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

[TEPaul]

Andy:

Look, I sort of admire the CT Section of the PGA of America (and the PGA of Amer. too) for trying very hard to be progressive and fair thinking in their tournament policies with this Whaley thing. It looks to me like they're going too far on this one though--particularly if their logic is exactly the same as your logic.

You said Whaley has earned the privilege to compete. I can sure buy that even if the only reason is she's a dues paying member of the CT section of the PGA of America.

But what do you mean by "compete"? What's the Ct Section and the PGA of America mean by "compete"? Suzy Whaley can tee it up from the same markers as the men and "compete" any time. But all that means is she's out there playing and competing in golf with men and she probably won't ever do very well on an equal footing against them! That's fairly obvious.

Or are you really saying the CT section is trying to figure out some way of giving Suzy a way to BE COMPETITIVE--maybe even to win? Are you trying to say the CT Section (PGA of Am.) are trying to figure out a way of getting Suzy to do better? There's a big difference in meaning there!

I guess that's exactly what you mean because you immediately following that sentence with, ".....but because of the inherent disadvantage of being a women golfer."

We all know that too, Andy. People have understood that since the world began. But you must realize that as far as some of us know no golf organization playing by the Rules of golf or tournament committee either has ever tried to figure out how to compensate for an individual golfer's "inherent disadvantage" (whatever it may be!) and thereby put that individual on a "level playing field" with the other competitors.

Universally, everyone just had to sort of hack it on their own, no matter what ailed them.

Certainly a case like Casey Martin was a departure from this but it wasn't the tour it was the court that defined and enforced that "leveling of the playing field". But don't forget Martin was the plaintiff here--he sued the Tour and forced the issue.

I don't mind admitting I was personally very opposed to not only that ruling but also what Martin did by bringing the suit. And my heart goes out to the young man because of the unfortunate condition he had that disadvantaged him from playing as well as he obviously could have otherwise.

Only if Casey had had two good legs--but he didn't! He's really no different than a lot of people through the ages that had something screw up their potential and plans.

But this is the first time I'm aware of, and I think a lot of others on here where an association and section that's supposed to adhere to the rules of golf are trying for the first time to adjust an "inherent disadvantage" for an individual player. And for being a woman of all things!

The world of golf has been just fine so far with women competing against women and men competing against men each competitor always being solely responsible for their own advantages and disadvantages with not a scintilla of help or adjustment for any advantage or disadvantage from a golf section, association or tournament committee.

And there was never anything wrong with that. Women and men are different in many ways and the CT Section of the PGA of America is not going to change that. And I'm sure you must be able to understand why some of us think there's no reason for the CT section to try to "level the playing field" to adjust for those differences.

Golf has never done anything like that. Why start now?

I'm not bothered by it either Andy. I just think it's a dumb thing to do that doesn't really need to be done. Golf has been just fine the way it was and is.

I don't really think this will go anywhere longterm anyway. What I'm about to say I mean in the finest sense and in the most sensitive way. I hope it doesnt upset you.

I don't think something like this is really any different than putting that little midget into a professional baseball game. It was nothing more than novelty. I have nothing at all against "little people" but could he really compete in every aspect of the game? If he couldn't because of some "inherent disadvantage" should baseball have "leveled the playing field" for him?

Not in my opinion--and this isn't any different, I don't think. Again, I admire you and the CT Section for tying to be fair and progressive--I really mean that. But this isn't the way to do it, I don't think. It isn't necessary. Men and women can live with the fact that they're "inherently different"--they always have.

[John Conley]

I agree with much of what has been posted.  Hodson is not off-base for sharing with us how he feels, and he is someone entitled to have an opinion.

FACT:  Sponsors' Exemptions to the PGA Tour's events is entirely at the discretion of the sponsor.  How many times has Gary Nicklaus teed it up?  Mark Rypien played the event near D.C.  JEFF JULIAN played in the GHO last year - now I want to hear any one of you say you have a problem with that.  If you do, we would never be friends.  (I believe Jeff received his full allotment of 7 exemptions last year and played the GHO for his final event of 2002.)

There is precedent for a sponsor's exemption to go to a non-competitive player.  Why raise a fuss when it happens again?  Curtis Strange, an ABC announcer, was afforded a very valuable invite to play at Disney this year.  Could he have won?

