Julie Inkster says LPGA not given due credit....

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, Zekez said:

I also think that the perception by men is that "they" are better than the women professionals so why would i watch the women play any sport that i can be just as good at.  I don't agree with this, but I think that it might be a reason men do not watch much women's sports.

I don't agree.  The people who watch golf, tend to understand golf.  They know the women are very good, and most of us understand that we're not nearly that good.  But the fact remains, we watch tv to be entertained.  A lot of men just aren't entertained enough to watch someone on tv hitting mid-irons into par-4's that are less than 400 yards.

[Zekez]

37 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I don't agree.  The people who watch golf, tend to understand golf.  They know the women are very good, and most of us understand that we're not nearly that good.  But the fact remains, we watch tv to be entertained.  A lot of men just aren't entertained enough to watch someone on tv hitting mid-irons into par-4's that are less than 400 yards.

I wasn't real clear.  I agree with you about the LPGA.  I was more referring to the other professional women's sports.

[BallMarker]

On 8/21/2017 at 11:33 AM, DaveP043 said:

I don't think Ms. Inkster quite understands how the market works.  More people want to watch men's golf.  Therefore more companies are willing to advertise (and sponsorship is advertising) on men's golf.  I understand completely that the women are outstanding players, but what matters for sponsors and advertisers is the number of eyeballs they get their name in front of.

She understands this, I'm sure.

[BallMarker]

On 8/30/2017 at 6:42 AM, David in FL said:

Hell, if you take enough distance out of the equation, I can compete with the PGA Tour players!  

Respectfully, no. you can't.

Ok. well.... you can.

But, even a low ranked lpga player would have to spot you 10 strokes in order for you to "compete"..........   

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, BallMarker said:

Respectfully, no. you can't.

Ok. well.... you can.

But, even a low ranked lpga player would have to spot you 10 strokes in order for you to "compete"..........   

Women are about six strokes worse than men. So it's probably less than 10.

[pmack18]

She gets paid to play golf, I don't really think things can be all that bad, regardless of exposure. 

If she wants to try out 8 to 5 HR cubicle land and trade spots with me, I'll gladly take it! 

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, BallMarker said:

Respectfully, no. you can't.

Ok. well.... you can.

But, even a low ranked lpga player would have to spot you 10 strokes in order for you to "compete"..........   

I think you may have misunderstood.  You need to read the post that I quoted, as well as the post that that poster quoted to understand the context.

Given the context, I stand by my point.  Given enough of a distance advantage, I'll compete with any PGA Tour player you like.  Straight up, no strokes.  So would you.

Edited October 6, 2017 by David in FL

[Vinsk]

There’s probably a little voice in Inkster’s head, along with many others, who see the way social media has essentially brought punishment to anyone who speaks negatively about (in this case women’s golf) despite it simply being fact. It’s basically a thought that ‘Hey, it’s sexist that women don’t get as much money as the men.’ They hope this will override the market reality of it.

[BallMarker]

5 hours ago, David in FL said:

I think you may have misunderstood.  You need to read the post that I quoted, as well as the post that that poster quoted to understand the context.

Given the context, I stand by my point.  Given enough of a distance advantage, I'll compete with any PGA Tour player you like.  Straight up, no strokes.  So would you.

Ok. I may have not known the context of your answer.

But, I still say "no you can't."

Even if you were given a stroke on every hole, my money is on the a PGA pro to still beat you...especially if the course was setup like a PGA tournament.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, BallMarker said:

But, I still say "no you can't."

Of course he could.

If every hole he played was 1/10th the yardage of a PGA Tour player, he'd have no problems wiping the floor with them, week in and week out.

At some point between 1/10th and the full distance, the answer shifts to "no, he'd lose all the time." But of course "given enough of a distance advantage…" he could win every week. We all could.

Back to the topic, though, please.

[Buckeyebowman]

Let me say that I respect women athletes. We used to have an LPGA tourney in our area, and I attended every year. Saw some fantastic golf! A month ago I went out to watch the Youngstown State Univ. Lady's invitational golf tourney at Mill Creek. There were some girls there who would smoke me with no problem!.

And there were girls who, even when I was in my prime, could hit it right up there with me. Maybe past me! But it's just the nature of the beast that more attention is paid to men's sports than women's. After all, I'd be willing to bet that more sports fans are male than female. 

[Vinsk]

45 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Let me say that I respect women athletes. We used to have an LPGA tourney in our area, and I attended every year. Saw some fantastic golf! A month ago I went out to watch the Youngstown State Univ. Lady's invitational golf tourney at Mill Creek. There were some girls there who would smoke me with no problem!.

