LPGA's Lincicome will play in PGA Event in July

[lastings]

She's probably not good enough to make any waves here, but, I say good for her.   I'll root for her.  

Women generally lack the ability (and Distance) to compete on the PGA tour.   The one exemption is that I believe that Annika Sorentstam could have kept a PGA tour card form the mid-'90s to the mid-2000s.   

 

[dsc123]

Geeze, don't you guys get tired of arguing past each other?   There are two ways to get in: (A) qualify based on golf scores or (B) get a sponsor's exemption.  All he's saying is that she earned the sponsor's exemption on merit.  He is indisputably right.  She didn't buy the spot.  She didn't get it because her daddy is someone famous.  She proved herself worthy of a sponsor's exemption by playing good golf and being a good person. 

[jsgolfer]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

PR stunt. Pure and simple. And as always for sponsor invitations I’m okay with that reason.

This ^^

5 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

Geeze, don't you guys get tired of arguing past each other?   There are two ways to get in: (A) qualify based on golf scores or (B) get a sponsor's exemption.  All he's saying is that she earned the sponsor's exemption on merit.  He is indisputably right.  She didn't buy the spot.  She didn't get it because her daddy is someone famous.  She proved herself worthy of a sponsor's exemption by playing good golf and being a good person. 

But a sponsors exemption isn't based on merit or the golfer would be good enough to get in on their playing ability alone (Monday Qualifier)

[dsc123]

51 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

This ^^

But a sponsors exemption isn't based on merit or the golfer would be good enough to get in on their playing ability alone (Monday Qualifier)

Right, she did not win a Monday Qualifier, and likely couldn't.  Nobody has said otherwise.  

But it does not follow that she did not receive the exemption based on merit. 

Yes, the exemption could have gone to anyone.  Including someone who did nothing to earn it.  He is just making the point that in this case, they gave it to someone who they believed had earned it by her play and character.  Therefore, in this case, they awarded it to her, based on merit. 

 

If you're unpersuaded that the word "merit" can mean something other than winning a Monday Qualifier then fine.  But then you're just debating the definition of a word and ignoring the guy's point. 

 

 

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, lastings said:

She's probably not good enough to make any waves here, but, I say good for her.   I'll root for her.  

Women generally lack the ability (and Distance) to compete on the PGA tour.   The one exemption is that I believe that Annika Sorentstam could have kept a PGA tour card form the mid-'90s to the mid-2000s.   

No. She would not have.

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

Geeze, don't you guys get tired of arguing past each other?   There are two ways to get in: (A) qualify based on golf scores or (B) get a sponsor's exemption.  All he's saying is that she earned the sponsor's exemption on merit.  He is indisputably right.  She didn't buy the spot.  She didn't get it because her daddy is someone famous.  She proved herself worthy of a sponsor's exemption by playing good golf and being a good person. 

She did not get in on golf merit. She’s nowhere near good enough to compete on the PGA Tour.

She got in because of the PR value. Just like Steph Curry and Jerry Rice.

She didn’t get in because she can compete. Or because she’s a nice person.

PR.

[dsc123]

Okay.  Its pretty clear to me that nobody disagrees with most of what you guys are saying, including the guy you're arguing against.  I guess I failed to solve the whole talking past each other thing.  Oh well.  Good luck! 

[lastings]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No. She would not have.

She did not get in on golf merit. She’s nowhere near good enough to compete on the PGA Tour.

She got in because of the PR value. Just like Steph Curry and Jerry Rice.

She didn’t get in because she can compete. Or because she’s a nice person.

PR.

I don't know.   In 2004 Annika had a scoring average of 68.69.   That year, the bottom 25 card holders had an average of 72.52 (3.83 strokes worse).   The tour average was 71.17 (2.48 strokes works).   
(obviously, she's playing shorter courses)

Annika also had an average drive that year of 268.2 which would be tied for last with Corey Pavin.   But, Pavin was 90th on the money list adn had 2 top 10s, so it shows it is possible to compete with that distance.    And her driving accuracy of 77.7% would have led the PGA tour in 2004.    

obviously, she knows how to score, and her distance wasn't so far short that it would knock her out of contention.   

