First came the PGA, and it was good. The PGA had the best players in the world competing for Golf's most prestigious championships, and, as time went on, for millions of dollars.
Then came the LPGA, and it was also good. Thought being that the natural disadvantage in strength that women have would not allow them to compete with men, and that, in order to maintain a competitive game, and to involve women, having a women-only tour was the way to go. Many women made a good living, and earned the respect of their peers, but no one thought that any woman could give a guy a run for his money.
Then came the outliers, and the world was tossed into chaos. Two outliers in particular, Annika Sorenstam, and Michelle Wie, were two of the biggest stars in golf. One, an established star who dominated her sport, and the other a young phenom with an impressive drive. Some PGA tournaments desperately wanted to include these two players, for the notoriety they would bring, and because they could legitimately compete.
Unfortunately, they were both women, and many old fuddy-duddy players didn't want to play with them.
Fortunately, the PGA, and its tournaments, are privately run organizations, and they can invite anyone that they damn well please to play, and if some idiot doesn't want to play because of that, he'd better be sure that he's more of a draw than Ms. Wie, which he is almost certainly not. In fact, most tournaments include sponsorship exemptions which allow sponsors to include players that would not otherwise play, in order to increase fan interest.
Unfortunately, some French jackass decided that if these qualified women, who are, by the way, better at golf than said French jackass, could play in the PGA, that he could play in the LPGA. Fortunately, the LPGA is a private organization, and it can allow anyone that it damn well pleases to play, including men. I suspect that they will not do so, as it would screw up their competitive balance, but they are within their rights to let him play or not let him play.
The moral is, that if you object to women playing on the PGA tour because they are women, you might want to think about why that is. Especially if they actually qualify. America is supposed to be a meritocracy after all.
The other moral is that if you want to start an all male golf tour, you are within your rights to do so, however, this may result in Vijay playing with himself.
And no one will pay to see that.
Well, some people would, but they're sickos. Let's not talk about them.
People refer to the golf tours using a false dichotomy. Men's v. Women's. That is not how it was set up. The true dichotomy is Best v. Women's. The PGA always existed to find the best golfer. Well, for a while it existed to find the best white golfer, but fortunately they've remedied that situation.
Still not convinced? Let's assume that you're a Brewer fan. Now let's assume that there is a woman college baseball player who hits in the low .400s (no power, but a nice average). She gets signed by a Brewer minor league team as a publicity stunt and continues to tear up minor league pitching. She eventually moves up to Triple A and doesn't drop off a bit. She plays second base. Assume that instead of Ricky Weeks we currently have Gus Polidor manning the position.
Do you want the woman called up to replace Gus Polidor, or do you want her to play in the women's professional softball league? What if she's also highly attractive, and will boost attendance 2-3%? And what if she will also get in commercials, and bring some positive press to Milwaukee?
In other words, when the decision affects the success of
your team, are you still willing to send her back to the girl's league, just because she's a girl, and even though she's your best prospect at the moment?