I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, but there are certain times when what someone else does is their business.  If the Section PGA wants to let some members use a forward tee, I'm sure they have their reasons.  (In this case they do, as their aren't enough female members in most areas to have compelling competition.)  Non-members[/i] think the policy should be changed?  I don't have a vote in Mexican and Canadian elections and I certainly wasn't consulted when the Connecticut section made this decision.

The GHO wants to use one of their invites for a local pro?  A lot of other events do this as well.  

[Tim Weiman]

DMoriarty,

I'm becoming intrigued by the tone of those defending the PGA. It strikes me as surprisingly defensive, as if the organization now regrets what does appear to be political correctness run amuck.

You raise the issue of Augusta National in reference to the Whaley matter. Actually, I don't recall anyone who defended Augusta's membership policy say anything at all in terms of who the club invites to the annual Masters Tournament. What's the connection?

If you don't think applying some handicap to a professional sports event is bizarre, you are welcome to your view. Most folks I know think there ought to be separate tournaments for men and women.....or, in fairness, just one PGA with anyone eligible to compete as long as they play by exactly the same rules. Years ago Didrikson did it the old fashioned way: she earned it. Why not apply the same rules to Whaley?

[Tim Weiman]

John conley:

I skeptical about it being "their business". Literally speaking it is.

But, they seem to want to hold up what they have done as some ideal, some desirable way to achieve fairness. As long as they do that people will point to the Didrikson and question why the Connecticut section isn't following that example.

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

What're you talking about sponsor's exemptions for? Has any sponsor's exemption ever been compensated for from different tees because they were deemed to be "inherently disadvantaged? And who said Andy Hodson wasn't entitled to his own opinion? I hope you don't think disagreeing with him implies he's not entitled to his opinion.

[Tim Weiman]

DMoriarty:

What you call the "irrationality of my position" comes from young women I've spoken to who play competitive golf at the high school and college level. Without qualification they have expressed that there should be a single set of rules for all concerned at any level of competition.

Some of these young women attend high schools where there isn't a girl's team, unfortunately. At that case, they play on the boy's and play from the same tees.

One girl put it to me this way: "Suppose some guy who couldn't hit the ball as far as the other guys wanted to play from shorter tees. Nobody would take him seriously. The same rules should apply for girls."

I find her position quite sensible and am amazed anyone would think she is being "irrational". At the end of the day it makes sense to go in one of two directions: either have separate competitions for men and women or a single set of tournaments where everyone competes together under the same set of rules.

At schools where only one team exists, obviously the latter would apply. But, moving toward a situation where PGA events are open to both sexes, but the LPGA would remain only open to women makes little sense, in my opinion.

Regarding the sponsor exemption issue (whether at Augusta or elsewhere), I'm not sure what this has to do with the situation at all. Sponsors, as you know, have given exemptions for all sorts of reasons. But, usually they haven't attempted to blur what is going on. In the Whaley case, it has been presented as if she earned her way into the tournament a la Babe Didrikson. In truth. she did not. By contrast, when some past champion plays in the Masters or US Open (take the recent example of Palmer at Oakmont), it is acknowledged to be ceremonial in nature. No confusion. A very different thing. Palmer earned his ceremonial exemption;Whaley didn't earn the right to play as a genuine competitor.

Regarding the Augusta National situation, I am not among those who have argued that the club's membership policy is "none of Martha Burk's business". To the contrary, I have clearly stated Burk makes a solid case along the lines of "extension of the workplace". I happen to feel there is nothing inherently wrong with single sex sports clubs, but I'm just as adament that if a club decides to go this route all forms of corporate and business entertaining should be strickly forbidden.

It seems to me that Augusta has essentially accepted this argument. The club is filled with corporate types who want to use the club for business entertainment. Those guys want a change in the membership policy so they can go on with business as usual. There is another group who truly wants the club to be what Hootie Johnson expressed in his last Op-Ed piece, i.e., a place to get away from the world of work.

Augusta needs to decide what kind of club it wants to be: a corporate entertainment center where people of all demographic characteristics are welcome or a private club of like minded people who want to leave the business world outside of the gates.

My solution is to boot out all the corporate types who pretend to take the moral high ground and to invite real women golfers. If that makes me a "right of Rush knee jerk conservative", I'll make no apologies. I'd rather have people like Rose Cunningham, the delightful Secretary at Dooks than the Bill Gates of this world.

