The Golfchick

That chick blabbing about anything golf related.

Category: Don’t get me started (page 2 of 3)

Golf Grit

I guess you gotta be a golfer to understand certain things. Tonight provided a good example: After playing golf all day, I was trying to make evening plans with my man. Obviously, a shower was imminent, but at some point I mentioned wanting to wash off all the grit and that I felt sandy all over.

He: What, were you rolling around in the sand traps all day?

Me: Yes, exactly that.

Sure, I was in a few bunkers today. But I was talking about all over golf grit. Know what I mean? Please?

Or – and with this, I officially launch a long overdue golfchick post category – IS IT JUST ME?

Next post.

Indio, Shmindio. Try putting on the beach.

As the Kraft Nabisco (Dinah Shore) got underway today, the women of the LPGA were making and missing putts on slick, true greens in their first major of the year. The announcers just would not stop talking about the “Indio effect,” which just means the greens tend to break toward the town of Indio even if they don’t look like they will.

Meanwhile, I went out for a local round and encountered the seediest sandiest greens I’ve ever seen. Seriously, it was like putting on a beach. The bunkers there seem to be mostly hard dirt, so maybe they should reconsider how they want to use all that sand. Waaaah. I’m such a whiner. Somehow I managed to squeak in at 90 but still, I think I want my money back. This photo has not been doctored in any way.

Los Robles beach

Next post.

Johnny Miller “gems” from the US Open

I’m told he’s not mentally disabled, so I guess Johnny Miller is fair game. With all the incredible action yesterday, it was irritating to have to listen to his nonsense. Rather than muting the telecast, I decided to document some of his gems. Some are listed by readers in this previous post, but here are some examples of his “brilliance” from Sunday at the US Open:

The nonstop comparison of himself to Tiger because of their similar knee surgeries: “I can relate to everything Tiger’s going through right now.” (Riiiiiight. There’s his delusional perspective at work.)

“Four par” (meaning a par 4 hole, not four par scores)

On what shots Tiger should hit all day: “If he plays the hook, he’s just another player.” (Uh, if he plays the hook, he’s probably an amateur. Do you mean draw?)

and… Johnny decided Tiger should be playing his power cut shots all day since they’ve been working best. (this shortly after we hear that the shot that hurts Tiger the worst is the cut, especially the power one since he snaps his left knee.)

On a random 6-foot putt: “These are the ones you gotta make if you wanna win.” (not the 4 footers, the 12 footers, the 2 footers, the approach shots or anything else?)

On a putt that didn’t break into the hole: “It stayed up there for some reason” (wonder what that reason is?)

On a shot decision with a poorly timed telestrator accompaniment: Lots of bumbling words followed by “he was playing the shot that would go this way” (are you sure he’s not mentally disabled?)

I’m recording the playoff so I’ll update this with any gems I pluck from today’s broadcast once I watch it (trying desperately not to hear the score!).

Update: From Monday’s playoff round

Talking about how “sole-ing” the club in chunky lies rather than keeping the club level at the ball for chips from the rough is the “biggest mistake I see from professional golfers.” (as though if he were still a player, he wouldn’t make this mistake and since it’s the most common, he’d be better than they are)

On the third hole after Rocco almost aced it and Tiger was in the bunker: “I had a feeling he was gonna make a 2 there when Tiger was buried.” (cocky blowhard now thinks he has ESP)

Talking about how Tiger made a bunch of one-putts then missed some “I sorta jinxed him.” (cocky blowhard thinks he has that power as well)

Constantly giving advice as to how caddies should interact with their players. For example – yesterday he suggested if he were Stevie, he’d be more forceful with Tiger’s club decisions off the tees. And today, saying if he were Rocco’s caddie he would have pumped him up by telling him to take advantage of the second par 3 when Tiger was in trouble. (Give me a break – these guys have relationships with their players and know exactly how to work with them.)

After the 18th hole when they were on their way to the 7th tee for sudden death, he said he was shocked that Tiger ate and drank as much as he did before going back to play: “It’s not always good to eat so much.” (Again – give me a break. Like Tiger doesn’t know his own body well enough to balance his own pH levels.)