 

 

 

 

[Jeremie Boop]

22 minutes ago, lastings said:

I don't know.   In 2004 Annika had a scoring average of 68.69.   That year, the bottom 25 card holders had an average of 72.52 (3.83 strokes worse).   The tour average was 71.17 (2.48 strokes works).   
(obviously, she's playing shorter courses)

Annika also had an average drive that year of 268.2 which would be tied for last with Corey Pavin.   But, Pavin was 90th on the money list adn had 2 top 10s, so it shows it is possible to compete with that distance.    And her driving accuracy of 77.7% would have led the PGA tour in 2004.    

obviously, she knows how to score, and her distance wasn't so far short that it would knock her out of contention.   

 

 

 

 

That scoring average was for courses that played significantly easier. 

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, lastings said:

I don't know.   In 2004 Annika had a scoring average of 68.69.   That year, the bottom 25 card holders had an average of 72.52 (3.83 strokes worse).   The tour average was 71.17 (2.48 strokes works).   
(obviously, she's playing shorter courses)

Annika also had an average drive that year of 268.2 which would be tied for last with Corey Pavin.   But, Pavin was 90th on the money list adn had 2 top 10s, so it shows it is possible to compete with that distance.    And her driving accuracy of 77.7% would have led the PGA tour in 2004.    

obviously, she knows how to score, and her distance wasn't so far short that it would knock her out of contention.   

• Softer greens.
• Slower greens.
• Non-existent (relatively speaking) rough.
• 1000 yards shorter courses (an extra 55 yards per hole, on average).
• Holes not cut on the edges of the greens.
• Wider fairways.

She wouldn't have come close to keeping her PGA Tour card. It'd surprise me if she made 10% of the cuts.

She couldn't make the cut at a tournament she chose because it gave her the best chance of competing.

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

Okay.  Its pretty clear to me that nobody disagrees with most of what you guys are saying, including the guy you're arguing against. I guess I failed to solve the whole talking past each other thing. Oh well. Good luck! 

I guess you did, because you said:

2 hours ago, dsc123 said:

He is just making the point that in this case, they gave it to someone who they believed had earned it by her play and character.  Therefore, in this case, they awarded it to her, based on merit. 

No, she didn't. Her play in no way earned the spot. She didn't "earn" the spot at all - she was gifted the spot because of the PR ramifications.

You say her play helped her "earn" her spot in the championship, and I say it didn't at all. That's the "merit" about which everyone is arguing.

It's a PR stunt.

[JonMA1]

Regardless of the fact that it's a publicity stunt, for me it's interesting to see how well or poorly a professional woman can play on a course setup for the guys. Everyone knows she won't make the cut, but can she shoot below 80, 75...?

It's not a big deal one way or the other, but if I get a chance, I'll watch the coverage or at least check the scores.

[lastings]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

• Softer greens.
• Slower greens.
• Non-existent (relatively speaking) rough.
• 1000 yards shorter courses (an extra 55 yards per hole, on average).
• Holes not cut on the edges of the greens.
• Wider fairways.

She wouldn't have come close to keeping her PGA Tour card. It'd surprise me if she made 10% of the cuts.

She couldn't make the cut at a tournament she chose because it gave her the best chance of competing.

 

1000 yards shorter courses (an extra 55 yards per hole, on average). - This seems like alot.   But, I can't find data.     all i can fin is the The LPGA average is 6,500 now and hasn't changed much in the last decade.  .   but, I can't find a PGA average.     I can see that Shinnecock Hills played at 6,999 at the 2004 us open.   Seems odd that the US Open would be playing 500 yards shorter than the PGA tour average..   

She couldn't make the cut at a tournament she chose because it gave her the best chance of competing. - 71-74 seems pretty decent considering the Tiger like Media frenzy she was in middle of.     lotta pressure on that one tournament. just kinda seems like if she settled in and the spectator frenzy died down she could have competed.   not at the top, but, she could make a fair amount of cuts.  maybe a few top 20s.    

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by lastings

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, lastings said:

1000 yards shorter courses (an extra 55 yards per hole, on average). - This seems like alot.   But, I can't find data.     all i can fin is the The LPGA average is 6,500 now and hasn't changed much in the last decade.  .   but, I can't find a PGA average.     I can see that Shinnecock Hills played at 6,999 at the 2004 us open.   Seems odd that the US Open would be playing 500 yards shorter than the PGA tour average..

LPGA Tour courses were about 6300 to 6500 yards back then.

PGA Tour courses were 6900 to 7200. So okay, not 1000, but 30-40 yards longer per hole is three to four clubs extra, plus she's already the shortest player on the Tour.