[Andy Hodson]

In any hot button topic, sometimes the issue at hand gets blurred or lost. This seems to be such an issue.

So, a question for all here: If the winner of the CT Section Championship did not recieve a spot in the GHO, would there be the discussion here? Meaning, would anybody care to take umbrage that Suzy won her Section Championship from 90% of the overall distance of the men.

And would we be having this discussion if a Senior won the Section Championship and thus was awarded (key word...awarded...not qualified) a spot in the GHO or any other tour event that follows suit. Because, at least in my Section, seniors play from a different set of tees as "regular" men.

My point being, the issue here, imo, is that Suzy Whaley won her Section Championship...a great accomplishment for any PGA member. IMO its the biggest event on our calendar. Did she win fair and square. I think so. Others don't. That is the issue here. Not whether she "qualified" for a PGA Tour event from the "red" tees. She didn't. And she is not taking anyone's spot in the GHO field. She is representing as her Section's champion. I happen to think that's great. Not because she is a woman, but because she did what it took to win an important tournament, and now reaps the rewards.

And I don't think anyone is trying to make a statement here. The PGA is not cueing up Helen Reddy here at all. The Section held a tournament and recognized a winner. From there it is in the GHO and Tour's hands.

BTW, Tom and Tim. Keep disagreeing. Or agreeing. Its all in good nature, and what makes this board so great. I would be surprised if no one took the other side. And Tim, I laughed out loud when you said my logic was bizarre. You're in good company there. And not alone.

[Tim Weiman]

Andy:

If a Senior had won and was awarded an exemption to the GHO, I doubt anyone would have said anything. It just wouldn't have been a story.

The fact that Seniors play from different tees is probably not known by many people. I certainly didn't know. Now that I do, I would also argue that it makes no sense.

I'm not opposed to sponsor exemptions or even the practice of PGA sections being able fill a spot at a local tournament. Actually, I like the idea.

I just think the way your Section has done it makes no sense.

As for laughs, I get them here as well!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
You've said

In the Whaley case, it has been presented as if she earned her way into the tournament a la Babe Didrikson.

I live in Ct. and am in this section. No one here is presenting this in the light you suggest.


TEPaul,
You've said

What're you talking about sponsor's exemptions for? Has any sponsor's exemption ever been compensated for from different tees because they were deemed to be "inherently disadvantaged?

Sponsor's exemptions are compensations by there very nature. They are awarded to players who did not "qualify" for an event. PGA Tour events can award  10 sponsor's exemptions but they must follow some guidelines.
Two of the "invitations" can only go to  previous q-school grads. Two are reserved for players who are exempt for the Tour but didn't qualify to play in the event. Four have no restrictions and a tour event can also ask the Tour for two exemptions for foreign players.
So, basically four of the ten exemptions can go to any otherwise unqualified player and two can go to any otherwise unqualified foreign player.

Tournament directors hve their own guidelines for awarding exemptions, not the least of which is ticket sales.

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

I believe it is happening elsewhere.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
There have been misleading headlines but all the articles I've read eventually get it right about the fact that she won the section championship from tees set at 10% less than the other competitiors thereby earning a sponsor exemption.  

[Tim Weiman]

DMoriarty:

The young women I spoke to perceived the CT event to be a competition to earn a place in a PGA Tour event. They felt that eveyone should play from the same set of tees. The CT association may disagree, but I'd hardly call the views of these young women golfers "irrational".

By any level of competition, these women include qualifying rounds. I'm sure they would have no objection if Whaley did what Didrikson accomplished years ago. In that case, nobody would complain about her competing against Tiger Woods.....as long as male golfers were also entitled to compete in LPGA events playing from the same tees as all women competitors.

As for this press coverage of this matter, I tend to agree with Jim Kennedy. Initially, some were inclined to portray this issue as a case where a women had earned her way into the tournament. Those were the headlines. Before long, however, other journalists felt compelled to spell out the fine print that, in fact, Whaley had not accomplished what Babe Didrikson had done many years ago.

Your local PGA section can do what it wants, but again, I just think applying the Didrikson standard would provide more credibility.

As for Jack Nicklaus winning the Masters in 1986 or, perhaps more impressively, beating Tiger Woods in 1998, I don't think anyone would suggest he shouldn't have been given the green jacket. Nor would anyone object calling Whaley the winner if she prevails playing from the same tees as other competitors.