Johnny – do you get paid by the word? Why do these people keep hiring him? Yes, he was announcing during the ESPN portion of the coverage as well as NBC. The only reason I can think is that the other announcers insist that he’s there alongside them so that they’ll appear brilliant by comparison.

Care to share some of your favorites? Please do!

Next post.

Annika v. Lorena: The Rematch

Also known as The Greater Sinaloa Open 2: Electric Boogaloo

Well, I took Lorennika Sorenchoa back to the local dogrun to give Annika a rematch. The course wasn’t too busy but we didn’t have it all to ourselves. I caught up to a family on the third hole and the little kids were adorable to watch. There was nowhere to go in front of them without having to speed things up (drop one competitor) and play through a bunch of groups. So we lolligagged and enjoyed the nice day. It was more humid and buggy out compared to Tuesday’s perfection and I sneezed more (lately I think I’m even allergic to my allergy pills) but it was still a great evening. The family ahead of me consisted of one dad and two boys, one of them quite small. Very cute. It was great to see him teaching his boys etiquette as they whacked the ball around. He’d not only coach them on their swings, but where to place their golf bags around the green to be positioned to leave for the next hole and how to navigate the putting surface. Nicely done, strange dad. This is exactly why we need courses like Sinaloa.

*Laker fans take note: The other people on the course should have been home watching the Laker game like they were on Tuesday. If you want someone to blame for last night’s loss – these are your scapegoats.*

Sinaloa hole 5Moving on… remember the hawk hole from Tuesday? Here it is. Friendliest pin position ever. The front bunker usually has a big, hairy mustache on the top. Sadly, it has been trimmed. The small squares are the ladies’ Tuesday ball positions and the big rectangle is where the hawk was standing. The circles are last night’s ball positions – Lorena in the front, Annika in the back. Ochoa made par, Sorenstam bogey’d.

As promised, I won’t run down each and every hole, so here are the results:

Lorena: 32 (5 pars, 3 bogeys, 1 double)

Annika: 34 (1 birdie, 2 pars, 4 bogeys, 2 doubles)

This time, Lorena played with the Lady Noodle and Annika used the Precept Lady. I didn’t notice a big difference in ball flight, but Annika wasn’t as consistent as Lorena so it’s kind of hard to be scientific. Once again, Annika drank a little more than Lorena though not as much as Tuesday night since she spilled one of the beers.

A couple guys caught up to me as I was waiting on the 8th tee and they played the last two holes with us. It sounds like they’ve been playing since they were kids but their techniques sure didn’t show it. Nice guys, but they teed up their golf balls so high you’d expect them to be using drivers with oversized heads rather than irons. They each played two balls off the tee and chose their better ball to play out the hole. I’m guessing their scores were in the high 40s to 50s. One guy told me I had a nice swing and that I “didn’t swing like a girl.” I thought to myself “yes I do, and maybe you should try it.”

Congratulations to Lorena for backing up her win. Had Annika taken this one, we probably would have needed a rubber match. Now we don’t have to spend Sunday night (the next – and perhaps last – Laker game) at Sinaloa and can instead enjoy Father’s Day and the US Open Final.

sinaloa hole 6

Just for fun, here’s a shot of the shortest (and purportedly easiest) hole on the course. There is the family playing in front of me on the green. The trick to this shot is all in the touch of the wedge.

Post Script

Oh yeah – why do I avoid Laker games? I know it’s cool to like basketball but I just don’t. Can’t stand it. Oh, maybe I’d get caught up in the excitement if I actually attended a live game but watching it on television is just irritating with all its obnoxious sounds. Squeaka-squeaka-squeak! Not to mention the noise emanating from a certain fan I know as he yells at the screen as though the players, coaches and refs can hear him. My loathing of basketball grows more irrational as the years go on. I get downright twitchy when it’s on a television near me. Much better to be on the golf course!

Next post.

Beware the passive-aggressive sandbagger

You know the cheating scumbags when you see them. The ones who intentionally post higher scores or conveniently “forget” to post their low scores. The obvious techniques to pad handicaps and gain extra strokes in competitions are easy to spot. But what about the passive-aggressive cheaters?

