If a woman ever does well enough on the Men's tour it will KILL the LPGA, simply squash it, and that would be bad for female golfers overall. DD
I don't think so. After the novelty of women in the PGA wears off, most women won't have the support they would have if the compete in the LPGA. I mean, seriously, most women will be placing in the high double digits. I think they would rather be 3rd in the LPGA than 45th on the PGA.
Okay, here's the deal... If lady golfers want to compete head-to-head with men, and vice-versa, there should be an intramural forum for that. However, the women should NOT be trying to play in the PGA tournaments (which are all-male). I'm all for a women-vs-men forum, but the PGA ain't it. Why? Because if you're going to let women compete in the PGA, then it's only fair to let men compete in the LPGA. There are a lot of very good male golfers who will probably never have a shot at winning a PGA tournament as long as Tiger, Phil, Ernie, and Vijay are around, not to mention the countless others (Furyck, Love III, Appleby, etc.) that are also excellent golfers. There are many male golfers who would probably very much enjoy the opportunity to have a shot at a title in the LPGA. But here's the unspoken hypocrisy that exists in this issue: the LPGA won't allow men to compete in their tournaments because they know that their best golfers (like Sorenstam and Wie) would be defeated by the men. And not just any men - the women would be (and have been) defeated by unheard-of male golfers who are just 'not bad' (golfers like Clay Ogden). Sorenstam missed the cut at the colonial, and Wie just lost the Amateur Public Links Championship. This alone is proof that, while the women are very good golfers (and certainly could kick my butt), they aren't even close to being as good as the men. That's why the PGA won't let women in. And that's why the LPGA won't let men in. And all that's fine with me. Personally, I'd like to see a new forum that would have women competing head-to-head against men. Women deserve the opportunity, and, who knows - in time, they may defeat the men. But that forum should be in neither the PGA nor the LPGA.
The PGA does let women in. Any man or woman is welcome if they qualify in the various qualifying tournaments.
No, they do it for all events. If a woman qualifies, she'll be treated like any other PGA golfer. If she wins a major, she'll have the 10 year exemption or whatnot, etc. The PGA Tour is not a men's professional golf league - it just happens to be that only men have successfully played on it. If a woman competes on the same level, she is treated no differently under the rules than any male player. The reason Sorenstam and Wie have had some controversy is that they have been getting in through sponsor's exemptions rather than qualifying the traditional way, and some people have issue with that. The PGA/LPGA is not like tennis, where the men and women's events are regarded at about the same level, in terms of prestige and popularity. The PGA is clearly the standardbearer event, so if a woman wants the opportunity to compete for the big dollars and big publicity, the LPGA is not an option.
I think the point is that she wants to be the best golfer, period. She doesn't want to be just the best woman golfer. She has alrady proven she can compete with the best women in the world as her 2nd place showing in the LPGA tournament showed a few weeks ago. Sure she missed the cut at John Deere last week, but she was the top amatuer and only missed the cut by a few strokes. If you remember Tiger only made the cut in a couple tournaments as an amatuer himself and most of the interviews I saw of players there said that she had the game to play at that level.
