Colonial flap continues to create debate

Welcome to the Mailbag version of Celebrity Death Match. No fighting here. No hidden blunt objects. No flying drop kicks. Just lots and lots of pointed words in this showdown: The Fightin' Fijian vs. the Swedish Siren, or, as they say in English, Vijay Singh vs. Annika Sorenstam.

Yes, the battle of the sexes is always a hot-button issue, and the current flap involving Annika's playing at Colonial this week and Vijay's critical comments brought a ton of mail. A lot of you offered similar opinions, so I can't run them all, but here is a sampling of your thoughts in an all-mail (sorry -- partially fe-mail) edition of Underground Golfer:

I definitely agree that Vijay doesn't get the whole marketing aspect of the situation. However, I am really angered that he said he would not play with a woman and would be upset if he was beaten by one. Golf has always been seen as an upper-middle-class, white man's sport. Finally, Tiger Woods, Sergio García, Vijay and Annika came along and changed the face of the game, literally. I was so offended that Vijay would put down the chance for a minority to bring attention to herself, being a minority himself. He should be cheering her on in an effort to open the gates of golf to a broader and more diverse audience.
—Kerry Caspare, Dumont, N.J.

While your comments smack of political correctness, I also can't disagree, Kerry. Golf should not be an exclusionary game. America should not be an exclusionary society. Can't we all just get along?

I agree with Vijay. His comments may not have been politically correct, but Annika is taking someone's spot. If she wants to see how she stacks up against PGA players, why not invite Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Davis Love III, David Toms, Mike Weir and others to play with her on a course set up for a PGA Tour event? I can understand the marketing side of the issue, but is this the best way to go about it? I like Annika and her game and she is definitely the most dominant woman golfer in the world. But why does she need to compare herself to the men? I'm almost certain she will have a lower score than more than a few men. That might mean a big marketing boom for Annika, but what about the men she outshoots? What becomes of them? Granted, not everyone plays their best every week, but I'm sure they will never live down letting a woman beat them.
—John Sims, Middletown, Ohio

What better way to go about it than to play in a real, live PGA Tour event? And you're saying she shouldn't play because some PGA Tour player might be embarrassed? You are kidding, right?

I agree that Annika will be fun to watch ... if you enjoy seeing pars and bogeys. But since this isn't the U.S. Open, I don't see how pars and bogeys can be good. However, I question sportswriters because you all are missing the point. Annika can't deal with pressure; she's proven that with her horrendous record in majors. She can't handle the big stage. So what makes people think she can make the cut in a men's tour event with all that pressure?
—Cliff, Los Angeles

For someone who can't deal with pressure, Sorenstam has 43 LPGA victories, four of them majors. Guess that's not good enough for you, Cliff. So, how's Norm?

You are the most gullible person I have read on SI.com in quite some time (and that's a remarkable accomplishment). Just as you foolishly and naively supported a dishonest white female during the ridiculous Augusta flap, you now are resolutely supporting another affluent white female waving the gender card as a means of gaining a privilege (and an exemption) that is realistically not available to professional male golfers. It hardly needs stating here that men are actively discouraged (and that is being charitable) from playing on the notoriously soft LPGA Tour. Apparently, in contemporary America what's good for the gander isn't good for the goose, and thus Annika eagerly has leapt at a sponsor's exemption that, to say the least, is of dubious legitimacy.
—Blaine Hislop, Stratford, Ont.

Thanks, Sloppy, but if you read anything I wrote on either subject, you didn't read it very carefully. As for the LPGA, men are flat-out not allowed to compete for obvious reason. Without Tiger, the Colonial probably would've been the subject of local media stories about its having a weak field and all that -- stuff we see on tour all the time. With Annika, the tournament becomes a media circus and a big draw. It's called good marketing, and playing the Colonial will help Annika, who hasn't exactly been a big endorsement attraction, get what she deserves. It's capitalism at work. What part of this deal don't you understand?

Security issues aside, do you expect Annika Sorenstam to receive a hecklers' treatment like Sergio García did at last year's U.S. Open? I'm sure some male chauvinist will become a major pain in her tush.
—Joe Brown, Okinawa, Japan

That's a definite possibility, Joe, but let's hope golf fans in Texas have slightly more class than Noo Yawkahs.

You're correct in saying that this is a marketing gimmick by organizers of the Colonial. But if the move draws positive attention to golf, then no one should complain. I hope Annika Sorenstam makes the weekend field. It would be interesting to see how everyone would react. And the last time I checked, it was called the Professional Golfers Association, not the MPGA (Men's PGA).
—Kenn, Tucson, Ariz.

Some PGA Tour golfers feel the events should be open to the best golfers in the world, not just the best male golfers, and don't have a problem with Annika's presence -- at least, not this once. If another woman golfer played her way through Q school and secured a tour card, she would be welcome and there would be little, if any, griping.

Instead of drawing an analogy between Sorenstam's sponsor's exemption and those given to John Elway and Mark Rypien, isn't a comparison to exemptions given to Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer or Tom Watson more valid? These great players also have their own tour and no shot at winning a PGA Tour event. Yet golf fans want to see them play, just like they do Annika. However, I don't think we'll hear Vijay complaining about this practice anytime soon. Vijay's not a purist. He's a sexist.
—Michael Howard, Chicago

Maybe he's just a union guy who opposes non-union participation. Who really knows for sure?

