Originally posted by Trot_to_Trotsky
No, I understand what you’re saying, and I agree…to a point.
But you’re looking at the progression of golfing in one big lateral spectrum, illustrated below:
High School teams -> Amateur golf -> LPGA -> PGA
I’m saying golf is like this:
Men’s HS Teams -> Men’s Amateur -> PGA
Women’s HS Teams -> Women’s Amateur -> LPGA
They don’t run together…they have two different tracks.
I see that you sort-of understand my point, but you are still making a mistake. This “seperate tracks” problem can be applied in the exact same way to the events I discussed. Wrestlers, boxers, etc, advance within their own weight classes if they do not choose to move up into other brackets (for wrestling, a sample sequence might be HS Heavyweight -> College Heavyweight -> International (amateur) Heavyweight). Note that wrestlers in seperate brackets usually (after HS) advance within those same brackets. LPGA is on the same level as PGA in the same way that a olympic Heavyweight is on the same level as, say, a olympic 215-pounder (I don’t know the olympic weight classes, and they’re actually done in kgs, but you get the idea). You don’t have to go through 215 to get to Heavyweight (competitively). So, 215-pounders advance in their own bracket, seperate from Heavyweights, but if a 215-pounder wants to move up, this will be allowed (although, outside of HS, not advised). The fact that wrestlers are on the same “team” in HS does not indicate that they advance the same way into college. They compete seperately, just as women’s and men’s teams compete seperately. What I am talking about is purely competition. Just as wrestling is divided into weight classes in order to protect competition at lighter weights, professional golf is seperated into a “men’s” tournament and a women’s tournament. The difference is that, while the LPGA is designed to showcase the best female golfers, the purpose of the PGA is simply to showcase the best golfers.
Note that, as with boxing or wrestling, the best golfers may not have the greatest technical skills at golf, but they do play better as a result of advantages in strength. The best heavyweight boxer would by virtue of strength crush almost all competition from lighter weights, making it perfectly fair to call this boxer the best boxer, period, although his actual technical skills at boxing may be less than other boxers in other classes. The heavyest class, the most open age group, and, I feel, the event designated for men exist uniquely among all other groups to determine the very best that an event as a whole has to offer. The best heavyweight boxer is the best boxer, the best heavyweight wrestler is the best wrestler, and the best PGA golfer is the best golfer. In this sense an individual from a different group, if valuable to competition, should be allowed to compete.
If she wants to mesh them together, then I think men should have every right to play in the LPGA, because it’s not like boxing. A male golfer is not going to kill a female golfer because he is a better athelete than her. Those standards are put in for safety reasons (and for boxing and wrestling, you’re really cemented in your weight class, to a point. You’re not going to jump up to heavyweight if you’re a wirey 110 pound fly-weight Cuban, nobody will sanction you, and you’ll probably die), not just for flippant “we’re against you being smaller” restrictions.
True to an extent (weight classes in wrestling are very small, so two of the lower weights, intermingled, would not result in anyone getting hurt, just a loss of competitors from the lower bracket), but because you have seized upon my weight example you’ve forgotten the age example. Take, for instance, Wimbledon. This tennis tournament has a junior tournament. If adults play against teenagers, the result is not death or harm, it’s just boring. However, if a teenager is good enough, there is nothing stopping him from playing in the actual tournament.
In fact, most distinctions in most sports exist not to guard against injury, but to, as mentioned above, foster greater and more varied competition for a larger group of people.
Plus there’s money to be factored in. She’s taking a spot from someone who would have made the cut at the Colonial anyway (not a real prestigious tourney, to say the least) and some no-name golfer who is struggling to make it will be pushed out of the running by her publicity hungry antics. That’s not cool…
Oh, poor professional golfer, can’t earn enough money, has to get a job . . . pishaw. I knew that you were on the Left, but protectionism for golfers? That’s just bizarre.
I agree, however, that money must be considered, although in a different way. People who pay to see professional golf pay to see the best in the world compete against one another. If she is one of the best in the world, then they deserve to get their money’s worth.
