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

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Schmidt:

Not sure I completely follow the legalize, but I can't imagine how the LPGA or the PGA would not be considered a workplace. If not, then what is it?

Dan King:

I understand the history and your 1960's reference to changing civil rights laws.

The reason I described what is happening with young women golfers today is to illustrate how much things have changed since I was growing up.

I was just lucky as a kid to find a few old Titleists and be allowed on the golf course. By contrast, my nine year old daughter has high school coaches trying to recruit her.

In the world she is growing in, girls have every opportunity to practice and play golf as the boys. Thus, I can't see why a double standard should be kept in place much longer.

To deny men the right to make a living on the LPGA Tour while permitting women the right to do so on the PGA Tour simply isn't fair or sustainable. Sooner or later some guy will challenge it and both Tours may regret how the Whaley matter has been handled.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Dan King always brings a thoughtful angle. I'll be interested to hear what the USGA says.

P.S. More than once I've fantasized about winning the US Open. Please advise if you discover an angle that will help me enough to make it actually happen. Surely, you and Dan can think of something.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

This is why you're a lawyer and I'm not! Those questions are beyond my memory and possibly my understanding.

I do remember an "inside the ropes" argument from the Tour but I can't recall whether that was just all part of the Martin case progression or a separate stop and ruling, so to speak. I think I remember that "inside the ropes" in the PGA Tour context was "outside" the workplace (as Tour players are independent contractors) and therefore somewhat exempt in a "public accomodation" context, which basically the ADA encompasses, or is supposed to.

So I don't know whether there was any precedent setting for carts or localities or anything like that. I only remember reading the actual case, all the way through, and the reporting that anyone bringing a case in the ADA context would have to do it on any future case's own merits.

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Schmidt:

I can see the headlines now:

"Golfclubatlas.com discussion opens up LPGA......Martha Burks challenges Augusta to follow LPGA example".

Even better would be if Tommy Naccarato became the first male winner on the LPGA Tour.........

SI's "What kind of man logs on to Glofclubatlas.com?" will become even more famous in the annals of golf!

[CHrisB]

Can anyone figure out a way for me to join the Girl Scouts?

ChrisB, Male, Age 32

[sensitive 70's man]

This whole issue was dealt with much more consisely in an Afterschool Special. In this particular movie, Will threw a wrench into the works when he showed up at his older sister Jenny's cheerleading tryouts and attempted to get on the squad. The movie was the defining point in this argument and it basically summed up everything: treat your sister with respect and don't be a jerk. Men have plenty of avenues to ride down in getting from point A to point B. Anyway, this is old news. The ABC television network put it to bed a long time ago--like in the 70's.

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt:

I had a post for you but couldn't post it, didn't lose it and will post it later.

But if it's true what you say about Martin being considered a "customer" pertaining to "public accomodation" in the context of ADA law, that's nothing like what I thought the effect of the US Supreme Court ruling was.

That would be far more disasterous for the PGA Tour or other sports, and sports organizations, in my opinon!

I like to think of myself as a fair man, capable of considering the plight of others who might be unfortunate, disabled, whatever, but eventually a logic needs to set in before things become truly illogical, or unworkable as to their survival--and I hope to construe that in the finest sense for all, and all things considered!

[DMoriarty]

It appears that I ruffled a few feathers (Tim's and TEPaul's, namely) by referring to Tim W's position as "irrational."  Tim and Tom, I apologize if  my use of the term offended you or your sense of decent, formal debate (If I had known our debate was so formal, I'd have worn a tie.)  

Tim, let me assure you that I was not calling you, your mother, or your many female friends irrational, just your application of PGA Tour standards to what I view as a business association's member event.  

In the future I will try to use a more politically correct term.  So I don't bumble into offending anyone else,  maybe one of you two more experienced posters could instruct me on the proper way to express my belief that another's argument takes an unjustifiable leap in logic (such as when another treats Tour Pros and Golf Instructors on equal footing since they both have "professional" in their name.)

Or, perhaps you lead by example.  Next time I will consider following Tim's lead and refer to the offending post as "bizarre, more so, in my opinion, than any I have seen put forth on this site."  And perhaps I should emphasize this point like Tim by repeating that the argument "makes absolutely no sense."   This may be the way to go since TEPaul also is apparently a follower of the "makes no sense" school.  

