11 Year Old Qualifies for Women's Open

[Garland Bayley]

Yep, I've heard of playing up. MW played up with the men, and appears to have paid dearly for it.
I'm not saying exclude this girl this year. She earned it.

I am saying it might not be a bad idea to put in a rule for future years. Maybe when she plays the open at 6800 yards they will see they made a mistake, and put in a limit in future years.

[Mike Wagner]

Yep, I've heard of playing up. MW played up with the men, and appears to have paid dearly for it.
I'm not saying exclude this girl this year. She earned it.

I am saying it might not be a bad idea to put in a rule for future years. Maybe when she plays the open at 6800 yards they will see they made a mistake, and put in a limit in future years.

...or maybe MW wouldn't be where she is having not done it - we'll never know.  It's called life.  We're all flawed human beings faced with choices every day.  If we didn't make poor ones, how would we know how good the good ones are? 

...or even maybe...this story might bring more people to watch an event they wouldn't normally.....

[jeffwarne]

Yep, I've heard of playing up. MW played up with the men, and appears to have paid dearly for it.
I'm not saying exclude this girl this year. She earned it.

I am saying it might not be a bad idea to put in a rule for future years. Maybe when she plays the open at 6800 yards they will see they made a mistake, and put in a limit in future years.

I'd say there'll be an 8 year old playing before they play the Women's Open at 6800 yards

[BCowan]

The qualifying yardages seem way too short, that doesn't make any sense.  My guess is avg LPGA event is somewhere around 6600 yards now.  US Woman's has no 2nd stage? 

I think you you have to understand that there are significant pace of play issues with walking, and putting everything out and 36 holes with a likely chance of needed daylight for a playoff.  That being said, the course is usually shorter and rarely set up anything like a US Open, no rough.

For that matter, the same goes for the men regarding course set up and usually length compared to the tournament proper.

LPGA events are rarely 6600 yards.  They are usually listed somewhere just under 6600 and and usually play much closer to 6400-6500 yards and as short as 6100 yards. 

No second stage because the number of entries don't warrant one. 

David,

   I've caddied in many LPGA events so I think i know about what the actual yardage is.  They could take more people at stage one, then have a 36 hole 2nd stage qualifier.  It really isn't fair to the LPGA pro's that could have one bad round and not have the ability to come back with a great round.  18 holes doesn't tell enough as 36 does.  My guess is the men have 6 2nd stage qualifying sites, the woman could have 1 or 2.  The men play 36 holes in the US AM and the US Open qual. stage 2.  I know the entries are much more significant, but I believe 36 holes would be a better qualifier. 

[jeffwarne]

The qualifying yardages seem way too short, that doesn't make any sense.  My guess is avg LPGA event is somewhere around 6600 yards now.  US Woman's has no 2nd stage? 

I think you you have to understand that there are significant pace of play issues with walking, and putting everything out and 36 holes with a likely chance of needed daylight for a playoff.  That being said, the course is usually shorter and rarely set up anything like a US Open, no rough.

For that matter, the same goes for the men regarding course set up and usually length compared to the tournament proper.

LPGA events are rarely 6600 yards.  They are usually listed somewhere just under 6600 and and usually play much closer to 6400-6500 yards and as short as 6100 yards. 

No second stage because the number of entries don't warrant one. 

David,

   I've caddied in many LPGA events so I think i know about what the actual yardage is.  They could take more people at stage one, then have a 36 hole 2nd stage qualifier.  It really isn't fair to the LPGA pro's that could have one bad round and not have the ability to come back with a great round.  18 holes doesn't tell enough as 36 does.  My guess is the men have 6 2nd stage qualifying sites, the woman could have 1 or 2.  The men play 36 holes in the US AM and the US Open qual. stage 2.  I know the entries are much more significant, but I believe 36 holes would be a better qualifier. 

Ben,
You do know Lucy Li played 36 holes in her qualifier, right?

[Garland Bayley]

Yep, I've heard of playing up. MW played up with the men, and appears to have paid dearly for it.
I'm not saying exclude this girl this year. She earned it.

I am saying it might not be a bad idea to put in a rule for future years. Maybe when she plays the open at 6800 yards they will see they made a mistake, and put in a limit in future years.

I'd say there'll be an 8 year old playing before they play the Women's Open at 6800 yards

They claim to have played it at over 6800 yards last year. Doesn't matter if that is only a claim and they played it shorter, because claiming to play the qualifier at 6200 yards probably would suffer the same yardage relaxation, thereby making it the same step up.

[BCowan]

The qualifying yardages seem way too short, that doesn't make any sense.  My guess is avg LPGA event is somewhere around 6600 yards now.  US Woman's has no 2nd stage? 