29 minutes ago, lastings said:

She couldn't make the cut at a tournament she chose because it gave her the best chance of competing. - 71-74 seems pretty decent considering the Tiger like Media frenzy she was in middle of. lotta pressure on that one tournament. just kinda seems like if she settled in and the spectator frenzy died down she could have competed.   not at the top, but, she could make a fair amount of cuts.  maybe a few top 20s.    

Not a chance.

Let's say she finishes T58 at the Farmer's Insurance Open (I'm using all 2018/2017 numbers). That's $15,180.

Let's say she makes the cut in HALF of the 30 PGA Tour events she plays and finishes about that same position: that's a whopping $227,700.

She only has to find almost $600,000 to come close to keeping her Tour card for the next year!

[lastings]

21 minutes ago, iacas said:

 plus she's already the shortest player ever.

seems like an exaggeration, considering that she was tied with Corey Pavin that year in Driving distance.   The same Corey Pavin that finished T17 at that US Open I mentioned above.  

but, I understand she was probably shorter with the irons, and an extra 600 yards per course is no joke.    

All that said, she was pretty damn dominant.       Obviously not a great sample, but day 1 of her only PGA event was a 15 par, 2 bogey, 1 birdie, 71.     At a course playing at 7,090 yds.   if the range is 6900-7200, this would not be at the short end of PGA layouts.  

Day 2 she was on the cut line through 12 holes.

http://www.espn.com/golf/story?id=1557324

Again, a small (the smallest) sample size, but that doesn't strike me as someone that is completely over-matched.  

 

but, you may be right.   I don't know.   we'll never know.  

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by lastings

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, lastings said:

seems like an exaggeration

You missed my correction. I meant to say on the Tour. And she's already hitting in from as far away as anyone else on the Tour.

5 minutes ago, lastings said:

http://www.espn.com/golf/story?id=1557324

Again, a small (the smallest) sample size, but that doesn't strike me as someone that is completely over-matched.

It should. She chose that course as offering her the best chance to compete. It played to her strengths. It didn't have a strong field.

And she missed the cut. If she had made it, and finished T58… 15 times… she'll still have less than 1/3 of the $ required to keep her PGA Tour card.

---

Back to the topic, though, please.

[Vinsk]

8 minutes ago, lastings said:

I'm rooting for Lincicum and wish her the best.  

And that’s just fine. I’m fine with her getting a SE, we’re all fine with that. Many of us just get a little irked when someone has to go and mention her or any other female golfer ‘maybe being good enough to...xyz’ No. They’re not. Period. No sexism, no insults and we are all for these types of PR events. But let’s keep it real. Just as @iacas mentioned the interview with McEnroe regarding Serena. No chance. Zero against Federer. Serena herself said she’d be lucky to win one point.

Keep it real ok? It’s cool she gets to play with the men. She nor any other female has any prayer competing on the PGA tour. None. Otherwise, enjoy it for what it is and let it be.

[jsgolfer]

3 hours ago, dsc123 said:

Okay.  Its pretty clear to me that nobody disagrees with most of what you guys are saying, including the guy you're arguing against.  I guess I failed to solve the whole talking past each other thing.  Oh well.  Good luck! 

I’m glad she’s playing and maybe she’ll make a good showing of it, but we just disagree on it being merit based. 

[Shorty]

10 hours ago, lastings said:

I believe that Annika Sorentstam could have kept a PGA tour card form the mid-'90s to the mid-2000s.   

 

Oh for heaven's sake  - what complete and utter nonsense. Why do people just invent stuff? Look at the guys who couldn't hold their cards for more than a couple of years. She's be eaten alive by any of them. And she'd admit it. You may as well say that Michelle Wie could have made it because she was a long hitter at 16 years of age.

9 hours ago, dsc123 said:

 She proved herself worthy of a sponsor's exemption by playing good golf and being a good person. 

She did NOT!

The sponsors want her there. Fine. Noone has a problem with that. But it has nothing to do with her golf game - obviously she was chosen because she plays golf.  Being a "good person" -  that applies to 98% of the world's population. It's a commercial decision - not a reward for being a lovely person and someone who regularly finishes between 20 and 50th in LPGA tournaments.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Shorty

[boogielicious]

The fact that we are discussing this at length shows that the sponsor's decision to add her was a good one. We're talking about a tournament that most on this site would not pay attention to at all because it is opposite a major.

Brittany is a long hitter for the LPGA, 271.70 average this year, but that is short for the PGA. In addition, the length she can hit her irons is significantly shorter than the average PGA player, or even the shortest PGA player. She is at a big disadvantage.

That being said, I hope she has fun.