I only made the remark about the debating society out of control because I was reading DMoriarty's reponses to the quotes he inserted of yours.

With many of his responses, for me anyway, it wasn't a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing with what he was saying--I just thought he was all over the place, bringing apples into an orange discussion and whatnot. In a debate, a formal one anyway, it's sort of important to stick to the subject of the debate and not to bring points or things into that subject that don't relate, and to say at the same time that he doesn't even know why he's posting (or debating) as the whole thing seems ridiculous to him anyway.

TEPaul, I enjoy reading many of your posts (of course I don't have time to read through them all!) and almost always respect your opinion.  That is why I hope you will pardon me when I disregard your viewpoint that my argument on this thread was "was all over the place."   After all, it took you 75 posts (10 of which were your own) for you to figure out that: 1) Mrs. Whaley played shorter tees in the sectional, and 2) that Mrs. Whaley was not playing shorter tees in the GHO.  Perhaps if you had spent a little bit more time reading and a little less writing you would have understood what I was getting at.  Or, perhaps not.  

Always a Pleasure.

[Dan King]

Tim Weiman writes:
In the world she is growing in, girls have every opportunity to practice and play golf as the boys. Thus, I can't see why a double standard should be kept in place much longer.

You can't discriminate for centuries and then believe the results of that discrimination goes away in a generation. It's going to take a while. Black golfers were discriminated against for a long time and only now, more than three generations later, are we just beginning to see results from sacrifices of people like Bill Spiller, Ted Rhodes and Charlie Sifford.

And I'm not arguing legalities. I don't believe the legal system is a good barometer of ethical issues. I'm not arguing the PGA Tour® should be forced to include women, only that it is in their best interest to encourage women to reach their full potential. It's an ethical, not a legal issue.

The PGA Tour charter is to identify the best golfers. That isn't the charter for the LPGA, Senior Tour or AJGA. These tours identify the best of a subset.

It is in the best interest of the PGA Tour to ensure the best players in the world play on their tour. Why would they intentionally restrict their membership to 50% of the potential pool?

Another part of the problem is that it isn't in the LPGA's best interest to see women succeed on the PGA Tour. I believe that is part of the reason the tour has gone to a setup that encourages accuracy over strength.

Note: I don't believe there is any legal reason the PGA Tour couldn't be the Men's Professional Golf Tour if they decided they wanted to be. Gender specific organizations have proven to be legal.

But why would the PGA Tour want to go from being a tour for the best players in the U.S. to a tour for the best male players in the U.S.?

More than once I've fantasized about winning the US Open.

Me, I've always wanted to play on a Walker Cup team. Course, if I were to win the U.S. Open, I'm betting they'd give me a spot on the Walker Cup. But the U.S. Open has far too much celebrity for my taste. Walker Cup: something a small group of people are very impressed with, and they seem to have the coolest reunions. No U.S. Curtis Cup team fantasies, but I do have an individual Curtis Cup fantasy for Leigh Ann Hardin.



Dan King

No one could expect a married women with young children to win a championship. It would be enough grounds for a divorce."
 --Sir Ernest Holderness (former British Amateur Champion on plans for matches between the Ladies Golf Union of Great Britain and American golfers, 1931)

[Yogi Berra]

If Babe Zaharias were alive today, she'd be rolling in her grave!

[CHrisB]

I am so impressed that Dan King can scan and post a picture out of his wallet like that!  Dan, aren't you going to share what she wrote on the back?

[Tim Weiman]

Dan King:

I'm actually a far bigger fan of the Walker Cup. Bob Lewis, who will captain the next US team, once told me he felt far more pressure competing in the Walker Cup than the US Amateur or the Masters. For spectators, the Walker Cup blows away any professional event, in my experience.

Women may have experienced discrimination for centuries, but I really believe the opportunities young women have today to practice and play exceed what I experienced growing up. That's a lot of change in just one generation. That's why the young women I spoke to think the Whaley situation already represents outdated thinking.

Speaking of outdated thinking, just consider the reference to being a "jerk" as found above. What makes a male without the skill to compete on the PGA Tour a jerk for wanting to earn a living on the LPGA?