There is a sneakier behavior I only recently noticed. Perhaps there’s a weasel in your midst. Is there a person in your club who consistently plays better than his or her handicap in tournaments? Maybe you even play casual rounds with them or witness them entering accurate scores after rounds. They can look you in the eyes and be sincere when they say they post every score, count every stroke and vigilantly apply Equitable Stroke Control. You (and they) are comfortable in their honesty because they actually are truthful statements. So where is the sneakiness? Out on the golf course during casual rounds. They play enough to keep their games sharp, so as soon as they realize they’re not setting any personal bests in a round, they get intentionally lazy. They don’t focus or try their best to make putts. Flub a chip here, slice a drive there. Their scores become inflated and the score they post at the end of the round is technically accurate but not indicative of their actual abilities.

But why be aware of this when there is really nothing you can do about it? How can you “call out” a person when you have no proof of their intentions out there? All you can hope for is that your handicap chairman recognizes it and audits the person’s index. Adjustments can be made at that level such as attaching more weight to rounds (giving them T-score ratings) or even manually changing a course handicap for tournament play.

Maybe if they know you’re onto them, they’ll be guilted into changing their behavior. Everyone knows an obvious sandbagger and they probably get harassed about it, but the crafty weasels with the passive-aggressive techniques deserve their share of ribbing as well.

Next post.

Ladies: don’t let sexism (or anything else) keep you off the course!

Let’s face it: there are barriers that prevent women from taking up golf as well as staying in once they’ve taken the plunge. Not the least of which is the attitude that still exists among some men.

With the recent Kelly Tilghman/GolfWeek situation, the golf world at least seems to me making strides towards quelling its racist history and reputation. Not so for sexism, which is still reinforced and even encouraged. The attitudes in professional golf set an example and trickle down to the amateur level. Allowing or ignoring it at the top just isn’t going to help. When women speak up about the comments or treatment we receive, we’re mostly ridiculed for having a chip on our shoulders or being “whiners,” and if we keep quiet, we just perpetuate the problem. When you can’t even win for losing, it’s understandable that women might want to turn away from the game altogether. But we musn’t!

Ladies, just play. Don’t let them get to you. Speak up if that’s your style. Let it all roll off your back if you don’t like to rock the boat, but play!

Golf is such a mental game. The slightest distraction can hinder performance and when you encounter misogynist pigs on the links, it’s difficult not to let it seep into your brain and mess with your swing (and score), leading to another barrier: frustration. Some women leave the game because the ratio of hassle to improvement doesn’t seem worth the time and effort. The good news is that golf manufacturers, retailers, pro shops and teaching professionals are recognizing the buying power of our demographic and are catering more and more to our needs. The avenues are there for you, you just have to persevere and not worry about the lack of fairness that such a barrier exists.

Personally, I enjoy golf so much that no “unfair barrier” could ever make me leave it. If you break through the barriers you experience, chances are you will feel the same. Which brings me to another one: confidence (or lack thereof). Many women feel intimidated at the thought of getting out on the course. There can be many reasons for this, and they’re all kind of inter-related, such as lack of athletic background, anxiety about rules and etiquette, fear of embarassment or ridicule, performance anxiety, and beginner jitters. None of those were ever a problem for me. I have an athletic background, I’m an avid learner so my knowledge of rules and etiquette surpassed most casual players rather quickly, I don’t have much shame, I thrive on the challenge of performing, and I love the feeling of butterflies in my stomach. But if that doesn’t describe you (most are mental and you could become that way if you wanted, but that’s another story for another blog), there are still ways to surmount these issues and get up to speed. Now that I’m thinking of it, I should do another post on just that topic. This one’s getting long as it is. The point is, lack of confidence is only a hurdle, not a wall.

Just this week, I had a conversation with a colleague that went something like this:

She: You’ve only been playing for three years? Did you play before and you only just picked it back up?

Me: No, I first picked up a club about three years ago.

She: So I can do it! It’s not too late!
(she’s younger than I am)

Me: Of course you can!

She: Well I love going to the range and hitting balls. It’s so much fun. But I really want to play.

Me: You should! Why haven’t you?

She: I’ve been told I’m not worth the tee time. (laughs)

Me: (good that she sees the light side of that) Ohh.. that’s just wrong. Get out there. A lot of the clowns out there aren’t worthy and it doesn’t stop them.