And there were girls who, even when I was in my prime, could hit it right up there with me. Maybe past me! But it's just the nature of the beast that more attention is paid to men's sports than women's. After all, I'd be willing to bet that more sports fans are male than female. 

I agree. I actually watch quite a bit of LPGA because I'm a complete golf fanatic. However, I don't watch golf, nor any sport, due to my being enthralled by how much better they are than me. It's about how much better they are than everyone. Unfortunately with the women, they are not. It's that simple. Sure there's interest and sometimes even a 'to the wire' finish that's exciting. But the main problem for me is the LPGA simply doesn't have the wow factor. No crazy long shots over water that I could never imagine doing, no drives that seem to defy gravity, going for par 5's in a safe, boring 3...etc. So it's not the package one gets when watching a PGA tournament. Less entertainment, less market value. Lower purses. Done.

[johnclayton1982]

20 hours ago, Vinsk said:

There’s probably a little voice in Inkster’s head, along with many others, who see the way social media has essentially brought punishment to anyone who speaks negatively about (in this case women’s golf) despite it simply being fact. It’s basically a thought that ‘Hey, it’s sexist that women don’t get as much money as the men.’ They hope this will override the market reality of it.

I'm one of those people who have one of those "little voices".  Also, I think somewhere in this thread Inkster's actual comments changed from "more" to "equal".  Those arn't even close to the same thing.

I read the entire thread from the first page to the last. The "market" argument is absolute garbage.  Anyone who makes that argument here must have been vehemently oppressed to the civil rights act, because the opponents there had the exact same arguments.  "If we let black people stay in this hotel, other people won't want to.  That's not us, that's just the market.  That's just giving people what they want - segregated hotels.  It has nothing to do with equality - we shouldn't force people to treat (insert race/gender/religion/whatever) the same economically because the market doesn't treat them the same economically."  That argument is 1950/60s garbage. 

That same argument was used to try to defeat Title IX.  Everyone against it said men's sports are more exciting and therefore "the market" should allow a university to have a $100 million male sports program and a $2 million women's program.  That is basically what anyone in this thread who is arguing about the "market" is arguing.

Sometimes "the market" is racist, sexist, and wrong.  And it probably is in this case.  The same sponsors pay a fraction to sponsor women over men.  Should they be allowed to pay their female attorneys a fraction of what they pay their male attorneys because "the market" allows it?  Of course not.  Sometimes we have to *force* the market to do the right thing because years and years of stereotype and bias have ingrained prejudice so deep that capitalistic forces can't over come it - reading some of the responses in this thread made me throw up a bit in my mouth.  Julie Inkster is better at golf than you could ever hope to be and while you don't have to agree with her she deserves your respect.  She isn't proposing the LPGA send someone to Mars, she is proposing identical ideas to the civil rights act or Title IX, which isn't radical nor does it deserve ridicule.

Nobody has discussed the part about most of the best female players going to play in Korea and desert the LPGA, which is fine - the market! - but is that fine for our daughters?  I don't know.  Isn't it worth 8% of the PGA money to keep the biggest female tour in the world here?  Again, I don't know.  But this conversation of "its the market morons duh" is ridiculous.  That isn't how it works when we deal with a protected class (like gender).  The market has proven itself time and time again to be hideous to minorities.

All of that said, I agree with most of you on the excitement factor.  The PGA is way more exciting than the LPGA.  But I think that is largely irrelevant.  I think the bigger question is if there is a social duty to be more equal in spite of market forces (the way we are with a ton of things like Title IX and the Civil Rights Act).  I actually vote No - professional golf is elite and niche enough that it doesn't need broad discrimination protection, and Korea is stepping up.  But don't act like "the market" isn't one of the most hideously discriminatory forces in the history of our country ("People won't watch integrated professional baseball, so we shouldn't let blacks in.  That's the market.") and don't act like Inkster suggesting that a regime identical to that which exists in a ton of other areas be applied to the LPGA is somehow absurd.  I agree it shouldn't be here, but I don't think Inkster is suggesting some radical, liberal, ridiculous thing.

So I get to the same answer as you.   But I couldn't scream louder my disagreement with your "its the market who cares if its misogynist/racist, the market rules" reasoning.  Telling me watching men is more exciting is fine.  Telling me that Julie Inkster is a nutjob because the market should always decide issues like this is ridiculous and borderline offensive given the history of this country.

