!8 under is just too low for a major. The LPGA has a problem with a lack of drama in their marquee events. The lack of depth in the fields is a problem that hurts their marketability. Champions Tour has a similar problem (exhibition mentality).
Jeff: These statements are, to me, built on false premises.
As for -18 (really, -19) being too low for a major, blame Kerry Haigh, the PGA setup man, not the women. I'm with the others who say par doesn't matter. But was I the only one who was a little dismayed that several members of the TV networks made it sound like they were shocked that the women were shooting such low numbers on such a demanding golf course? They made it sound like the women just starting playing golf professionally last week. These women are incredibly good--and have been for a really long time.
As for "lack of drama," the tournaments that lack the most drama--involving the men or the women--are always majors. Why does separation most often occurs in majors, not in regular tournaments? Because the more demanding setups--and the added pressure--mean that recovering from errant shots is more difficult, and bogeys and doubles are more common. Remember what Tiger's goal was in the final round of the 2000 U.S. Open? To not make any bogeys. And when he did just that, his 10-shot 54-hole lead ballooned even higher, to 15 shots. In majors, making pars creates more separation than in regular tournaments. So when Inbee Park, amazingly, posts her final three rounds in a major without any bogeys at all, you get a 5-shot win. If one player, in other words, gets hot during a major and minimizes mistakes, s/he will win by a large margin--because many, many fewer players will also get hot and be able to sustain it.
Finally, as for "lack of depth," I've noted in several other GCA posts that I don't believe the consistently star-studded leaderboards on the LPGA Tour reflect a lack of depth. (And, even if they did, I'm not sure why anyone is complaining. Aren't those the leaderboards every fan and TV executive dreams of?) Given that the same equipment advances are available to the men and to the women, why would the LPGA Tour lack depth while the PGA Tour would possess it? I don't buy the argument. Instead, what makes sense is that the best women are simply that much better--not just in talent, but at winning (having the intangibles that David describes)--than the rest of the tour. On the men's side, there are fewer prolific winners, so the result is a seemingly more "deep" field.