At some stage, the logic of allowing one sex to compete on both tours but denying the same to the other sex will fall apart. For the time being, supporters of this concept are just hoping no man will want to suffer the abuse of being called a jerk. Meanwhile, they want credit for how open minded they are being about Whaley. A classic example of trying to have it both ways.

Dan, I'm all for providing opportunity to women to reach their potential. But, why does that mean supporting a double standard? How is that ethical? Do we have to wait centuries to achieve some consistency?

One final point. The only sport I played competitively growing up was swimming. I can assure you that at least thirty five years ago the girls worked as hard as the boys in the pool. To even suggest any sex discrimination took place is totally wrong. Race discrimination? Absolutely. But, sex discrmination? No way.

DMoriarty:

Anytime you want you can accuse me of an "unjustifiable leap of logic". It would be bizarre (or irrational) of me to suggest otherwise!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
What the laws don't do is regulate private associations, such as the LPGA or the PGA Tour, if it so chose, from excluding members based on gender. The SC decision used the Q-school as an example of the public having access to the PGA Tour, a big part of their decision. Q-school for the Tour doesn't limit access by gender but as a private association it could. The LPGA Tour is gender specific. It might be tough to call but I believe they would prevail in the end.

An interesting find when reading the SC decisions is how they are used in Tour events. Dan King is so right and not loopholing the rules at all. In the Martin case the court explained the use of the rules as follows:

Three sets of rules govern competition in tour events. First, the “Rules of Golf,” jointly written by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of Scotland, apply to the game as it is played, not only by millions of amateurs on public courses and in private country clubs throughout the United States and worldwide, but also by the professionals in the tournaments conducted by petitioner, the USGA, the Ladies’ Professional Golf Association, and the Senior Women’s Golf Association. Those rules do not prohibit the use of golf carts at any time.

    Second, the “Conditions of Competition and Local Rules,” often described as the “hard card,” apply specifically to petitioner’s professional tours. The hard cards for the PGA TOUR and NIKE TOUR require players to walk the golf course during tournaments, but not during open qualifying rounds. On the SENIOR PGA TOUR, which is limited to golfers age 50 and older, the contestants may use golf carts. Most seniors, however, prefer to walk.

    Third, “Notices to Competitors” are issued for particular tournaments and cover conditions for that specific event. Such a notice may, for example, explain how the Rules of Golf should be applied to a particular water hazard or man-made obstruction. It might also authorize the use of carts to speed up play when there is an unusual distance between one green and the next tee

[Dan King]

ChrisB writes:
Dan, aren't you going to share what she wrote on the back?

There are certain things a gentleman leaves as private.

Tim Weiman writes:
Women may have experienced discrimination for centuries, but I really believe the opportunities young women have today to practice and play exceed what I experienced growing up. That's a lot of change in just one generation.

So you believe the playing field is now level?

Practice and play is one part of the equation, but there is still plenty of work.

Do you believe the gap between the best men's player and best women's player is there because that is the size of the gap between their potentials? Is it only because of the superior strength of men, or is there something inherently superior about men that make them better golfers?

Speaking of outdated thinking, just consider the reference to being a "jerk" as found above.

Wasn't me that said it, was it?

At some stage, the logic of allowing one sex to compete on both tours but denying the same to the other sex will fall apart.

Do you ever get upset when you hear that people under 18 can compete in AJGA and PGA Tour® events, but those over 18 can't compete in both? Should that be grounds for some sort of lawsuit?

There is no Men's Professional Golf Tour (actually not sure if they changed, but when I looked into four or five years ago the European Tour was restricted to males.) If you wanted to start a men's tour, I'm fairly sure there is no legal reason you couldn't. If the lack of a men's tour bothers you, start one.

It isn't that the men's tour allows women while the women's tour doesn't allow men. There is an unrestricted tour and a woman's tour. Yes, men do not have a tour all their own, only because there hasn't been a lot of need for one. At some future date, when the line between the best male golfer and the best golfer widens, then there might become a reason for a men's tour.

A classic example of trying to have it both ways.

I'm failing to see the inconsistency in my position.

Dan, I'm all for providing opportunity to women to reach their potential. But, why does that mean supporting a double standard?

You are seeing a double standard where none exists. The lack of a men's tour doesn't mean anyone is stopping it from happening. Market forces are not the same as legal forces. Some might call you a jerk for trying to start it, but I'm guessing your skin is plenty thick enough to handle that.