Edited October 7, 2017 by johnclayton1982

[Vinsk]

36 minutes ago, johnclayton1982 said:

I'm one of those people who have one of those "little voices".  Also, I think somewhere in this thread Inkster's actual comments changed from "more" to "equal".  Those arn't even close to the same thing.

I read the entire thread from the first page to the last. The "market" argument is absolute garbage.  Anyone who makes that argument here must have been vehemently oppressed to the civil rights act, because the opponents there had the exact same arguments.  "If we let black people stay in this hotel, other people won't want to.  That's not us, that's just the market.  That's just giving people what they want - segregated hotels.  It has nothing to do with equality - we shouldn't force people to treat (insert race/gender/religion/whatever) the same economically because the market doesn't treat them the same economically."  That argument is 1950/60s garbage. 

That same argument was used to try to defeat Title IX.  Everyone against it said men's sports are more exciting and therefore "the market" should allow a university to have a $100 million male sports program and a $2 million women's program.  That is basically what anyone in this thread who is arguing about the "market" is arguing.

Sometimes "the market" is racist, sexist, and wrong.  And it probably is in this case.  The same sponsors pay a fraction to sponsor women over men.  Should they be allowed to pay their female attorneys a fraction of what they pay their male attorneys because "the market" allows it?  Of course not.  Sometimes we have to *force* the market to do the right thing because years and years of stereotype and bias have ingrained prejudice so deep that capitalistic forces can't over come it - reading some of the responses in this thread made me throw up a bit in my mouth.  Julie Inkster is better at golf than you could ever hope to be and while you don't have to agree with her she deserves your respect.  She isn't proposing the LPGA send someone to Mars, she is proposing identical ideas to the civil rights act or Title IX, which isn't radical nor does it deserve ridicule.

Nobody has discussed the part about most of the best female players going to play in Korea and desert the LPGA, which is fine - the market! - but is that fine for our daughters?  I don't know.  Isn't it worth 8% of the PGA money to keep the biggest female tour in the world here?  Again, I don't know.  But this conversation of "its the market morons duh" is ridiculous.  That isn't how it works when we deal with a protected class (like gender).  The market has proven itself time and time again to be hideous to minorities.

All of that said, I agree with most of you on the excitement factor.  The PGA is way more exciting than the LPGA.  But I think that is largely irrelevant.  I think the bigger question is if there is a social duty to be more equal in spite of market forces (the way we are with a ton of things like Title IX and the Civil Rights Act).  I actually vote No - professional golf is elite and niche enough that it doesn't need broad discrimination protection, and Korea is stepping up.  So I get to the same answer as you.

But I couldn't scream louder my disagreement with your "its the market who cares if its misogynist/racist the market rules" reasoning.

No. You’re kinda wrong. The market is based on what product is being delivered. The attorney analogy makes no sense. The female attorney is providing a product just as good if not better than her male counterparts. In sports the product is entertainment. And you said so yourself that the PGA is more entertaining than the LPGA. More entertainment means more money. “Game of Thrones” actors make more than “ The Newsroom.” The actors can work just as hard and as many hours in one but make a fraction per episode as the other. Period. Nobody said the LPGA is less deserving because they’re women. The purses are smaller because their product is inferior. You can’t force someone to like something out of fear of being labeled sexist. They are respected and compensated based on the value of what they are producing which is a concept today’s snowflake generation can not grasp. Everybody gets a trophy and the Kardashian’s are bazillionaires. 

 

“I just don’t understand how all these companies get away with supporting PGA Tour events and not supporting the LPGA.”

Inkster said this. So no, she’s not understanding the economics of the Market..or at least she’s refusing to.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Vinsk

[johnclayton1982]

37 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

No. You’re kinda wrong. The market is based on what product is being delivered. The attorney analogy makes no sense. The female attorney is providing a product just as good if not better than her male counterparts. In sports the product is entertainment. And you said so yourself that the PGA is more entertaining than the LPGA. More entertainment means more money. “Game of Thrones” actors make more than “ The Newsroom.” The actors can work just as hard and as many hours in one but make a fraction per episode as the other. Period. Nobody said the LPGA is less deserving because they’re women. The purses are smaller because their product is inferior. You can’t force someone to like something out of fear of being labeled sexist. They are respected and compensated based on the value of what they are producing which is a concept today’s snowflake generation can not grasp. Everybody gets a trophy and the Kardashian’s are bazillionaires. 

