Sorenstam's start will prove nothing

Right up front, I'd like to say that I will be tuning in to watch the Colonial in May, regardless of what other activities I had planned for those late afternoons, because I want to see how Annika Sorenstam will perform in a bona fide PGA Tour event. She's making history, and the curiosity factor alone (I've watched Fear Factor a couple of times, too) will draw me to the broadcast.

No result will surprise me. Phil Mickelson said this week that he thinks Annika will finish in the top 20; that seems plausible. Sorenstam is a great, great player, probably the best in the history of the women's game. She's incredibly accurate off the tee, deadly from the fairway, and a nasty competitor, despite her chirpy demeanor. If her putter gets hot and she handles the swarm of media that will descend on Fort Worth to chronicle her work, she might even shoot low numbers. On the other hand, if she cracks a little and putts badly, she won't come close to making the cut.

That's the best I can do for a prediction: Somewhere between low numbers and missing the cut. Brave, huh? But that's just the point to my thinking: It won't shock me if Sorenstam shows that the best women's golfer in the world can hang with the best guys for one weekend on just the right course. But it also won't shock me if she doesn't. This is a one-shot novelty.

Her performance will tell me nothing more about the notion of women competing against men on a regular basis than I already know. And what I already know is that it's pointless.

If we want to know how Sorenstam's game compares to that of the best men in the world, let her play a full season on the PGA Tour. Then we would have an answer. Personally, I don't want that answer. I enjoy watching Sorenstam play -- and dominate -- the LPGA Tour. I don't want to see her hitting 7-woods every week while Sergio García hits 7-irons.

This type of argument comes up periodically. Most sports fans past the age of 40 will recall the 1973 spectacle of Billie Jean King beating Bobby Riggs in a made-for-television tennis match. It was hailed then as a victory -- a landmark, even -- for women's sports. In truth, it was an embarrassment. Riggs was an old man who had previously beaten a nervous Margaret Court but was overmatched by King. The match would have been significant only if King had lost.

In a sense, that match proved what should have been obvious then and is even more obvious now: Women are terrific athletes and getting better every day. Given the chance to compete against non-elite men, they will win every time. In Storrs, Conn., and Knoxville, Tenn., among other places, powerhouse women's basketball teams practice against men. Not against the schools' varsity players, but against solid, intramural-league men, many of whom were good high school players. The UConn and Tennessee women are better on most days.

Measured against peers of their own gender, women can achieve greatness across the board. I want to see Marion Jones try to chase down Flo-Jo's records, but I don't want to see her race against her boyfriend, world-record holder Tim Montgomery, because strong boys' high school sprinters could beat her (the stopwatch never lies). I want to see how many Grand Slam titles Serena Williams can win, but I don't want to see her play Lleyton Hewitt (or John McEnroe, for that matter). I want to see if Alana Beard can lead the Duke women's team to a national title by beating Connecticut in their inevitable rematch, but I don't want to see either team playing against Division I men.

This is not the place -- and I am not the person -- to explain the physiological differences between males and females. If that point needs making, we all need remedial health class. In certain areas, women have surpassed men. Women have won overall titles in endurance footraces. Britain's Paula Radcliffe has taken the marathon world record down to nearly 2 hours, 17 minutes, better than all but a very small percentage of men. But these are isolated cases.

There is, of course, more to Sorenstam's appearance than proving a point. It is also a calculated gamble on her part that she can increase her own profile -- and, in fact, she already has. Dozens of sportswriters are typing her name this week for the first time (including me). The flagging LPGA Tour hopes Sorenstam plays well, because it can scarcely afford to have its superstar humbled.

The entire event exists in a vacuum, educating nobody and proving nothing.

Meanwhile, I'll spend my spring regretting the fact that horse racing's regal Phipps family has chosen not to nominate 3-year-old filly Storm Flag Flying, a brilliant animal, to run the Kentucky Derby against colts. That's a battle of the genders I'd like to see.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Tim Layden is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.

 

Related information

Stories

Tim Layden's Insider Archive

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video