She: I’m going to. I’m really gonna do it.

Hooray! Another volunteer to our troops! Then the discussion turned to gear selection and such, which is something many beginners (women and men) struggle with. She, like me, is going to go out and immediately acquire the best money can buy that feels good for her swing. And get a proper fitting while she’s at it. Of course, this isn’t for everyone and most people would recommend some kind of starter set while you develop your swing before you invest your hard earned clams on the latest and greatest.

Now, this is a highly intelligent, confident and successful woman who has been at least somewhat discouraged from entering the game for some amount of time. And if I remember correctly, the statement about her not being “worth the tee time” was from someone in her own family! But she’s been having fun on the range and, never having stepped foot on a golf course, already has the bug.

Sometimes all it takes is a toe in the shallow end to make you want to dive in. It’s an easy bug to catch and the stronger it gets, the further you get from the hurdles in the dust behind you.

People (still) assume female golfers are lesbians

Random acquaintance: I heard you play golf?Gay symbols

Golf Chick: You heard right.

Random acquaintance: But you’re not gay!

Golf Chick: It’s a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy these days. Shhh.

Random acquaintance: Really?

Golf Chick: *eye roll*

And so it goes. The stereotype of female golfers being lesbians is alive and well. At least among non-golfers and people who don’t really follow the sport. But who really cares about them?:

Golf Chick: You know, the vast majority of professional female golfers are heterosexual. Can you even name a single gay player?

Random acquaintance: How about Billie Jean King?

See what I mean?

It’s no secret that there have been several gay players on the LPGA over the years. I suspect there are several gay players on the PGA Tour as well, though I couldn’t name a single one. If “a few good men” came out to the public, would that build a stereotype of male golfers being gay? Yeah, right. Football, with all its contact and soft core porn sequences couldn’t even sustain that image if a star player or two actually ever came out.

Let’s get serious

Sadly, being gay is still a stigma for professional male athletes. Hell, I think it’s still a stigma for any male, especially with such macho (and purportedly straight) athletic role models, whether or not the gay man actually looks up to them.

Is it still a stigma for women?

That’s difficult for me to answer. I can’t know what it feels like to be a lesbian or whether or not people judge you because of it. I imagine there is still plenty of that going on.

However, I think there is an element of acceptance due to a sexualized society. Guys like the idea of two women together. As long as they’re pretty, of course. And there are plenty of insecure pretty girls who crave the attention of men so much that they will alter their behavior, their actions, their bodies, and their sexual orientation to get it and therefore can’t really be judgmental of lesbians. But that’s qualified tolerance, not acceptance. Personally, I hate that the word “tolerance” is used to describe freedom from bigotry. Who wants to be tolerated?

I think openly gay women are secure with themselves and, while they might appreciate universal acceptance, don’t need it. Just like secure straight women don’t care if they’re assumed to be gay just because they play golf. I know I don’t.

Back to the lighthearted fun

I recently discussed this topic with my friend, Wendy Dexter, who specifically asked to be fully named when I told her I would write about it. She’s a whack-job free-spirited, outspoken, fun character and I love hanging around her. She does not play golf. She does not watch or follow professional golf. Just the perspective I sought.

First, Wendy said she assumed all female golfers were lesbians and that I was the exception.

Then, after more discussion and her giving it more thought, she said she guessed not all female amateurs could be gay, but that she was still certain the pros must be. And that the better amateurs probably are, too. Whaaaa? Then the conversation went something like this (though it wasn’t nearly this streamlined):

Golf Chick: So, the better the golfer, the greater the likelihood she is gay?

Wendy: Exactly.

Golf Chick: Can you be good and not be gay?

Wendy: Probably not. Wait, but you’re not bad, right?

Golf Chick: Only compared to some. So, will you become gay if you improve to a certain level?

Wendy: No, I guess not. But you probably won’t improve that much if you’re not gay.

*another round of drinks is delivered*

Golf Chick: Do you have to be good to be gay?

Wendy: Are we in a “Sex and the City” episode? That sounded like a Carrie question. I can just see you typing this up and then comes the voice over: “Do you have to be good to be gay?” Or “gay to be good?” Whichever, I think you do.