I think you you have to understand that there are significant pace of play issues with walking, and putting everything out and 36 holes with a likely chance of needed daylight for a playoff.  That being said, the course is usually shorter and rarely set up anything like a US Open, no rough.

For that matter, the same goes for the men regarding course set up and usually length compared to the tournament proper.

LPGA events are rarely 6600 yards.  They are usually listed somewhere just under 6600 and and usually play much closer to 6400-6500 yards and as short as 6100 yards. 

No second stage because the number of entries don't warrant one. 

David,

   I've caddied in many LPGA events so I think i know about what the actual yardage is.  They could take more people at stage one, then have a 36 hole 2nd stage qualifier.  It really isn't fair to the LPGA pro's that could have one bad round and not have the ability to come back with a great round.  18 holes doesn't tell enough as 36 does.  My guess is the men have 6 2nd stage qualifying sites, the woman could have 1 or 2.  The men play 36 holes in the US AM and the US Open qual. stage 2.  I know the entries are much more significant, but I believe 36 holes would be a better qualifier. 

Ben,
You do know Lucy Li played 36 holes in her qualifier, right?

Jeff, No i didn't.  never done a Woman's Open qualifier or followed it.  Awesome! 

[jeffwarne]

Yep, I've heard of playing up. MW played up with the men, and appears to have paid dearly for it.
I'm not saying exclude this girl this year. She earned it.

I am saying it might not be a bad idea to put in a rule for future years. Maybe when she plays the open at 6800 yards they will see they made a mistake, and put in a limit in future years.

I'd say there'll be an 8 year old playing before they play the Women's Open at 6800 yards

They claim to have played it at over 6800 yards last year. Doesn't matter if that is only a claim and they played it shorter, because claiming to play the qualifier at 6200 yards probably would suffer the same yardage relaxation, thereby making it the same step up.

Seriously?
try 6400 last year (though I'm sure the greens were 16 )
perhaps Lucy Li exaggerates her age as much as Mike Davis estimates anticipated green speed. in which case she is actually 8

[Bill Brightly]

As the father of 12 year old twins, I might have a different perspective on this than others here. This girl obviously has a ton of talent to have won the sectional in the fashion she did, and only a twisted soul would hope she plays poorly at Pinehurst. As parents, we all want to give our children everything in our power to help them succeed in life, however one defines "success". And if a kid shows great talent at a game such a golf, where physical limitations don't preclude one from achieving success, I imagine that our natural inclination is to allow them to seek out and test themselves and play against the best that they can compete against; be it the club championship, local/state/national championships.

But as a parent, what concerns me is the ancillary activities that come with playing in the US Open, such as competing against people 2, 3 and 4 time older. Also, competing in front of galleries/fans of which you've no control over what they say or do to your 11 year old child. And finally, there's the "media". While we're not talking about the National Enquirer, Playboy or James O'Keefe here, we are dealing with a throng of folks who are there to get a story and there are certain expectations and responsibilities of participants, professional and amateur alike. So as a parent, my question would be if the experience outweighs the potential harm.

And her parents are the only ones qualified and capable of making such a decision.

Qualified? I appreciate everything you wrote DC, but what I heard you "say" is that you (wisely) would have great doubts about  either decision that you and your wife might make.

As the father of three adult children, I know that we make the best calls we can along the way and hope they are correct. But damn, I never felt "qualified" to make those calls, just responsible for them.

[Matthew Essig]

I think it is great that an 11-year-old made the field. Here is why:

The US Open is OPEN to anyone (who qualifies). That is what makes it so special. The only requirement is gender.  Cinderella stories from sectional qualifying have always been part of the US Open and always will be. Amatuers playing in the US Open have been, too, and always will be. Hell, we still cherish Ouimet's win.

It hurts to think that an 11-year-old qualifies and people complain about her being too young. What if a 75-year-old qualifies (which has happened)? Shouldn't we complain that they are just taking up the spot as 65+ year-olds rarely make the cut? Sure there is a Girl's Open. There is also a Senior Open.

People need to lighten up. It doesn't matter how old they are. They qualified fair and square. It is part of the US Open and part of golf. Doesn't matter who is competeing; it is going to be a fun 2 weeks in Pinehurst.

Cheers!

[Doug Siebert]

Even more amazing, she only starting playing four years ago, when she was 7.  Not comparable to Tiger at all in that respect.

[Jerry Kluger]

Perhaps there should be some uniformity with respect to the courses for qualifying for an Open.  If the men played on a par 72 course at 6800 yards would those who qualified necessarily be the most likely to succeed at the Open itself? What if the women qualifiers actually played at 6000 yards and a par 72 would they necessarily be the most likely in the field to play well at the Open if it plays at 6800 yards?  That's not a question of age but purely a question of whether the field should be made up of those who are best able to play the course which the Open will actually be contested on. 

