She'll play from the men's tees ...

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

I'm still struck by how sensitive people seem on this issue.

Accounting firms don't have male and female divisions, so what is the logic for professional golf to do so?

More to the point, doesn't that logic break down when one sex is permitted to play in the other's tournaments but the other is denied?

Why support a double standard?

You are asking me to take a rest. Is that your way of acknowledging that the double standard doesn't make sense?

[TEPaul]

Dan:

When you ask me what rule is being broken by the Ct Section when they allow a man to tee off from one set of tees and women from another, can probably begin to be answered by Tim Weiman's question, (Does this also men that a male competitor can play from a different tee than his fellow competitors?), (fellow competitor in this case would be men in the same division of the same tournament and not something like the regular seniors and Super seniors who aren't actually competiting against each other).

As to the rule that would prevent this. It's not much more than the fundamental rule of golf that ALL competitors in scratch competitions, which as far as I know all professional events are and always have been, play the SAME golf course under the same rules (which in almost every case I know of are the unified rules of the USGA & R&A).

When you start to abridge and comprise that fundamental of scratch golf you start to get into the world of "handicapping" and, again, that's where this is leading and in the professional realm particularly which I've never heard of and hope doesn't happen.

I hope this never happens in any serious scratch or nonhandicapped competitive event, amateur or pro, men against men, women against women, or even women against men!

It's just a fundamental of golf competition that ALL competitors play the SAME golf course under the SAME rules which I would prefer to see be the rules in the rule book.

[Tim Weiman]

John Conley:

I see this as genuine disagreement rather than outrage. The two concepts mean something different to me. It is not a question of semantics. What we do here is discuss, disagree and even, occasionally, agree.

To answer your specific question, I probably disagree most with the local PGA and possibly Whaley and the PGA Tour.

From what I gather, it is common to have 1 or 2 locals participate in PGA Tour events. I don't really have a problem with that.

Further it sounds like the CT section held a competitive event to determine who would qualify. Fine. Where I think they got bizarre is allowing senior males and females to play from different tees than other competitors AND from different tees than they would play if they happened to win and play in the GHO.

I use the word "bizarre" because I think there has been a blurring of reality on this issue. Defenders of the CT section vascilate between saying Whaley qualified (great story, isn't it?) and saying that, in fact, she just earned a sponsor's exemption. Whaley herself adds to the confusion with her public statements.

I don't recall saying she shouldn't accept the invite. However, I do think talking about "making history" is inappropriate. What history has she made that Babe Didrikson hasn't already accomplished?

Whaley has a "right" to accept a sponsor's exemption just like anyone else. My disagreement is with how that exemption was earned and the politically correct presentation of what is happening.

My rights are simply those of a fan. I'm not a member of the CT section, an official with the PGA Tour or the sponsor. I hope this matter does not mean fans should no longer feel free to comment, even if the views they express are unpopular.

[TEPaul]

I sure wish there was some way on Golfclubatlas when people disagree with each other, and that one or the other, or both, could stop getting so upset, so hurt, so offended and appear to think there's something culturally offensive about someone disagreeing with you!

It's almost treated like some kind of emotional murder on here if someone thinks someone else is wrong and says so! Why not, then, from now on, just say "I disagree with you", and leave it at that instead of saying "You're wrong" if people are so sensitive as they appear to be on here?

So what if someone disagrees with you--so what even if you're wrong?

My God, even I might be wrong up to 2% of the time and Pat Mucci's clearly only right about 2% of the time!

What's the difference really?

OK, so what if it's about 96%

Big Deal!

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Are you saying Dan King has found a loophole?

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Some of the "sensitivity" one finds here I think I understand. Possibly someone has trashed your home course or favorite architect that you may even be friends with.

But, on this issue I'm baffled. The young women I spoke to in order to gain perspective seemed far more comfortable discussing the issue - and criticizing Whaley - than folks are here.

Maybe people just want it to be a nice story and don't want anyone pointing out contradictions. That happens.

[John_Conley]

Tim:

I understand your viewpoint completely.  You are the one who used the word bizarre?  Anyway, I completely agree with you that the inclusion of a Sponsor's Invite with a win in the Section event is a bit odd.  All "they" would have to do is say, MUST COMPLETE FROM BACK MARKER TO WIN EVENT, PURSE PAID OUT REGARDLESS OF MARKER PLAYED.