Golf Chick: Can you be gay and be bad at golf?

Wendy: Hmm… probably, you just have a better shot at being good than if you were straight.

Golf Chick: Do you have to be born gay or can you choose it in order to improve your game?

Wendy: Would you?

Golf Chick: If you weren’t f—ing with me and this had any merit, I might really consider it. Greg would probably understand.

But she was only halfway f—ing with me. She actually does assume that female pro golfers are all gay. And, she claims that belief is the majority opinion in the non-golfing community. I tend to believe her because she has more friends and connections in reality than a lot of teens do on Facebook. She’s got the pulse of the community, one could say. I assumed but neglected to ask if that majority opinion includes gay non-golfers. Note to self to follow up.

I went on to explain the current atmosphere of the LPGA Tour and how most of the top players are straight, and that some of them are even adored for their looks, sexy or wholesome.

Wendy was flabbergasted.

For the record, I’m pretty sure Wendy is straight. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if she gave women a try just to be sure. And while the stereotype may have a negative connotation for many believers, it doesn’t for Wendy. She loves everyone.

Next post.

FedEx Cup changes all about the money. Plus, my own points proposal.

It seems the fans weren’t the only ones less than thrilled about the deferred payment and the lack of excitement it generated for the FedEx Cup playoffs. The PGA Tour announced some changes for 2008 and beyond. Yes, there will still be some deferred payments, but only a percentage.

Money money money money… MONEY – sing it!

Out of the $35 million dollar bonus pool, $10 million still goes to the winner, with $9 million of that in cash and $1 million into the tax-deferred retirement account.The way I understand it, another $6.5 million in cash will be split between the next 9 top finishers and the remaining $18.5 million will be split up into the retirement accounts of the top 149 players behind the winner (including the aforementioned 9 cash prize winners).

Um, okay… I guess that makes it a little bit more exciting for the fans. And more incentive for the players to be in the top 10 if they want any cash. And since the 150th player on the money list this year has already made almost $500K, it’s not like they’re hurting for pocket change. (Following my habit of reporting disparity in the Tours, the 150th player on the LPGA money list made an appalling $12,798. Hrmph. Seriously, that’s not even a yearly mortgage payment.) But I digress, as usual.

Other changes

They also made some changes to the schedule, primarily to allow room for the players to compete in the Ryder Cup. I’m sure it’s also to position the tournaments better for advertisers, ratings and sponsors (again money related).

Personally, I think the real problem is with the points and the structure of the whole thing. Apparently, the powers that be disagree:

“…the Policy Board did not feel the need to make fundamental changes to the overall structure of the competition. Accordingly, no changes have been made in the points distribution in the PGA TOUR Regular Season.”

The good news is they’re still evaluating the points system for the playoffs as they relate to reseeding and distribution. Excellent. Let’s hope they don’t decide it ain’t broke. Unfortunately, they’re only considering feedback from the membership and the PAC, not random golfchicks or bloggers. Incidently, I’m not sure what the PAC even is. Is that the same as the Policy Board? Player’s Advocacy Committee? Policy Assessment Committee? Perfunctory and Aimless Courtesy? Puppets And Commissioners? Perfectly Absurd Council? I better stop now before I can’t.

Anyway… if a PGA or PAC member is looking for ideas, perhaps they’ll check around the interweb. It is in that hope and spirit that I offer my own suggestion. I complained about the FedEx Cup, so it’s only fair I try to offer a solution.

FixedUp CupThe Golfchick points proposal:

First, when the reseeding occurs, let it be an actual RESET. To Zero points. Limit the playoffs to, say, the top 60 players from the regular season. If you really want 120, that’s fine, too. This points system will work fine to eliminate players along the way. Now, like the marketing says, let’s really make EVERY SHOT COUNT.

Side note: Check it out – my FixedUp Cup logo even has a subliminal arrow kinda like the FedEx one. :)

Let’s break it down

Players don’t get points for where they place on the leaderboard except in relation to how they got there. Yes, every hole, every good shot:

  • 1 point awarded for a fairway hit.
  • 1 point awarded for a green hit (in regulation with a par score)
  • 1 point awarded for a birdie
  • 1 point awarded for an eagle (plus the birdie point)
  • 1 point awarded for a double eagle (plus the birdie and eagle points)

Par 3s: Worth a maximum of 3 points (for an ace/eagle). Green hit with birdie: 2 points. Green missed with birdie: 1 point. Green hit with par: 1 point. Green missed with par: 0 points.