[JMEvensky]

Jerry,it's not an audition. A qualifier is a one day tournament-- you finish high enough, you earn a spot in the championship proper.She met the entry qualifications and won a spot.

For the majority of players in a qualifier,just getting into the championship is a win.

Qualifiers are fine as they are. If people have a problem with an 11 year old qualifying, and I personally don't,change the entry requirements.

[Jerry Kluger]

I never said I had a problem with her.  I was asking whether the qualifier course should be comparable in difficulty to the Open course so that the qualifiers have the best chance of doing well in the championship.

[jeffwarne]

I never said I had a problem with her.  I was asking whether the qualifier course should be comparable in difficulty to the Open course so that the qualifiers have the best chance of doing well in the championship.

Just the trend we need .
The dozens of courses that hold qualifiers could hire a signature to build stupid new tees, grow the rough, and get the greens stimping at 15 (or whatever fantasy # the USGA is currently throwing around)

or they could do what they currently do and play the qualifiers at the best courses that they can get presented mainly as they are for everyday play.

Qualifiers don't generally play well in the tournament proper because they're qualifiers, not because they qualified on inferior courses,
Exempt players are exempt for a reason

[BCowan]

We should be praising this girl! 

[Jerry Kluger]

Jeff: Interesting statement but I wonder what facts there are to prove it. I could just as easily say that the qualifiers would do better if the courses were as difficult as the US Open sites but I didn't - I just posed the question of whether that might be the case but I have no facts to prove it as true nor do you to prove it false.

[Garland Bayley]

I never said I had a problem with her.  I was asking whether the qualifier course should be comparable in difficulty to the Open course so that the qualifiers have the best chance of doing well in the championship.

Just the trend we need .
The dozens of courses that hold qualifiers could hire a signature to build stupid new tees, grow the rough, and get the greens stimping at 15 (or whatever fantasy # the USGA is currently throwing around)
...

 

They can't find courses with tees at 6800 yards to run qualifiers at? These are qualifiers for the "women". No one says they should qualify using "womens" tees. In fact, most people think we should stop using that terminology. They play forward, or they play back. If the USGA wants to run its womens championship at 6800 yards, then it is a simple matter to hold the qualifiers at that yardage. Just have them play "back".

[Doug Siebert]

There's more to it than length.  Should they have the fairways of similar width, rough of similar height, greens of similar speed and firmness?  For that matter, should they be trying to match the course they're playing on?  By the logic some here have, they should be having the qualifier on courses that approximate Pinehurst as closely as possible.  If they play at Pebble Beach, they should try to approximate that.

Hopefully you'll agree this is silly.  I think worrying over having a qualifier shorter than the US Open length is equally silly, and just isn't that big of a deal.  As Jeff said, the qualifiers aren't going to win anyway, so what difference does it make if the set of qualifiers are the ones who will play the best on the tournament course or not?  But if you want to match the qualifier courses to the tournament course, you need to worry about much more than length.  What if the qualifier is 6800 yards but wide open, and the tournament course is 6400 but super tight?  A long wild hitter might clean up in the qualifier, and shoot a pair of 80s in the tournament.

Sounds to me like some people don't like the idea of an 11 year old playing, and they're looking for ways to keep her out without having to add an age requirement.  What happens if next time the 11 year is 5'9" and drives it 260?  Have to find another way to keep her out then, I guess!

[jeffwarne]

Sounds to me like some people don't like the idea of an 11 year old playing, and they're looking for ways to keep her out without having to add an age requirement.  What happens if next time the 11 year is 5'9" and drives it 260?  Have to find another way to keep her out then, I guess!

See Lexi Thompson, the second youngest qualifier at 12, except she was hitting it 280
 

[David_Tepper]

Check out what Lucy Li could do when she was eight:

http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2014/05/what-can-an-11-year-old-do-tha.html

Or just go to the youtube video directly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q__CN9axAYE

[Jim Nugent]

What's gonna be the buzz if she wins at Pinehurst?

[Gary Sato]

Yesterday Stacy Lewis said she was too young to play in the US Open.

Today Lucy Li shot 78 with 2 doubles and a triple.  She also made 2 birdies.

I'll admit that I didn't think she would break 90.  Kudos.

[David_Tepper]

"Today Lucy Li shot 78 with 2 doubles and a triple.  She also made 2 birdies."

She also posted a better score than Jessica Korda & Natalie Gulbis!

[Jim Nugent]

I'll admit that I didn't think she would break 90.  Kudos.

Gary, just curious, why?  She earned her way to the tournament, killing the competition as I recall.