I was all set to climb up on my soap box and wax practical about the state of the LPGA Tour. The news that Natalie Gulbis and Michelle Wie failed to qualify for next month's U.S. Women's Open got me sufficiently worked up; it was the latest example of a tour desperately seeking respectability finding new and inventive ways to guarantee that it didn't happen.Except that, unlike last year's English-only debacle, this has nothing to do with inane LPGA rules and more to do with Gulbis and Wie -- despite their popularity -- not earning their way into the field. (In fact, as was pointed out in the comments, the USGA sets the rules for the U.S. Open.)
Sure, only this season's top 10 money leaders are exempt, but that's not the only criterion to making it into the field. In fact, there are 10 other paths to an exemption.
There are two ways to look at this: if the tour's two most popular players haven't qualified for one of the biggest tournaments of the year, maybe the USGA should make an exception. It's not "fair," but when sponsor's are already skittish, perhaps it's necessary.
On the other hand, the top 50 money leaders from 2008 are automatically exempt, and Gulbis ended the year ranked 56th (Wie finally earned her tour card in Q-School last winter). If she can't crack the top 50, she probably doesn't deserve to be in the field, no matter how popular she is.
But like it or not, women's sports have, historically, just as much to do with physical appearance as athletic ability. Which means that the people in charge of saving the women's golf have to decide: should they try to broaden their appeal by featuring the Tour's pin-up quality players (and this assumes that the USGA shares the same goals as the LPGA when it comes to expanding the sport's appeal), or does it make more sense to focus on those golfers who are consistently posting low scores, and consistently winning big events, no matter what they look like? Common sense suggests the latter, economics points to the former.
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
It's my understanding that the US Open's rules are governed my the USGA and not the LPGA>
dvnum1,
Yep, you're exactly right. I updated the post above. Thanks for the clarification.
This sport is just like Tennis. They choose to focus on the more attractive athletes rather than the ones who can actually play the sport.
Michele Wie has never won a tournament in her career. She is only popular with people who dont follow the LPGA and only know what reporters tell them. Natalie Gulbis is yesterdays sexy golfer. There are several younger prettier players. If you tried to follow womens golf you might be aware of these facts.Paula Creamer will be playing and shes very popular. Stick with Middle School softball you dont know golf.
Neither of these women are hungry enough to reach their potential. They've got so much going on outside the ropes, that golf is just a distraction..
This idea that Gulbis and Wie aren't good just because they didn't qualify for the U.S. Open is erroneous. if the USGA just applied the same qualification exemptiom standards for women as they do for men, both Wie (#41) and Gulbis (#36) would be in, because they are well within the top 50 players in the world rankings. The two of them just finished in the top 25 of the LPGA Championship, a harder to contend in MAJOR tournament than the U.S. Open. And both are in the top 30 money winners on tour this year, ahead of many big names that will be playing in the open. The USGA needs to protect the world’s best like they do for the men. Instead, we have about 25 players, who will shoot a round in the 80s. The fact is the USGA is a little slow on the uptake when it comes to the women and doesn’t really spend anytime revising and tweaking the rules for them like it does for the men.
What was the USGA thinking, not giving Gulbis a special exemption for medical reasons? Natalie has EARNED her way into every U.S. Open since 2001 and almost won in 2005. She’s coming off a season with a fractured vertabrae yet still almost qualified on earnings that she made in half a season while injured. She has played remarkably well this year for someone coming off a 5 month injury layoff and playing much better right now than many of the other big names, such as Morgan Pressel, who has missed both cuts in the previous two majors. Certainly she and Wie have more of a chance to win than any of those amateur qualifiers have of even making the cut. Natalie got jobbed; the USGA once again proves itself clueless.
The author is clueless when it comes to decisions regarding golf's major championships. Neither the PGA Tour or LPGA have control of entries. Ignore the entire article.
The people who are clueless are the lesbians making comments here. My dad once told me if you what to find out what is going on follow the money and the money is leaving the lpga because of who is running it. Sponsors are leaving lpga majors without. They need Michelle Wie but not dressed as the rest of them. Once the tour gets established maybe it can get noble. Now they need a lesbianless Michelle Wie.
The PGA has a strict dress code. Dress slacks and collared shirts. The LPGA needs to have a similar code. Full length slacks, skirts or skorts and collared blouses. Pedal pushers, shorts and capris do not appear professional. Even their head gear leaves a lot to be desired with the floppy baggy hats some wear.
They are professional female athletes and should look like it when playing tournaments.
They might also take a page from the Champions Tour and insist their players interact with galleries during tournaments. I realize it can be distracting to their game but if they don't do something soon they won't have to worry about their game.
well, I guess it depends on what players really want...if they want money, tournaments and public recognition which equates to endorsements, then the association has to understand what generates that. Clearly there aren't enough women who are watching all by themselves as a demographic to generate the tv revenue opportunities. If there were enough who just appreciated the skill of the players then it would work. But they aren't. And you can't force people to do that either. So then what...well, sex sells. Always has...and while there are many in the sport who might want to be appreciated for their talent...in order to expand the demographic there may need to include that element or die sponsorless. Is it unfair, well maybe...unless of course one naively assumes that all women who watch sports are that sport's afficionados and aren't watching some of the hunky men involved. To cross gender demographics for ANY sport requires sex appeal. too bad, but it's true. To make requirements of dress that constrain that is foolish. Wimbledon manages to keep a sense of propriety and not constrain fashion worn by their players...and believe me, women aren't watching Rafa Nadal in tennis because they love his double left handed back hand...it's because he's a hunk. So let's not get all sexist about this. As for as it being a professional sport and "it should look like it"...hmmm...short sleeve shirts and gym shorts are professional? really? yes, if you're playing basketball. Wearing slacks would be a stupid idea. But many of the clothes in women's tennis are eye catching, fashionable and still not slutty. So clearly it's possible.
Bottom line is...if the female athletes aren't generating enough women viewers to maintain a level of interest and income, then you're always seeking crossover...and men, unfortunately while there are some who appreciate the sport would mostly be watching men play if that were the case...men watch women's golf because it's a delightful combination of watching skill AND someone attractive. Otherwise, why watch a sport that they can already watch that's played better by the men. (I can hear the protests about skill level now but it happens to be true, men have been playing the sport at a higher level for longer which equates to a higher level of mastery.)