Suzy Whaley says, "I got 1st Place money, but wasn't considered the Section Champion because I played a forward set of tees."

The other guys says, "I lost first place money to a lady when I couldn't close the deal, but am considered CHAMPION because I had the low score for those playing the back tee."

I don't think either would complain.  (They aren't complaining now, to my knowledge.)

There is precedence for this in competitive golf.  Jim Thorpe got the Western's 1st Place check, but was not considered the "Champion" when Scott Verplank won as an amateur.  You can pay a purse out along one guideline - in this case, professionals entered - and recognize order of finish along another - all entrants.

[John_Conley]

But, on this issue I'm baffled. The young women I spoke to in order to gain perspective seemed far more comfortable discussing the issue - and criticizing Whaley - than folks are here.

Specifically, what are they criticizing her for?  I understand some think she should turn down the invitation, but I also think 1) it is HER decision, and 2) it is a known fact that the GHO is hurting for a sponsor and her husband is a key employee at the club.  Perhaps she's been "asked" to play a little more than a normal sponsor's invite.

As I see it, she can save the event for at least another year.  Their fundraising efforts will go much better now that she's commited to play.

[Tim Weiman]

John Conley:

My recollection is that Whaley received criticism as a symbol of rules these women disagreed with. They just don't buy the handicapping thing. See how serious they are about practicing and you can understand why.

If I were to take the other side, part of what the Tour is about is entertainment. The IMG crowd is always trying to come up new ideas. The commercial side of me understands that. But, I suspect these young women think more about the competitive aspect and aren't concerned with the financial prospects for the GHO.

[JohnV]

Tom Paul, I assume that you feel that the Wendy's Three Tour Challange is not a legal event either then?

There is nothing in the Rules of Golf that prohibits the Committee from determining who plays from what tees in any event, scratch or handicap.  As a matter of fact, it is one of their duties in setting up the course for the competition.

Tim, The LPGA, Futures Tour and the USGA for all women's events have a clause in their entry form that states, "Must have been born a woman"  There is no such equivalent clause in any of the men's events.  The clause was added after Renee Richards started playing in women's tennis events.  If you wish to challange that in court and try to play, I'm sure that you could get some lawyer to help you.  You could probably even make some money on the Future's Tour.

As I think I stated before, the PGA of America restricts qualifiers for the PGA Championship to those who play from the back tees at the Club Pro Championship.  The section could have done that before the event and I'm sure that Suzy Whaley would not have objected.  She played in the CPC from forward tees this year and didn't object to the clause then.  BUT, they didn't do that so she rightly got the spot when she won.  Any crying about it is way too late at this point.

[Tim Weiman]

John V:

My future won't include playing on any tour. Just sampling the world of golf architecture is all I hope for.

I'll still never forget seeing Dan King, Hawaiian shirt and all, sitting on the bench approaching the #14 tee at Pacific Dunes. For me that experience is far better than playing in the GHO!

[John_Conley]

Tim:

That is exactly the problem with discussion of this issue.  Whaley can end up being the target for disagreement or frustration in another area.

I started a thread over a month ago that wondered whether 10% is the right number.  If it is, should it be evenly applied to each hole, or is it an aggregate number that provides a nice target.  As we saw at Hazeltine, absolute yardage is misleading.  That 7300+ yard course played "short" for a lot of pros because the distance was buried in the four very long par 5s.  My post went on to say that an architect may have a future analyzing data and making the required adjustments to all golf courses, as every course could conceivably host a PGA of America event.  

My guess is that the PGA Sections just march up a bit and set the block, with little or no thought.

Alas, that thread died in a matter of hours and nobody else wanted to use this site for the same meaningful discussion you and I like - at least on that issue.

When Bethune-Cookman won the NCAA Minority College Championship, who did you have a problem with?

* the event's governing body - which I think is also the PGA of America - for allowing a team that didn't mirror the racial complexity of the school they represented
* the Europeans on the BCC team for playing well enough to win
* the coach and AD at BCC for entering a team in the field when they clearly did not meet the intent of the rule
* the other "true minority" schools for not boycotting the event or forcing changes that would exclude Bethune Cookman prior to teeing it up
* or someone else?

Mike O'Toole from Granite Falls, MN won the individual portion of this event over a decade ago playing for Eddie Payton's Jackson State team.  Where does blame or fault lie for letting that happen?  I think all reasonable people agree that he SHOULDN'T have been playing in the event to begin with.

