PDA

View Full Version : Annika Sorenstam


Tom
05-24-2003, 11:40 AM
What do you think of her attempt to get into a PGA event?

Larry Hamilton
05-24-2003, 12:19 PM
All sports should be filled with talent or ticket-selling ability, not with political correctness.

Tom
05-24-2003, 12:32 PM
The last option should say shiRts! Oopps!

so.cal.fan
05-24-2003, 12:53 PM
Tom...........

:D :D :D

lousycapper
05-24-2003, 04:54 PM
A person should be judged by their ability... nothing else!

-L.C.

PaceAdvantage
05-24-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Tom
The last option should say shiRts! Oopps!


Duly noted, and taken care of..... :eek:

superfecta
05-26-2003, 11:16 PM
As long as she played from the mens tees,whats the problem?I think there are about 30 million men that would have loved to finish four strokes out in a PGA event.Strange how people that never will be that good are mad that she got that oppertunity.

gillenr
05-27-2003, 09:38 AM
I was dissapointed that she tried to not play badly - instead of trying to play well.

boxcar
05-27-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by superfecta
As long as she played from the mens tees,whats the problem?I think there are about 30 million men that would have loved to finish four strokes out in a PGA event.Strange how people that never will be that good are mad that she got that oppertunity.

All she was accorded was an opportunity for political correctness from the "establishment". She no more belonged in that game than would a lightweight entering the ring with a heavyweight.

Boxcar

hurrikane
05-27-2003, 01:34 PM
sorry,
I dont' see the political side of this. She was invited by the PGA to play.
Maybe they were trying to appease the wench protesting the Masters.
She played very well. She just didn't make the cut. LIke most of the players. With all the press there I'm not surprised.

She's a lot better looking than Arnie and I'd rather see her than him stuggling around the course for the revenue. I believe he would too. (Same with Jack)

superfecta
05-27-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by boxcar
All she was accorded was an opportunity for political correctness from the "establishment". She no more belonged in that game than would a lightweight entering the ring with a heavyweight.

Boxcar She no more belonged than any other golfer granted a PGA exemption,not PC.And since she is the best woman golfer at this time,it is not surprising that she was given the chance at this level.If she was the best black amature golfer would anyone fuss about her given this chance?

boxcar
05-29-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by superfecta
She no more belonged than any other golfer granted a PGA exemption,not PC.And since she is the best woman golfer at this time,it is not surprising that she was given the chance at this level.If she was the best black amature golfer would anyone fuss about her given this chance?

Oh...if she belonged to a "double minority" group -- black and female? What a dif that would have made!

But my point stands. Sure people get exemptions. But this wasn't just any ol' run-of-the-mill exemption as evidenced by all the publicity she received. But by her accepting, what did she really prove? That she could finish tied 96th with a male golfer? If this wasn't about PC, then it was about pride -- one of the seven deadly sins. (Sure there is a good kind of pride -- a pride that stems from reasonable or justifiable self-respect, but her kind of pride was grounded in vanity because her participation amounted to nothing more than an ostentatious display of showmanship.

For this reason my boxing analogy is valid. If a male lightweight champ (never mind a female!) entered into the ring with the male heavyweight champ, what would most reasonable people think the outcome would be? When the heavyweight champ bloodies his much smaller opponent and punches out his lights and sends him into coma, would reasonable people stand in awe of the little guy because of his "guts" -- because of his "courage"? Yes, I'm sure some people would, but I wouldn't be among them. My opinion would be that the lightweight was missing some vitally important cerebral parts before he entered the ring, otherwise he would never have unnecessarily subjected himself to such punishment. Likewise, why did Annika subject herself to the inevitable result of her game? To prove that she could beat some males, but that she wasn't anywhere good enough to beat a whole bunch of better ones?

Another analogy that comes to mind is that classless wonder of a horse that a yo-yo trainer a few years ago kept insisting on entering into high class stakes races (including the KY Derby!). The name of the horse and trainer eludes me at the moment, but I gotta think someone here knows to whom I'm alluding.

Bottom line: Annika's partcipation in the PGA brings to mind King Solomon's words:

Eccl 1:2
2 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
NAS

Boxcar

superfecta
05-29-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by boxcar
Oh...if she belonged to a "double minority" group -- black and female? What a dif that would have made!

But my point stands. Sure people get exemptions. But this wasn't just any ol' run-of-the-mill exemption as evidenced by all the publicity she received. But by her accepting, what did she really prove? That she could finish tied 96th with a male golfer? If this wasn't about PC, then it was about pride -- one of the seven deadly sins. (Sure there is a good kind of pride -- a pride that stems from reasonable or justifiable self-respect, but her kind of pride was grounded in vanity because her participation amounted to nothing more than an ostentatious display of showmanship.

For this reason my boxing analogy is valid. If a male lightweight champ (never mind a female!) entered into the ring with the male heavyweight champ, what would most reasonable people think the outcome would be? When the heavyweight champ bloodies his much smaller opponent and punches out his lights and sends him into coma, would reasonable people stand in awe of the little guy because of his "guts" -- because of his "courage"? Yes, I'm sure some people would, but I wouldn't be among them. My opinion would be that the lightweight was missing some vitally important cerebral parts before he entered the ring, otherwise he would never have unnecessarily subjected himself to such punishment. Likewise, why did Annika subject herself to the inevitable result of her game? To prove that she could beat some males, but that she wasn't anywhere good enough to beat a whole bunch of better ones?