Dan King

"This is another thing I like about golf, the exclusiveness. Of course most country clubs exclude the wrong kinds of people, such as me. But I hold out the hope that somewhere there's a club which bans first wives, people in twelve-step programs, Sting, the editorial board of the Boston Globe, and Ross Perot."
 --P.J. O'Rourke (Men's Journal, 1992)

[TEPaul]

DMoriarty:

As you mentioned earlier, regarding which tees Suzy teed off from, who gave her a sponsor's exemption and for what, and what tees she's gonna tee off from, I certainly was a little slow on the uptake. Sorry about that.

As for the, perhaps if I'd spent a bit less time writing and a bit more time reading I would have understood what you were getting at....

I think for the time being, I'll just choose the 'perhaps not'.

Thank you, and likewise, it's always a pleasure as well.

[Tim Weiman]

Dan King:

Observing the opportunity young women have has convinced me the playing field is level. Today. Here and now. My daughter has a far greater opportunity to learn the game than I ever did at her age. Not even close.

The high school girls I see work every bit as hard and receive all the same coaching as the boys.

Honestly, I think you fail to appreciate how much things have changed. By any historical standard the change has taken place at a very rapid pace - one generation.

As for why men may be better golfers, I really don't know. What does seem clear is that golfing ability - like other activites - varies as much within each sex as it does between the sexes. That's why I question the assumption that some form of handicap is appropriate to "negate inherent advantage". As Tom Paul as written, that makes sense for casual golf, but not for scratch competitions.

I'm having difficulty understanding how you believe denying men the right to play on the LPGA Tour is not a double standard if women can play on the PGA Tour. Males can play on one tour, but women both tours. Why the difference? How is that not a double standard?

An "unrestricted tour" and a "women's tour"? Really. Don't you mean one "unrestricted" and one "restricted tour" with an arbitrary rule that denies participation to the latter based on gender? And this, in the name of "fairness"?

Finally, I must reference your comment "it isn't that the men's tour allows women while the women's tour doesn't allow men".

My understanding is that Suzy Whaley IS a woman and IS being allowed to play in the GHO. It is also my understanding that male golfers are, in fact, NOT permitted to play in LPGA events.

Dan, tell me which one of those facts is wrong?

[TEPaul]

Tim Weiman:

You're understanding is wrong. Whaley has just been disqualified and fined $2.99 for cheating in the Ct Championship for withholding relevant information on a rules infraction of playing from the wrong tee marks. Whaley's entry into the GHO has been withdrawn. You social engineers, rules experts and problem solvers have all been hoodwinked!

Although unusually attractive Suzy Whaley has just admitted she's actually a man!

In case you missed my mention of it on another thread the ANGC/Burk issue has also been resolved. Hootie has come out of the closet and has a sex change operations scheduled for tomorrow!

Martha Burk will be a on-course commentator for CBS in the 2003 Masters.

Tiger Woods issued a press release saying although he forgot to say he wasn't going to play in the 2003 Masters, now he is!

The New York Times has headlines being prepared for tomorrow's early edition as we speak, reading:

"Major New York newspaper solves multiple discrimination problems simultaneously".

And all is well tonight in Denmark.

Goodnight Mrs Calabash, wherever you are!

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

My God, now I'm really happy Professor Keller told me not to sit quietly!

Paul Richards:

Where are you? Isn't this your thread?

[Frown turned upside down]

Thank God we made it to page 7 on this thread. That calls for an all out smileyfest!

  :-/

[Dan King]

Some of this we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

This is my last week of the semester and I have a  Algebra and Japanese Lit finals, and three essays due: Rebuttal of the Aquatic Ape Theory, response to Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail and a comparison of the writings of Dazai Osamu and Kawabata Yasunari.

Instead of doing all my school work, I'm busy trying to become a Senior Member overnight.

I'll respond later, but it might be a while.

Dan King

"I was terrible at history. I could never see the point of learning what people thought back when people were a lot stupider. For instance, the ancient Phoenicians believed that the sun was carried across the sky on the back of an enormous snake. So what? So they were idiots."
 --Dave Barry

[Tim Weiman]

Dan King:

Thanks. I happen to think this has been a pretty good thread. No minds will be changed, of course, but the issues have been examined/expressed fairly well, I think.