Like the Whaley case, the National Minority College Tournament is not a black-and-white issue.  There are many shades of grey.  I remember hearing a lot of outrage about that as well, but most people didn't pinpoint where their frustrations lie.  I bring it up to show yet another instance where seemingly well-intended rules and guidelines can often have unintended ripple effects.

Title IX is a great rule, with horrible implementation.  When people say, "Title IX sucks!" it is usually misdirected anger at the implementation of the well-intended rule.

All I ask is that when people tell me they don't like something, tell me specifically what you don't like.  I usually agree with the core beliefs others have, or at least respect them.  

Florida State "shouldn't" be playing in a BCS game.   I hear it a lot.  But I have yet to hear a viable plan to take them out.  Don't forget, any proposal has to get clearance from the ACC Commissioner.  I'd like to see someone else point out why FSU and the Conference shouldn't get the $13 Million payday they deserve for agreeing to go along with the present BCS structure in the first place.

I may seem like I am rambling, but I toss these out to illustrate how many contentious issues have complex sub-plots that go a long way to explain how we end up in a quandary that often results from well-intended decisions.

[George Pazin]

Maybe people just want it to be a nice story and don't want anyone pointing out contradictions. That happens.

More likely we're all just a bunch of argumentative SOBs...

P.S. to JC -

Poor implementation of a well intentioned idea usually means the idea was wrong in the first place.

[Rick Shefchik]

John -- It would seem at this point that the GHO needs Suzy Whaley more than she needs the GHO.

Even though I disagreed with the procedure under which Whaley qualified for the GHO (I think your last post outlines a perfectly reasonable alternative: the automatic bid to a PGA event goes to whichever player scores lowest from the PGA tees), I have no problem with her accepting the bid that she won according to the rules in existence.

My concern, however, is about what might come next. If a struggling tour event (and, according to recent accounts, many of them are struggling) decides that the best way to retain its attendance is to invite a woman, or women, to play -- regardless of their ability to compete -- has the integrity of the event, and the tour, been compromised?

Maybe the Tour is too dull now. The marketplace generally decides quite efficiently when a product is no longer worth the money being charged. But I think there are better alternatives to restoring interest in weekly PGA Tour events than mixed-gender, handicapped competition.

I suspect, however, that a spike in attendance and/or TV ratings for this year's GHO is going to convince other tournament promoters that adding a woman is the easy way out. Then what? What otherwise non-qualified contestants or stunt events could be added to the mix: Alternate tees, three shots per side, golf carts allowed, blind bogey, super skin holes, buying a mulligan, etc. Anna Kournikova may be getting fitted for a set of Pings as we speak.

I don't mean this post to sound condescending to women. Any woman who can play with the men ought to eligible to compete for a spot in a PGA tournament. That would be good for the game. But I'm afraid tour stops are going to exploit this wrinkle, which will be nothing new for women.

[Dan King]

Tim Wieman writes:
If that is the case, isn't it time to eliminate sex discrimination on the LPGA Tour?

Nope.

Second, I'm no expert on the rules of golf, but you appear to be saying that nothing in the rules prevents a man from teeing off from a different (and shorter) set of tees than fellow male competitors.

You play from the tees the Committee specify. It isn't up to the competitor to decide what tees, it is up to the Committee.

TEPaul writes:
When you ask me what rule is being broken by the Ct Section when they allow a man to tee off from one set of tees and women from another, can probably begin to be answered by Tim Weiman's question, (Does this also men that a male competitor can play from a different tee than his fellow competitors?),

My understanding is the Committee would be within their rights, according to the Rules of Golf, to specify all men should play from forward tees and all women from back tees. My guess is if such a tournament were to take place, women would be disinclined to sign up. The Rules of Golf say the Committee determines what tees you are playing from and you must play from the tees they specify. I don't believe there is any rule saying that they can't determine some tee off from one set of tees and some from another.

It could be an interest in fairness, but I'm fairly sure it has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf.

I haven't ever given an opinion on Whaley, my position is if you throw around Rules of Golf, better to be able to specify chapter and verse. I'd rather people not make up Rules of Golf, especially doyen's who could have significant influence on some of the impressionable youth on this forum.