 

“I just don’t understand how all these companies get away with supporting PGA Tour events and not supporting the LPGA.”

Inkster said this. So no, she’s not understanding the economics of the Market..or at least she’s refusing to.

No, I get it.  Its not hard to grasp what the market is.  I understand shows with more viewers are more valuable than shows with less.  My point is that the market doesn't always make the best decisions for (1) society or (2) for morality.  Slaves were legal for a hundred years.  Was that just "the market" ?  Shouldn't we have just let those market forces play out?  I mean, a business with slaves is Game of Thrones and a business without slaves is the Newsroom.  So why should we interfere?  An enterprise is way more valuable if it doesn't have to pay minimum wage, so under your theory, why does it exist?

Of course you can force something like this.  The civil rights act did exactly what Julie Inkster is proposing here.  It forced people to treat minorities equal in business.  Title IX forced it.  Affirmative action forced it.  You don't agree with forcing it.  That doesn't mean its impossible.

Quote

They are respected and compensated based on the value of what they are producing which is a concept today’s snowflake generation can not grasp.

Do you have any idea how many people would have said this about blacks in 1955 while arguing the Civil Rights Act was un-necessary? Blacks were thought of as less productive, lazy, etc...  Now, 60 years later, that seems silly.  But it took us *forcing people* to hire these "less productive" black workers in order to change the opinion and the market and society.

The problem with your statements is that the concept of "value" is a subjective one based on human prejudice.  If we had a value machine that could perfectly calculate someone's value you'd be 100% right.  But we don't.  Racists and sexists don't calculate value correctly.  Therefore, the market becomes skewed.  You can't rely on human preference in every single decision because a whole lot of the time those human preferences are, in hindsight, awful.

Inkster is saying that given the chance with more cash the LPGA could promote and become much more popular, but an artificial ceiling is there bc sponsors are allowed to lowball them (exactly the same argument as virtually every minority who wants the market interfered with).  I don't agree with her, but her argument isn't crazy, and as a legend of golf she deserves the respect of everyone on this board IMO.  The level of disrespect you've shown her is awful form, even if you disagree and the defense of "the market" is absolute drivel.

Your last sentence makes me think you don't understand your own argument.  The Kardashians are billionaires BECAUSE OF A STUPID MARKET.  If you love the market, and they have a ton of demand, don't they - by your own reasoning - *deserve* to be billionaires?

Edited October 7, 2017 by johnclayton1982

[Vinsk]

17 minutes ago, johnclayton1982 said:

o you have any idea how many people would have said this about blacks in 1955 while arguing the Civil Rights Act was un-necessary? Blacks were thought of as less productive, lazy, etc...  Now, 60 years later, that seems silly.  But it took us *forcing people* to hire these "less productive" black workers in order to change the opinion and the market and society.

You're completely not grasping this. Women are not barred from playing golf. Hell, the women can play on the PGA tour. Why don't they? If they want more money then they are welcome to play on the PGA Tour and win big money. Why don't they? So..the men can't play on the LPGA, why not? Is that fair? Comparing the oppression of the blacks in the 60's to the pay being less for LPGA golfers is asinine at best. Apparently you're not too keen on America and capitalism. It's a free market. The best product wins. Are you suggesting that we adopt a socialist system where money shares are manipulated to pay out regardless of product demand? Forcing sponsors to pay the LPGA purses more despite the viewership/ratings? Is that what you think is right? Wow.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, johnclayton1982 said:

I'm one of those people who have one of those "little voices".  Also, I think somewhere in this thread Inkster's actual comments changed from "more" to "equal".  Those arn't even close to the same thing.

I read the entire thread from the first page to the last. The "market" argument is absolute garbage.  Anyone who makes that argument here must have been vehemently oppressed to the civil rights act, because the opponents there had the exact same arguments.  "If we let black people stay in this hotel, other people won't want to.  That's not us, that's just the market.  That's just giving people what they want - segregated hotels.  It has nothing to do with equality - we shouldn't force people to treat (insert race/gender/religion/whatever) the same economically because the market doesn't treat them the same economically."  That argument is 1950/60s garbage. 

That same argument was used to try to defeat Title IX.  Everyone against it said men's sports are more exciting and therefore "the market" should allow a university to have a $100 million male sports program and a $2 million women's program.  That is basically what anyone in this thread who is arguing about the "market" is arguing.