Par 4s: Worth a maximum of 5 points (for an ace/double eagle – yes, they get the fairway and green points). Drive the green, make the putt for an eagle: 4 points. Hit the fairway and hole out for eagle: 4 points. Miss the fairway and hole out for eagle: 3 points. Hit the fairway and the green and make the putt for birdie: 3 points. Fairway and green hit for par: 2 points. Fairway hit, green missed, hole out for birdie: 2 points. Fairway missed, green hit with birdie: 2 points. Fairway missed, green missed, hole out for birdie: 1 point.

Par 5s: Worth a maximum of 5 points (for a double eagle – fairway+green+birdie+eagle+double eagle). Hitting the green in two only increases points if converted. Fairway hit, green hit, eagle: 4 points. Fairway hit, green missed, eagle: 3 points. Fairway missed, green hit, eagle: 3 points. Fairway hit, green hit, birdie: 3 points. Fairway missed, green missed, eagle: 2 points. Fairway missed, green missed, birdie: 1 point.

So you see how this can get exciting? Players will be rewarded for hitting fairways and greens but can still make up points by holing out. We might see some strategy changes. Just look at the par 5: A ho-hum birdie is worth the same as an eagle if you missed the fairway. Same with the par 4s: A ho-hum par is worth the same as a birdie if you missed the fairway. Every shot really counts and the projections would be a lot more fun this way, too.

There – that’s my contribution. Feel free to use my points system. I’d appreciate some consideration when you’re naming it, though. :)

Next post.


Short on reason about the short game “gender gap”

Sweeping generalizations about female golfers piss me off, but I’m used to them.

John Huggan, who usually writes such thoughtful and interesting golf articles, put up a rare sensational piece in which he says coach David Whelan is “making great strides towards closing what is perhaps the biggest gender gap in golf.” Baloney. David Whelan is making sweeping generalizations about female golfers to get himself some attention and John Huggan gave him the vehicle.

First of all, that gender gap to which he is referring is the short game – everything from 100 yards and in. I think we all know that’s not the biggest gender gap in golf. That would be the long game. Okay, you caught me. Some sweeping generalizations are true.

Second, if we’re talking about a real gender gap in golf, that includes the millions of golfers who don’t play professionally. Not just the elite on tour. From my experience playing with amateur women and men, short games are created equal. Interest, focus, training and experience all factor into whether a person plays well inside 100 yards. Not gender.

chip shot

Whelan’s whole spiel is about training women (he seems to prefer the term “girls”) on the short game. If they pay more attention to that part of the game, they’ll get better at it. Wow, maybe he read a book! But to get himself noticed, he thought it would be a good idea to say that not only are women worse at the short game than men, but that it’s because they are women. Maybe he is a good technical coach but his social and communication skills are primitive. If I had a daughter, I wouldn’t want her in his camp (the David Leadbetter Golf Academy in Florida).

Huggan points out a more reasonable explanation: “Another factor in the relatively poor short games on the LPGA Tour is the level of facilities typically available to the players.” And he supports it with Whelan’s own observations:

“When I started working with Paula, she was a 15-year-old amateur who was getting invites to events where there were no chipping greens or pitching areas. Even at the Nabisco event, which is a major, there is still no chipping green.”

But it goes downhill from there:

“So bad technique around the greens is the biggest thing holding the girls back. That and a constant reassurance that they have to hit balls all day. A lot of them feel that, if they don’t hit a lot of balls, then they don’t deserve to play well.”

So you see, their girly lack of self confidence and perhaps the pressure of the REAL gender gap is causing them to spend too much time on their long games, thus creating the short game gender gap. Silly girls! So let’s undermine them some more and give them a new way to feel inferior, because we wouldn’t want to hold them back. Too bad the only support for his assertion is a stat related to putting, not chipping or pitching:

“Look at the stats. A 29 putts per round average barely gets you into the top 100 on the PGA Tour; on the LPGA Tour, that number has you in the top 30.”