But I might as well state my opinion. I think Whaley competing in a PGA Tour event is a wonderful thing. I think some day women will be able to compete on a level playing field with men in golf, but we aren't there yet. Part of the reason is a lack of role models. Perhaps Whaley will convince some young girls that they can compete with young boys. It's a baby step, but it has to start with baby steps. We are not near the point now that it is a level playing field between men golfers and women golfers, so why pretend we are?

Dan King

"In 1587 golf's first famous woman player [Mary Queen of Scots] was convicted and beheaded. Women's golf went into something of a decline after that."
 --Rhonda Glenn

[Tim Weiman]

John Conley:

Surprise, surprise. I hate the BCS and wish we could go back to the old bowls. At least under that system we could argue who the best team was without any pretense of fairly settling the matter.

Rick:

At the end of the day, I suspect money will rule. Whaley represents a good story, ticket sales and advertising dollars.

Questions about how she earned her spot won't make the cash register ring. Come to think about it, I must be "irrational"!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
I'll try to keep my comments in a narrow band and apply them to professional golf played for prize money.
Tour diivisions exist so players can compete within peer groups. We recognize divisions in many other sports and understand the various reasons why they exist. Some are related to ability or age or sex , others to safety and others to establish viewing markets.
In the world of golf we recognize that the PGATour is at the top of golf's divisional heap.
Stifling any sportperson's professional quest by saying: "if you reach or surpass the top of your respective division you cannot participate at the highest level because of your gender, race, religion, old age, etc.," is the only true "Double standard". That is one reason the PGA Tour sets performance and not gender as one of it's main criteria for membership. They realize that if a player has the ability to rise to the highest level of play they deserve the right to compete with their peers.

[Tim Weiman]

Dan King:

It sounds like you have found a loophole. Clever man, indeed! I'll let the learned Mr. Paul respond. His knowledge of the rules far surpasses mine.

But, I can't understand why you think women are close to being able to compete on the PGA Tour but still support sex discrimination on the LPGA Tour. Isn't it a workplace just like any other? Why the special exemption?

Shouldn't less talented, perhaps shorter hitting men, be able to compete on the LPGA. What if they can't beat male PGA players but can beat female LPGA players? Shouldn't they be able to make a living on the LPGA? Why hold their sex against them?

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

I see two fair and reasonable regimes. First, one where sex discrimination is accepted. Men play in men's events and women play in women's events.

The alternative is to open up all professional golf to members of both sexes and avoid sex discrimination altogether.

That's the best way to avoid any double standard.

Preventing less talented males players from playing on the LPGA is just as wrong as denying capable women from playing on the PGA.

Professional golf is a workplace. Consistency and fair standards should apply. The Whaley matter has - or should - open up a can of worms.

[John_Conley]

Pazin:

Don't know that I agree, but I can see why you say that.

Rick:

Good points.  Don't know what this could lead to.  I think it will be a one-time novelty, like NBC airing a Jets game with no announcer or tennis scoring 1,2,3 instead of 15-30-40?!    Time will tell.

Tim:

No problem if you hate the BCS, but it was born in reply to those who felt Washington and Miami should have played in 1991 and that 1996 would have had a better finish if undefeateds Florida State and Arizona State met "on the field".  No BCS this year?  Washington State meets Ohio State (over Iowa, in an almost arbitrary tiebreaker because they didn't play) in the Rose, Miami probably chooses to take on Georgia in a home game at the Orange Bowl.  Imagine the cries from sportswriters and fans!!  (As I've stated 1000 times, there has never been a better system to select the National Champion for Major College Football.)

Dan King:

Great point about the Rules.  A guy once told me I couldn't chip out from under a tree with the back of my 7-iron.  "It says in the Rules of Golf that you have to use the face of the club to hit the ball."  Okay to tell me I better check before I do it, but to tell me - with certainty - when it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about?  That troubles me.

[John_Conley]

But since nobody ever said that exemptions, whether earned or unearned, must be given to people coming from level playing field competitions, I have no problem with this (other than the obvious fact that she's taking a spot from someone who has a much more legitimate chance to do well).

Shiv:

Thanks for the assist.  

Point taken, but then you really are in a discussion far bigger than Whaley.  Jeff Julian, Johnny Bench, Deane Beman, Mark Rypien, Gary Nicklaus, Ray Floyd's kids, and many others have been given invitations to many events on both the PGA Tour and Champions Tour that could have easily gone to more accomplished players.  I'll lump Curtis Strange, an ABC announcer, into this group for receiving an invite to Disney this year even though he still makes cuts on Tour.  His days of Top 10 finishes appear to be in the past.

