearly won a major once, (or at least I think it was a major), came close a number of times, was in the top ten frequently,  but never really made the lime light.  He is currently selling real estate in Coronado California along with his wife, Jan. I have not talked with either of them for several years since I got out of real estate and they moved away from Rancho Bernardo/Poway.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Hacker James

I have not really looked into it. The only professional player that I know personally (and actually, it is his spouse that I know), is Lennie Clements. He survived for years just staying in there. He nearly won a major once, (or at least I think it was a major), came close a number of times, was in the top ten frequently,  but never really made the lime light.  He is currently selling real estate in Coronado California along with his wife, Jan. I have not talked with either of them for several years since I got out of real estate and they moved away from Rancho Bernardo/Poway.

You're right, he had years where he was in the top 10 frequently.  His best year appears to be 94, where he had six top 10s and eleven top 25s, and earned $432k on the PGA tour.  He was near bottom of the tour in driving distance that year (186th), and was in the 70s for both scrambling and sand saves, which appear to be his best stats.

http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01201.lennie-clements.html/season/#uber

[theworldengine]

Ill take a contrarian perspective and argue that its not necessarily lack of distance that this keeping the women away.  Lack of distance is keeping away the women that do play golf.  Then there are women who could drive a golf ball 15 yds further than women pros, but they instead pursue other sports such as basketball or volleyball.  I am familiar with a dude that was a practice player for a top womens basketball team, and he confirms that they are far stronger and more physical than normal women.  If these girls had been trained their whole lives to swing a club they would outdrive Mike Weir lol!  It comes down to a huge lack in participation of girls in the game of golf.

[Pappy091]

NO you aren't. You seem to seriously believe that a woman could make cuts on the big tour and you make quasi scientific arguments to back it up. Despite evidence against you. Sorenstram and Wie to start with. Fact is, there are many par 4s the women couldn't reach in 2 on tour and very few have distance or accuracy all through the bag. As for short game, that's been covered throughout the years pretty well. A person who makes claims such as yours has clearly never seen a top level player hit a ball in person. That's not a criticism, it's just that if you had, you wouldn't be saying what you are.

You can use all the capital letters that you want, but I promise you that I don't actually have a scientific formula that tells me who can and can't make the PGA tour. I have made no scientific argument. Quasi or otherwise. I am stating an opinion. It's not embedded In the bedrock of my faith or anything. Just one mans opinion. Not even a claim. Sorenstam came within 4 strokes of making the cut and that was with the enormous pressure of being the only women and the media circus that led up to that tournament. So unless you think that under those circumstances she had one of the best games that she could play (which she very might have) then I will say that it's not exactly far fetched to say that if she played in more PGA tournaments then she would be able to make a few cuts and get a few paydays.

[newtogolf]

The best LPGA player, Inbee Park, is ranked 80th in driving distance average, almost 27 yards shorter than Nicole Smith who's ranked #1.  Inbee is also 52 in driving accuracy at 73.7%, but she's #1 in putting avg and putts per gir.  Stacy Lewis is ranked #2 , 33rd in driving accuracy, 22nd in driving distance and putting avg but 2nd in putts per gir.    Seems the best women golfers aren't winning because of distance it's because of their short game.

Maybe if Nicole Smith could putt or Inbee could drive the ball 270 they could compete with the men.

[marmooskapaul]

Two things...

I average the same distances that the LPGA bracket showed a few posts ago... I'm an 9.6 hdc?? I should watch/listen to them. We have a lot more in common than me and any PGA pro...lol

Any LPGA pro would not be able to keep/earn a tour card on the PGA. Thats not a put down, just a veiw/fact until proven different.

Paul

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by theworldengine

Ill take a contrarian perspective and argue that its not necessarily lack of distance that this keeping the women away.  Lack of distance is keeping away the women that do play golf.  Then there are women who could drive a golf ball 15 yds further than women pros, but they instead pursue other sports such as basketball or volleyball.  I am familiar with a dude that was a practice player for a top womens basketball team, and he confirms that they are far stronger and more physical than normal women.  If these girls had been trained their whole lives to swing a club they would outdrive Mike Weir lol!  It comes down to a huge lack in participation of girls in the game of golf.

That's actually a fair point.  A while ago, pretty good athletes started to pick up golf and continued competing in the higher levels of the sport.  I still don't think women's golf has that kind of draw.  Imagine Serena Williams as a golfer.  She could probably do some damage to a ball if she had the coordination for it.  Are there any of those types of athletes in women's golf?  Most of the bigger women I see in the sport are soft and pudgy looking, except Michelle Wie.

[MS256]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

That's actually a fair point.  A while ago, pretty good athletes started to pick up golf and continued competing in the higher levels of the sport.  I still don't think women's golf has that kind of draw.  Imagine Serena Williams as a golfer.  She could probably do some damage to a ball if she had the coordination for it.  Are there any of those types of athletes in women's golf?  Most of the bigger women I see in the sport are soft and pudgy looking, except Michelle Wie.

The same could be said about some of the men. They are certainly in better physical condition than they were in years past but most of them still would never be mistaken for an NFL linebacker.

Of the women on tour I would say Suzann Peterson is the most well conditioned of the bunch.

Every little bit helps when it comes to conditioning but there is so much more to golf than strength that it's not the major factor. It's not even the major factor for distance in golf. Bubba Watson's arms are toothpicks and he can hit the ball a ton.

The subject reminds me of a quote from John Kruk when he was one of the more pudgy baseball players. A lady on an airplane asked him what he did for a living and he told her he was a baseball player. She told him he didn't look like an athlete and he replied "Lady I'm not an athlete. I'm a baseball player."