And isn’t it funny there is no mention of the difference in the putting greens on the courses the men and women play. And too bad the good point is buried in the middle of the article surrounded by all the other crap:

“You have to be more ‘softly softly’ with girls, and they need more encouragement. They seem to lack self-confidence. So that needs to be instilled in them early. They are competitive, though. They hate to get beat. Which is a good thing.

There’s that “girls need more encouragement” statement again. At least he gets one thing right: self-confidence does need to be instilled in them early. Then they need to stay away from him so it doesn’t get talked out of them.

“Still, it’s a lot easier to work with the guys than the girls. You can work with more men than women. For example, the men aren’t as bothered about me watching them play. The girls like me to watch. They are convinced that there is something happening out there that isn’t on the range.”

Then go back to working with the guys. The girls like you to watch? Are you sure you’re focusing on their short games and not their short skirts? Do you have pillow-fight drills in your sessions just to hammer home what girls are really good for? For a guy who used to play professionally, you sure don’t seem to remember that there is a difference between working on the range and playing in an event or even just a casual round. It’s called the mental game. Maybe they want you to identify what their weaknesses are when they’re under pressure so they can work on those. The men probably figure that you’ll be watching anyway since they’re on TV. At least I assume you’re talking about the pros when you mention “men” and the kids from the academy when you mention the “girls.” Oh wait, you were just talking about the pros, right? Well, many of those “girls” get about as much TV coverage as the kids do anyway. Plus they know you’ll be watching that other channel with the REAL golf.

The short game is important – revolutionary! Gee, your instruction methods focus on the short game. How unique. Wow, you work with some big names like Paula Creamer, Catriona Matthew, Aree and Naree Song and Rachel Hetherington. Too bad you had to act like such a caveman while getting the word out.

Huggan makes a reasonable observation about the golfers he has watched lately and that the women’s short games weren’t as good as the men’s. I can accept that. He sees what he sees. But to broaden it into a sport-wide gender gap by giving it the sensational title “Why women can’t match men even with the putter” and support the idea with one coach’s idiotic ramblings that basically amount to “because they’re girls”? I’m inspired. I’m going to go hold up the fast lane as I put mascara on while I drive to the golf course to play really slowly and ignore the rules and etiquette.

Next post.

You call that television coverage?

Not just a tournament, a major. Not just a major, the British Open. Not just the British Open, the first time St. Andrews has been home to a women’s professional event. Let’s see how these women play links golf. Lots of the women. On lots of the golf holes. Oops, nevermind.

TNT saw fit to cover the event for 1.5 hours on the first two days. ABC graced us with a whopping 2 hours on the final days. We got to see a handful of women play a handful of holes between 11 and 18. Whoopee.

Writers covered it better

At least we had good written coverage from the Golf For Women Editor’s blogs. However, of their nine contributors, most of the stories came from the only two men on that list, Dave Allen and John Huggan. Editor in Chief Susan Reed was there but I only saw one article from her. I found that odd.

Don’t get me wrong, the men filed some great stories and had interesting takes. For example, John Huggan points out that the Old Course is a public facility and women have been playing there for a long time. While it is significant that it is hosting its first women’s professional event, the real “breakthrough” is that women were allowed into the R&A clubhouse for the first time. Or was it a breakthrough? Here are some excerpts from John Huggan’s piece on the issue:

…to be sure, it is nice that the all-male membership of golf’s ruling body (outside Mexico and the United States) has for once relaxed its misogynistic and out-dated regulations regarding the presence of women inside one of the game’s most iconic buildings.

But let’s get real people. The headline on this story should read, “R&A behave like normal people shock.”

…the St. Rule club that makes its home on the right side of the 18th fairway, is, in fact, open only to women. Which makes it no better – or worse – than the R&A in my book.

Anyway, let’s keep this whole clubhouse thing in perspective. While it has a certain symbolic significance, in the broad scheme of things nothing has changed. Next week women will again be barred from entering.

Boo to television, Bravo (and one small brava) to the bloggers.

And a huge, heartfelt congratulations to Lorena Ochoa on her first major win at such a storied golf course.

Lorena Ochoa waves

Next post.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 The Golfchick

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