People have objected to Ms. Sorenstam's participation in the Colonial partly because she is playing under a sponsor's exemption. Why the resounding silence about Suzy Whaley playing in the Hartford Open? She qualified.
—Joe, Brantford, Conn.

The difference is, Annika is the best player in women's golf and there is curiosity (especially on Annika's part) about how she'd do. Suzy Whaley is a club pro who may or may not be as competitive as the average, run-of-the-mill LPGA Tour player. Realistically, expectations for her are considerably lower. That takes most of the edge off the curiosity factor.

If I were a PGA Tour member struggling to keep my card or busting my hump week in and week out to make a living, you bet I'd be upset if Annika Sorenstam took an exemption that cost me a week's pay! What does she have to prove, anyway?
—David, Carmel, Ind.

Everybody who met Colonial's qualifications got into the field. Exemptions are reserved for the tournament so it can invite any player it wants. Anybody who cries that she took his spot only needed to play better to insure a tee time. And it's a slam dunk that Annika will sell more tickets than some crybaby, journeyman tour player ... or just about any tour player, for that matter.

While I disagree with Annika Sorenstam playing a PGA Tour event, the argument that she's taking a spot from a man who qualified seems wrong. Tiger Woods earned his tour card without Q school by making enough money in tournaments he entered through sponsor's exemptions. Nick Price's argument shouldn't be against Sorenstam playing, it should be about anybody playing on an exemption. How about an explanation on sponsor's exemptions -- who they generally go to; what criteria, if any, is used in deciding who earns them; and what their purpose is (other than creating publicity).
—Ross Erickson, St. Louis

Good point, Leif, you're exactly right. Exemptions usually go to tour players who aren't otherwise exempt. In some cases, they can be draws -- like the rookie Tiger, or former U.S. Amateur champ Hank Kuehne, probably the longest hitter in the game, these days. Nice guys and players who faithfully support a tournament often score exemptions when they need them -- players like Peter Jacobsen or Mike Donald. In the wake of Tiger, however, tournaments now try to identify future stars, hoping they'll feel indebted once they make it big and will return to tournaments that gave them exemptions. So recent players such as Ty Tryon, Aaron Baddeley, Charles Howell, Trevor Immelman and Kuehne are scoring them.

I disagree with your statement that "this is a perfect time and place" for Annika Sorenstam to play a PGA Tour event. The perfect time and place would be sometime after Suzy Whaley plays in the Greater Hartford Open. Whaley qualified for the GHO and earned the right to make history as the first woman to play in a PGA Tour event since 1945. Sorenstam's sponsor's exemption looks like one of two things: 1) a publicity grab by Sorenstam, or 2) an attempt to circumvent the possibility that the first woman competing in a PGA Tour event will embarrass the LPGA. Whaley has little chance of putting up a respectable score, so perhaps the LPGA wants Sorenstam to be the one to break ground, hoping she can compete with the men. Either way, it dishonors the game: Whaley qualified and belongs there. If Sorenstam wants to play, she should go through qualifying.
—John Hartig, Apple Valley, Wis.

Here's what dishonors the game, John -- letting one player win a tournament by playing off a different set of tees than her competitors. The PGA section in Connecticut, and others, have since changed that rule. Whaley can still win her section event playing off different tees, but if she wants to earn a GHO berth next time, she has to play off the same tees as the men, which is only fair. Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning that Whaley earned the right to make history. She earned the right to play in the GHO -- nothing more, nothing less. But it would be great for club pros everywhere, male and female, if she played well.

Just wanted to say I think all these players who are against Annika Sorenstam should get a life. She has said that this is a one-time deal. I think it's good for golf, and if she shoots in the 100s, it ain't going to affect the LPGA one iota. What do you think?
—Ray B. Ivey, Gaffney, S.C.

This is a fun experiment. It's not a mission statement, a feminist agenda or anything else. It's a good golfer playing in a tougher league to see how she does while she's at her peak. Let's enjoy it for what it is: entertainment.

I couldn't disagree with you more that Vijay Singh shouldn't worry about Annika Sorenstam's exemption. What has been happening all over our great country is now happening in golf, and that is discrimination against men. It is a fact that women have their own tour to make a living playing golf. As a fan, I do not want to see the game diluted by having women playing on the men's tour. If the powers-that-be want to create a mixed tour, then fine, but there is no rationalization that will ever mask that a man is being prevented from competing in a tournament designated for men in order for a woman to play and create a media event. For the media to lash out at Singh for honestly expressing what so many men are really thinking is unfair.
—Rich, Minneapolis

Thanks, Rich. I needed a good laugh. You cracked me up.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Gary Van Sickle writes for the magazine's Golf Plus section and is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.

 

Related information

Stories

Singh wins Byron Nelson, then pulls out of Colonial Phil Taylor: Men should respect Annika Sorenstam's desire to compete Gary Van Sickle's Underground Golfer Archive

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video