Sometimes "the market" is racist, sexist, and wrong.  And it probably is in this case.  The same sponsors pay a fraction to sponsor women over men.  Should they be allowed to pay their female attorneys a fraction of what they pay their male attorneys because "the market" allows it?  Of course not.  Sometimes we have to *force* the market to do the right thing because years and years of stereotype and bias have ingrained prejudice so deep that capitalistic forces can't over come it - reading some of the responses in this thread made me throw up a bit in my mouth.  Julie Inkster is better at golf than you could ever hope to be and while you don't have to agree with her she deserves your respect.  She isn't proposing the LPGA send someone to Mars, she is proposing identical ideas to the civil rights act or Title IX, which isn't radical nor does it deserve ridicule.

Nobody has discussed the part about most of the best female players going to play in Korea and desert the LPGA, which is fine - the market! - but is that fine for our daughters?  I don't know.  Isn't it worth 8% of the PGA money to keep the biggest female tour in the world here?  Again, I don't know.  But this conversation of "its the market morons duh" is ridiculous.  That isn't how it works when we deal with a protected class (like gender).  The market has proven itself time and time again to be hideous to minorities.

All of that said, I agree with most of you on the excitement factor.  The PGA is way more exciting than the LPGA.  But I think that is largely irrelevant.  I think the bigger question is if there is a social duty to be more equal in spite of market forces (the way we are with a ton of things like Title IX and the Civil Rights Act).  I actually vote No - professional golf is elite and niche enough that it doesn't need broad discrimination protection, and Korea is stepping up.  But don't act like "the market" isn't one of the most hideously discriminatory forces in the history of our country ("People won't watch integrated professional baseball, so we shouldn't let blacks in.  That's the market.") and don't act like Inkster suggesting that a regime identical to that which exists in a ton of other areas be applied to the LPGA is somehow absurd.  I agree it shouldn't be here, but I don't think Inkster is suggesting some radical, liberal, ridiculous thing.

So I get to the same answer as you.   But I couldn't scream louder my disagreement with your "its the market who cares if its misogynist/racist, the market rules" reasoning.  Telling me watching men is more exciting is fine.  Telling me that Julie Inkster is a nutjob because the market should always decide issues like this is ridiculous and borderline offensive given the history of this country.

I just watched the video, and the main thing that stuck is that she said the event was a win for Women's Golf. She gave credit to her players who worked for each other and not just for points. Other than that, I didn't get the impression that she was saying LPGA is not given credit?

We have quite a few lady players near where I live, and I regularly see one high school senior player with her parents criticizing her strikes at the driving range. She swings very well, and hits past almost all of the men at the range. Guessing she's ranked somewhere and will go to a D1 golf college? Many others also play quite well. Being 6 strokes behind the men is "just" a distance thing, and they play really great golf.

What most people don't seem to understand is that 6 strokes behind the men is still like a scratch male player. Scratch is pretty amazing, and for some reason people don't seem to realize this based upon many posts I see on this site. I have no idea why anyone would think it's not awesome playing?

[Vinsk]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I just watched the video, and the main thing that stuck is that she said the event was a win for Women's Golf. She gave credit to her players who worked for each other and not just for points. Other than that, I didn't get the impression that she was saying LPGA is not given credit?

We have quite a few lady players near where I live, and I regularly see one high school senior player with her parents criticizing her strikes at the driving range. She swings very well, and hits past almost all of the men at the range. Guessing she's ranked somewhere and will go to a D1 golf college? Many others also play quite well. Being 6 strokes behind the men is "just" a distance thing, and they play really great golf.

What most people don't seem to understand is that 6 strokes behind the men is still like a scratch male player. Scratch is pretty amazing, and for some reason people don't seem to realize this based upon many posts I see on this site. I have no idea why anyone would think it's not awesome playing?

Game 5 of the WNBA finals was on. Didn’t even know it was happening. Every single one of those players would demolish me on a one on one game. WNBA viewership is dismal at best. They’re awesome basketball players. Again, and this point just seems to be repeatedly missed, the LPGA has the best women golfers on the planet. It simply doesn’t have the excitement/entertainment value as the PGA. Not because the women are oppressed, not because they aren’t treated fairly, not because they aren’t given a fair opportunity. As @johnclayton1982 clearly doesn’t get, the women are more than welcome to compete with the men and win big money. They choose not to. The answer as to why they choose not to is why they receive smaller purses. And not being ‘due credit’ is exactly what Julie complained of. I’m simply saying based on the free market system she’s got nothing to really complain about. Unlike @johnclayton1982 believes, the woman are not being told ‘you can’t play golf and make money because you’re female.’ They are playing and being paid accordingly.