Another analogy that comes to mind is that classless wonder of a horse that a yo-yo trainer a few years ago kept insisting on entering into high class stakes races (including the KY Derby!). The name of the horse and trainer eludes me at the moment, but I gotta think someone here knows to whom I'm alluding.

Bottom line: Annika's partcipation in the PGA brings to mind King Solomon's words:

Eccl 1:2
2 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
NAS

Boxcar Uh, that was sarcasm about the best black amature player allowed to compete in a PGA event(Tiger Woods).If you are the best at your profession,why is it vanity to compete at the highest level?She didn't bring the exposure,the exposure followed her.(Big Difference).The direct opposite is someone like Clinton.He searches for opportunities to get attention, attention does not come to him in the normal course of his day due to his talents.

boxcar
05-29-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by superfecta
Uh, that was sarcasm about the best black amature player allowed to compete in a PGA event(Tiger Woods).If you are the best at your profession,why is it vanity to compete at the highest level?

Because she stood about as much chance playing competitively at that "highest level" as a snowball had survinging the flames in a roaring furnace for a few hours! She is the "best" in her class level, but in that tournament she was totally out of her element -- out of her league. As far as I'm concerned, the whole exercise was pointless, which is why I raised the question in my last post: In the final analysis, just what did she prove?

She didn't bring the exposure,the exposure followed her.(Big Difference).

You're probably right. I think the media (and possibly others) used her to promote their agendas. To my way of thinking, the smartest, classiest and most courageous thing she could have done was to have resisted the pressure by graciously refusing to participate in the event.

The direct opposite is someone like Clinton.He searches for opportunities to get attention, attention does not come to him in the normal course of his day due to his talents.
You wont' get an argument from here!

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage
05-30-2003, 01:04 AM
Didn't she play a hell of a first round?? I'm not much of a golfer, but the one's I know gained a lot more respect for what she was doing after that first round....

After the first round was complete, she not only stood a very good chance of making the cut, but of also beating a LOT of the other players.

I have to disagree with Boxcar here....

Jen
05-30-2003, 10:33 AM
A family friend had belonged to a golf club in the mid-west and was always club champion. She had a handicap of 5 (I don't play golf so I really don't know what that means except I think it's good.) She eventually moved to L.A. and didn't play golf for a couple of years.

Three or four guys at her work who considered themselves good golfers heard she played and invited her out one day. Even after a couple of years layoff, she beat the pants off all of them. Needless to say, they never invited her again.

I realize that there is some power involved in golf but also a lot finesse. I think the best woman would have a better than snowball's chance.

I have no objection to the separation of mens and womens sports but why can't they have some tournaments be for both? Kind of like the Kentucky Derby. Sure, male horses dominate that race but females aren't excluded and sometimes win.

Just a thought.

Jen

Dave Schwartz
05-30-2003, 11:42 AM
Personally, I have a much bigger issue with the guy that gets to ride the course because of a physical disability. This just goes to show that how absurd our country can be about "entitlement."

Ms. Sorrenstam (I htink) deserves a chance to compete if she is capable. You did not hear her say that she needed to play from the lady's tee because she had a disability called being a woman.

I salute her.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

boxcar
05-30-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Didn't she play a hell of a first round?? I'm not much of a golfer, but the one's I know gained a lot more respect for what she was doing after that first round....

After the first round was complete, she not only stood a very good chance of making the cut, but of also beating a LOT of the other players.

I have to disagree with Boxcar here....

Just as one good race doth not make a horse, one good round doth not make a female champion among male golfers.

Moreover, I have to wonder why people "gained a lot more respect" for her after that great first round. The implication is that these same people didn't have much regard for her as the champion she is among her fellow women golfers! Are you saying that for a woman to gain "real respect", she has to be willing to compete against men?

No one here as yet has tackled my question about this little exercise in vanity or PC (it's for sure one or the other): In the final analysis, just what did she prove? What was the point to it all?

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage
05-30-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by boxcar
Moreover, I have to wonder why people "gained a lot more respect" for her after that great first round. The implication is that these same people didn't have much regard for her as the champion she is among her fellow women golfers! Are you saying that for a woman to gain "real respect", she has to be willing to compete against men?


Not at all what I was implying. These same friends of mine had GREAT respect for her as a golfer due to her dominance of the women's circuit. When I say "gained a lot more respect", I mean that they gained respect for what she was doing by going up against males. Prior to that first round, these friends of mine were pretty much in agreement that she would be slaughtered, and in fact, told me that most of the better male players in COLLEGE could beat her quite easily, never mind the pros.....that first round seemed to change their minds 180 degrees.


==PA

SandyE
06-07-2003, 11:50 PM
Okay first and formost I believe what sorenstam was a first just took longer to accur then it did in horseracing. First woman to ride was back in 1968. But seeing how Annika Sorenstam is the first attention will be coming her way for some time to come. Back in March or April I personally started playing golf, and have a long way to go before just playing on a golf course let alone a tournament. I'm only getting about 93 to almost 100 yards at the driving range, and still missing and grounding the ball. I crack myself up when I play. :cool:
SandyE