You can question tournaments giving ceremonial exemptions. It sounds like Augusta is sort of moving in that direction or at least placing an age limit. Honestly, I don't have strong feelings either way on that, but a limited use of this practice probably makes some sense.

If you really don't believe Arnold Palmer earned a ceremonial exemption for the last Open at Oakmont, I won't even bother to lay out the case. I can assure you, however, that many people in Pittsburgh and elsewhere felt differently.

[George Pazin]

As one of the prime defenders of Augusta, I feel the need to defend myself from the implied criticism from Andy & DMoriarty.

I fully support the right of the PGA, the CT section of the PGA or whoever to set up the rules of their tournament however they see fit. I also fully support the right of the tournament to extend the sponsor exemption to whomever they choose. They could give one to good 'ole former President Bill for all I care, it's their tournament.

I do disagree with the logic behind the "levelling" of the playing field. It is nice to see that some organizations are at least consistent in attempting to apply this logic to seniors as well, even though I again disagree with the logic. They are plenty of distance challenged men that can't hit it as far as Laura Davies or even Anniker (preferred British pronunciation:)).

Disagreeing with the logic and believing that ALL golfers in a tournament should play under the same rules & conditions is not inconsistent. There is a fundamental difference between arguing a "right" and arguing what is right. For instance, I would argue that discrimination on the basis of gender or race alone is wrong, but I support an individual's right to do so if they are in fact that stupid. To do otherwise would mean to me that I support the thought police.

I would prefer to see the prevailing rules under last year's club pro PGA championship, which, if I'm not mistaken, allowed a female member (might have even been Ms. Whaley, I can't remember) to compete in the championship from a different set of tees, but stated that only those playing from the regular tees would be eligible for the top 25 exemption into the PGA. A nice compromise, IMO.

As far as why no one in the competition or the regular tour is complaining, you've got to be kidding me! Who, after seeing the continuing onslaught of Augusta, would have the guts to speak up against this policy? Not many, that's for sure. All I ever do is try to speak up for individual rights & I generally get labelled as some right wing Rushophile who can't come up with an original thought. I wouldn't expect anyone involved to put themself in the firing line, so to speak, so I certainly wouldn't draw any inferences from the lack of outcry.

It is extremely disappointing to see how many media outlets have stated that Ms. Whaley is the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event, but what can you expect from the liberal & intellectually lazy media.

Anyone read in Golf Magazine a few months back how in the 40s or 50s a woman, I believe Louise Suggs, from the LPGA beat many PGA pros straight up in a par 3 competition? She & Big Wiesy remain my gender neutral heroes!

I wonder what would happen if a few male pros offered to play the LPGA on courses setup 10% longer than the ladies...

I sense a lawsuit...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
You state:

.....as long as male golfers were also entitled to compete in LPGA events playing from the same tees as all women competitors.

The PGA Tour has divisions. The Champions Tour is "exclusionary" as it has a minimum age requirement of 50 years. The regular Tour and the LPGA have minimum age requirements also, no one under 18 can be a member but this doesn't preclude Tour events in either of these divisions from extending sponsor exemptions to juniors.
How do you come to the belief that a private association such as the LPGA Tour can be forced to accept men players when we have the Champion's Tour, another private association, that doesn't allow players under 50 years old? They set these guidelines so they can compete amongst their peers, much like the divisions in boxing.
DeLaHoya is no less a talent than Ali.
The big boys also have membership guidelines but they don't need "protection" as it consists of men at the top of the "peer" food chain. These are men who aren't threatened by anyone except Tiger. You make it on their turf and you belong, but no one gets there without initially qualifying and no one stays there unless they earn it.

[TEPaul]

I just can't see what the big issue is here with those who say everyone playing in a specific competition should play from the same tees. That's the way tournament golf has always been. It's just a matter of everyone playing by the same rules.

Again, I haven't really followed this issue or this thread but before the last post or so I did not realize Whaley won the CT Section Championship playing from a different set of tees. I think that's just as wrong as her doing the same in the GHO. This has nothing to do with exemptions or anything like that, only the rule of golf that EVERYONE play the same golf course.

If someone is thinking about Super Seniors on the Senior Tour playing from forward tees, that's simply because they're playing their own competition within the regular one. They're not competing against those players playing from longer tees. There's a regular Senior division competition and Championship and a separate Super Senior competition.

