Menu
If you’re familiar with my WGM columns over the last 8 years you might recall a few that dealt directly with what is now the hottest topic in golf, that of women playing in men’s tournaments. With the astounding performance of Michelle Wie at the Sony Open in January I am compelled to visit the subject once again, as I feel that the quality of her play, added to the fine play of Annika Sorenstam at last year’s Colonial, creates a new paradigm in regards to inter-gender competition.
The two articles I previously penned examined the policy of the PGA of America, an association of which I am a proud member, which allows female club professionals to compete in PGA of America sanctioned events with men club professionals, playing for the same purse but from different tees. I groused at length against the policy, which creates a distance advantage (somewhere between 10 and 18 %, more commonly closer to 18) for the women, allegedly providing an even playing field with the longer-hitting men. In conversations with PGA officers I was told that women had every right to play in what had been historically men’s events because the events were “club professional” events, not “men’s club professional” events. I never questioned the right of the women to play, even when men were at the same time banned from designated women’s events.
The problem I had then, and still have, with the PGA of America’s policy, has nothing to do with women playing. It has everything to do with anyone playing in a championship event from different tees. The thought that the winner of an event could have played with an advantage of any sort flies in the face of all that is sacred to the principals of competition. When you choose to even out the field by giving stroke allowances you create a “handicap” event. It is no different when the advantage given is distance rather than strokes. The whole purpose of any championship competition is to identify the best player. The rules that govern the game are present for the express purpose of making the conditions of the competition fair and equal for all competitors. Creating rules that expressly give some players advantages based on their gender, or for any other reason, removes the event from the “championship” category and places it squarely in the “handicap” category. How can anyone consider a winner who plays from a shorter distance to be the best player in the tournament? Well, some people obviously can, but I am not one of them.
The question now is whether women should be playing in what have heretofore been exclusively men’s events. It may surprise you, but I will say unequivocally that anyone who is good enough to compete under equal conditions, which means from the same tees, should be allowed to play. When we speak of the highest level, and the top men’s tours are just that, we describe the ultimate goal for any golfer: that is, to measure themselves against the best players in the world. At this level there can be no distinctions made for sex or age, for any such restriction would amount to discrimination.
In arguing against the unfair policies of the PGA of America I have highlighted the fact that men are not allowed to play in events that are designated as “women’s” tournaments. My point was based on the fact that women are allowed to play in men’s club pro events with a built-in advantage. What, then, would be the difference if men were able to play in women’s events in the same fashion, from different distances, in this case from farther back? Certainly this would seem equitable, although anyone of sense would see that women’s golf as such would be done for. There is no way women would allow men to compete in their tournaments in such a manner, even though it would mirror exactly what women do when they play in men’s events. Is this fair? I think it is obvious that it is not, and that inequity points out in stark fashion the ridiculous nature of the PGA’s stance on the matter.
Playing from the same tees is another matter altogether. In principle, allowing the best players to tee it up to see who is the best that week is a no-brainer. What we have had so far, with Annika and Michelle, are women who have been offered sponsor’s exemptions based on their resumes instead of fairly qualifying for a Tour event. Suzy Whaley qualified for the Hartford Open by “winning” the Connecticut PGA Section Club Professional Championship. I include the quotes because in my mind playing from 1000 yards closer to the pins each day of a three day event does not earn you the right to call yourself the champion.
Of course, Suzy was only following the rules set down by the PGA, and playing the course as set up by the tournament officials. I have watched Suzy carry herself admirably over the time between qualifying and playing at Hartford, and I admire her ability and her energy. I would want my own daughters to strive for the accomplishment and level of character that she exhibited during the hoopla that came as a result of being the first woman in 50 years to play in a men’s Tour event. Nothing I say about the manner in which she earned that spot is in any way a personal attack on Suzy. She simply took advantage of a policy that allowed her to win the tournament and reap tremendous benefits from doing so. Her performance in the actual Tour event, shooting 75-78, was better than I thought possible, and certainly many male club professionals have shot much worse in Tour events they have qualified for. Her entry into the tournament, however, was fundamentally flawed, and the PGA has since changed its rules to make sure that it doesn’t happen in that fashion again. Now, in order to qualify for a Tour event, the player must play from the same set of tees as everyone else. Should a woman choose to play from shorter tees, she can still win the money and the title, but not the exemption that goes with it. Thus the PGA saves itself from further criticism, but continues to avoid dealing with the problem of allowing its tournaments to become handicap events.
The PGA Tour, and other men’s tours around the world, is rightfully allowing women to play in its events from the same tees as the men. The problem now is the way that women are earning berths in these tournaments. No woman has ever qualified for a men’s tour event in a stroke play qualifier from the back tees. Getting into a Tour event in this fashion is a most difficult exercise. A player not exempt for the Tour has a few different avenues to try to gain a berth in Thursday’s field. One way is the open 4-spot qualifier, usually held on the Monday before the start of the event. The fields for these 18-hole events are usually comprised of players from lesser tours, such as the Nationwide, Golden Bear, Hooters, or other so-called mini-tours, some club pros, and a few amateurs. The entry fees used to be $100, and the fields attracted players who had no real business in the field. The PGA Tour has made greater efforts to set player ability guidelines, but just about anyone with enough money to pay for the entry fee can still get in. Over time the Tour has jacked up that fee to $400, which most of the time successfully discourages those who know they have no chance to shoot a low enough number. And the numbers you have to shoot are extremely low. A young student of mine shot 65 in a qualifier for the Nationwide tournament in Richmond and was shocked to find that he had only managed to land himself in a playoff, where he birdied the first two holes and still missed. Usually the number is 66 or 67, and the scores get lower every year.