Good luck with your exams.

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

Anybody who knows anything knows the Phoenicians were right! The sun is carried across the sky by an enormous snake! Many people actually think those big long things you see in the sky are jet airplane contrails! What a bunch of idiots! And furthermore all you dunces have so far failed to understand that in that realization lies the solution to the problem of this entire Suzy Whaley issue!

[Paul Richards]

Tim;

I am here.  I just cannot believe how the discussion on this topic continues!

I just can't get past the fact that Ms. Whaley "qualified" when she didn't play the same course.

I think we will learn a lot when we see what scores she actually shoots in the GHO ....

[John_Conley]

I just can't get past the fact that Ms. Whaley "qualified" when she didn't play the same course.

I understand that is a point of frustration for many.  But, out of curiosity, who do you "blame"?

The GHO for inviting the CT Section champ, them for not rescinding it when they learned it was Suzy, the PGA Tour for not stepping in, Whaley for going along with it, or the PGA of America for making a concession for their female members?  

People are entitled to have their own opinions on the matter, but it helps me to understand where you are coming from if I know what you'd propose differently.  (I've offered my 2 cents earlier.)
--
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.
--
Who is YOUR disagreement with?

The PGA of America for allowing its female members a distance concession in their organization's events?

The Greater Hartford Open for using a sponsor's exemption for the person their PGA Section recognizes as champion?

The GHO for not rescinding the invite upon learning the Section's champion is female?

The PGA Tour for not getting involved by taking the unprecedented step of disallowing a sponsor's invite to one of their events?

Suzy Whaley for "asking" for such a concession?

A lot of people have said, "It's not right/fair for her to qualify for a Tour event from a different set of tees."  How do you even begin to address them?  It is clear they don't understand what happened.

Let me go through the various people or groups that may be considered at fault.

The PGA of America is actually being progressive in providing equal opportunity for all of its members.  Since their events are closed, only members of their group are affected by the participation of females.

This is standard practice on Tour, and affords a little "local flavor" for otherwise mundane Tour stops.

To do so would actually BE discriminatory.  "We ordinarily respect the Section's ability to identify the golfer they consider 'Champion', but in this case they have failed and we will not be inviting the supposed winner this year."  That'd go over REAL well with half the population.

With Augusta National and the Masters as a backdrop, do you actually expect Tim Finchem and Company to do that?

I'm not even convinced Whaley realized an invite to the GHO would be coming if she won.  She has never gloated and asked a lot of people if it was a bad idea before she accepted.  There really hasn't been much public resistence to her participation.  Telling her that she shouldn't accept such a novel invite is a bit meddlesome in my eyes.

[Tim Weiman]

John Conley:

I can't devote the time I did yesterday to this thread, but will briefly respond to your questions.

If you are looking for one party or one act responsible for this situation, it sounds like it was the CT section PGA and the decision to handicap a sratch event.

Tom Paul addressed this issue in previous posts. Handicapping is fine for casual golf, but really has no place in sratch events at the professional or amateur level. This applies to both senior males and females.

I would suggest leaving the thing alone, allowing the media to have its story and the GHO its marketing angle, but eliminating handicapping in all future PGA section events (or at least those where part of the prize is playing in a local PGA Tour event).

Trying to be progressive is fine. The appropriate way to do that is what I described yesterday: high school coaches are recruiting 4th grade girls for the golf team. But, after years of work and once a person has made it to the professional ranks, tournaments should be scratch not handicap.

If a women, e.g., Annika Sorenstam, really is able to earn her way to a PGA Tour event, I suspect you'll find far less questions raised than the case of a Suzy Whaley which strikes me and others as an inappropriate form of affirmative action.

John, you may recall Bill Clinton's comments while still President about affirmative action. "Mend it, don't end it", Clinton said.

Truthfully, I always liked what Clinton said (even if that does surprise Dan King). But, I was somewhat frustrated that Clinton never took it beyond the great sound bite and explained what it was supposed to mean.

In this case, however, we have a chance to implement Clinton's suggestion. Mend it, don't end it means restoring the integrity of sratch events, while also encouraging more opportunities for young women to learn and play golf. I see that happening here in Cleveland. If it is not happening elsewhere, then people should work on that.

With all due respect to Dan King, it won't take centuries to achieve a reasonable standard of fairness.