The CT Section of the PGA of America is simply trying to figure out a clever way of "handicapping" a golfer--in this case Suzy Whaley--for the first time I've ever heard of in a scratch tournament event (no handicapping) which of course all pro competitions have always been. As far as I know that's NEVER happened before in professional golf. But the PGA of America and the CT Section is now trying to do that for the first time ever! Why?

So why do some of you think it's irrational for others of us to disagree with that? Again, it has nothing to do with exemptions or any other form of entry into a competition--it only has to do with ALL competitiors playing by the same rules which of course fundamentally involves playing the SAME golf course--SAME TEES. None of us have a problem with Suzy Whaley doing that!!

But the CT Section is trying to handicap a golfer in a pro tourney for the first time ever. This is really no different from just giving Suzy 2-3 shots a side per round against the field and putting her on the same tees! Why don't they just do that?

Probably because it would be too damn obvious and basically seen to be the joke it is! Playing from different tees in the same compeitition is no different, it's handicapping or it's not playing golf by the same rules--Is that the example the PGA of America and the CT section wants put forth--is that the precedent they want to set--to allow a competitor for the first time to compete and not play by the same rules as every other competitor? Is the day of "handicapping" pro scratch tournments now upon us with this? I guess so.

I can hardly see why anyone would say someone who didn't agree with that is irrational! Is the way tournament golf has always been played suddenly becomre irrational? I hope not.

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

I still sense an effort to earn political correctness brownie points. Prior to this incident, people were comfortable with each Tour having its own set of rules.The problem comes when special rules were made for Whaley (and other competitors) trying to qualify for a PGA Tour event.

You are correct that the Champions Tour and the LPGA are allowed to discriminate on the basis of age or gender because this means establishing a competition between "peers".

But, the whole notion of providing some kind of handicap to "negate an inherent advantage", runs contrary to the very logic of competition between peers.

This incident is political correctness run amuck. George Pazin is right. The Augusta matter has made people invloved, e.g., competitors, very reluctant to state the obvious.

[Paul Richards]

Tim;

As you say, this is crazy.


However she got there, she IS there, so now just let's Ms. Whaley play from the men's tees and let's just see if she can be competitive from the tournament tees.

[TEPaul]

I'm getting confused by all this--which tees is Suzy going to play from in the GHO? Is she playing from the same tees as every other competitor? If so, than big damn deal, no problem at all as far as I can see--except she should have done the same in the CT Sectional Championship or whatever it was that got her into GHO!

Go for it Suzy--chip and putt those animals to death and win the tournament--nothing I'd like to see more! Don't anyone ask me to put any money on her though!

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Yes, Mrs. Whaley is playing from the tournament tees during the GHO next year.

The controversy is all because she qualified to play the GHO from tees that were much shorter than those used by other competitors.


Hope that helps.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Brownie points?, we don't need no steenking brownie points  

I have yet to see  reporting from any sources that has  questioned the rights of each Tour Division to conduct its events as it sees fit.
If you have seen such commentary I would suggest it spewed from someone with no understanding of how she got to play at the GHO.

Suzy Whaley did not qualify, she got her spot as a sponsor exemption, no more, no less. As we all know, the only woman to date to ever qualify for a PGA TOUR event is the Babe.
The CPGA conducted their championship in the manner they saw fit and Suzy Whaley won a prize that in no way jeopardizes golf or how competitons will be conducted.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Thanks for clearing that up for me! Then I don't think Suzy Whaley really did qualify in that CT tournament she got in from--not under the Rules of Golf anyway. She didn't play the same golf course her fellow competitors did! She didn't play by the same Rules of Golf her fellow competitors did and it shouldn't be assumed she qualified in that case.

I sure don't blame Suzy for teeing it up from where they let her in the qualifier. I think the tournament committee of that qualifier just wasn't thinking very clearly, association or whatever they call themselves.

If they want to give her some special exemption into the GHO then do it but don't say she qualified for the GHO in that  tournament when they let her play a different course than her fellow competitors. The CT Section of the PGA of Am. let someone compete in a fashion that is not within the Rules of Golf and that's just wrong--there's no question of that in my mind. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact she's a woman.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

The way you explain this the issue here doesn't seem to have much to do with Suzy Whaley. But do you really think a division of the PGA of Am should be conducting a professional sectional tournament in a manner that's other than in compliance with the Rules of Golf?