Unfortunately, I don't see the Whaley-GHO episode leading to meaningful discussion on that subject.  Just a rhetorical question, but aren't a lot of people saying that the PGA Tour should have formal standards for who can receive an invitation from one of the sponsors?

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Schmidt:

I don't have your legal mind, but do think sooner or later the right of the LPGA to dscriminate will be challenged. People who champion Whaley now will be to blame when that finally happens, in my humble opinion.

Yes, you have been missing a good party even if some have stormed out in protest.

[Dan King]

Tim Wieman writes:
It sounds like you have found a loophole.

No loophole. It's just left up to the Committee. The Committee makes these sort of decisions. If their decisions result in an unfair tournament, people won't sign up for the next year. They have to maintain fairness to stay credible.

Regarding the Ct. PGA, if enough of their members believed Whaley got an unfair advantage it would hurt their future credibility. Apparently enough of them haven't been bothered by it to force the Ct. PGA to change their ways.

But, I can't understand why you think women are close to being able to compete on the PGA Tour but still support sex discrimination on the LPGA Tour. Isn't it a workplace just like any other? Why the special exemption?

I had a feeling you weren't just going to accept my "Nope."

Women have been kept second-class citizens, especially in sports, for centuries. Only in the recent past have we made the effort to level the playing field. But as in any race, you can't hold back some of the contestants at the starting line for a long time, then let them go, saying now it is a fair race. You have to give them the opportunity to get caught up.

I think for women to succeed at sports, or numerous other endeavors, they will need opportunity, instruction, role models, expectations and rewards (and perhaps a nice shrubbery.)

Whaley obviously doesn't answer all these issues. You make a strong argument that her earning this spot hurts in expectations. But I feel her job as a role model is more important at this stage than expectations.

By the way, I don't think Babe Zaharias in entirely a fair comparison. There is no way to compare qualifying for a PGA event in 1938 and today. The 1938 L.A. Open had something like 150 contestants trying for 90 spots. Current tournaments have hundreds of golfers trying for four spots. I've never found what contestants shot in those qualifying tournaments, but I have read that George Zaharias entered (and qualified) for the 1938 L.A. Open after having broken 80 for the first time in his life.

Dan King

"Women were no longer content to be regarded as purveyor of fun in mixed foursomes, or as a member of some race apart who should be confined to scratching in a nice little hen-run with dear little  holes of 20 yards to so whilst the menfolk looked on in amused tolerance."
 --Eleanor Helme (on the forming of the Ladies Golf Union)

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Very good point of yours to bring up the Casey Martin case in the context of any potential lawsuits involving players trying to break into playing on other tours (LPGA whatever) in the context of discrimination policies and tour organization rules.

Clearly the PGA Tour was gambling by sticking with the case brought by Martin that a judge COULD HAVE ruled on the Tour's right to make their own rules, but, in fact, that did not happen (the original Northwest Judge was extremely clever on that point, in my opinion).

He ruled only on the physical facts and merits of Casey Martin himself in light of the one rule of "walking only" and ruled in Martin's favor in that context. And the lower court's logic and ruling was upheld through the Appelate Court and also in the US Supreme Court!

The effect of that clever lower court ruling was that any player suing a tour's policies or rules under the ADA must bring their own individual cases against any organization on the merits of the particular situation invoved. In this way, the Martin ruling did not really address the Tour's ability to make their own rules and the ADA did not become and "open door" vehicle for entry to the tour. Each case needs to stand or fall on it's own merits, in other words! Great Ruling!

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

You ask a very fine question about my mention of allowing any player to play scratch tournaments from other than the same tees violates some rule of golf!

I would expect nothing less from you and this is a great example of the value of some of the contributors to Golfclubatlas, their thinking and in depth knowledge!

And you're completely right to ask that anyone who's throwing around and citing the rules of golf should be able to back it up chapter and verse!

I can't do that at the moment. I looked in the rule book and can not now find anything to back up what I said.

I do view this issue, though, as a fundamental principle of golf and the Rules of Golf. I'll look some more for it and if I can't find it I'll run it by the USGA. If they won't or can't answer it and I can find no logic of what I'm saying anywhere, I sure will admit it and that I'm wrong to base what I said on a rule, principle or even what I thought was a supposed fundamental of golf!