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

Apparently Suzy Whaley herself doesn't agree with your suggestion that she "did not qualify".

In fact, Whaley describes herself as "the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event". She goes on to say "I have a chance to make history, that's huge. Any time someone can be the first at something it's special".

Special for Babe Didrikson, but not for Whaley. The political correctness is overwhelming in this case, even to the point of denigrating Didrikson whose accomplishments go far beyond those of Whaley.

[CHrisB]

Question with no point attached, just curious if anybody knows:

In the Callaway Pebble Beach Invitational, the tournament held at Pebble in late November with PGA, LPGA, and Senior players in the same field, do they all play from the same tees, or do the women play shorter tees?  How about the seniors?

Juli Inkster won the event in 1991, and is the only woman who has won the tournament.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul, Tim, Paul:  I really do not understand why this is so difficult.  

She did not qualify.  She did not play in the qualifying event for the tournament against tour pros trying to make the field.
She was given a sponsors' exemption.  This is a gift, an invitation, an undeserved present, a method by which tournament officials can capriciously invite unqualified golfers into the field.  It happens every week.  The actual "qualifier" likely has not even happened yet.   If she or another woman played in the actual qualifier, that woman would have to do so from the tour tees.  And rightly so.  But Mrs. Whaley need not, because she received a sponsors' exemption, an invition to play regardless her qualifications.  

By the way, if the man who was leading at the beginning of the final day had not given Mrs. Whaley the tournament, he would have received the sponsors' exemption, despite the fact that he had never proven himself on the same course, on the same day, from the same tees, in the same tournament, against real tour pros trying to qualify.  How fair is that?  He wins in a tourney against a bunch of golf instructors and gets to play in a PGA event, while much better golfers have to play against tour pros in a real qualifier and end up staying home.  If he had won, would any of you guys be complaining?  

Certainly winning in your own little tournament where the real competition is excluded  is not what you guys consider "qualifying" for a PGA event.  

Tim,
I did not call the your female friends' argument irrational.  I have never discussed the issue with them.  I called your argument irrational, and still beleive it to be so.

In that case, nobody would complain about her competing against Tiger Woods.....as long as male golfers were also entitled to compete in LPGA events playing from the same tees as all women competitors.

Please Tim, ask your female friends what they think of your position.  Ask them if they agree that the only way a woman should ever be able to play on the PGA Tour is if men were allowed to compete on the LPGA tour.  I dare you.

I just think applying the Didrikson standard would provide more credibility.

By 'Didrikson Standard' do you mean that all golfers should qualify on their golfing merit and skill, either by their current standing on the tour or their performance in an actual qualifier played against the entire field of aspiring qualifiers?  If so, then I am fine with this standard applying to Mrs. Whaley . . . just as soon as it is applied equally to all the males who play without qualifying -- the seniors, big wigs, money makers and nostalgia picks that receive meritless sponsors' exemptions every week.  

If you really don't believe Arnold Palmer earned a ceremonial exemption for the last Open at Oakmont, I won't even bother to lay out the case. I can assure you, however, that many people in Pittsburgh and elsewhere felt differently.

First of all, if Arnie plays in any tournament he could theoretically win, his exemption was not ceremonial.  Throwing out the first pitch, hitting the ceremonial first drive, or driving the pace car before Indy is ceremonial.  Actually taking a spot in a competition is not.  

Arnold "earned" the right to play?  This isn't the same "earned" that you are requiring of Mrs. Whaley.  You know you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here, don't you?  

Why does Arnie get his own special qualifying standard?  
Because, long ago, he used to be the greatest golfer in the world?  Because he is a sentimental favorite in Pittsburgh? If Mrs. Whaley was real popular in Pittsburgh, would that have qualifed her for Oakmont?  

Palmer gets to play whether or not he wins an actual qualifier.  Whether or  not he is good enough to contend.   Pardon me if I don't accept the sentimental view of the people of the great city of Pittsburgh as a objective mechanism for picking a golf field.

Tim, I am in favor of sponsor exemptions, even for Arnie.  I think they are good for golf.  I just realize that sponsors' exemptions aren't about qualifications.  It is inconsistent and hypocritical to require Mrs. Whaley's sponsors' exemption to be about qualifications when other golfer's exemptions are not.