I can’t believe I’m the only one to use that pun so far.
Annika Sorenstam’s long-awaited venture into men’s golf begins one week from yesterday. Two months ago, the Colonial offered Sorenstam one of eight sponsor’s exemptions for the tournament, and she accepted it. And yes, there was some backlash at the time, but nothing compared to Vijay Singh’s foot-in-mouth (or is it head-up-his-ass?) diatribe last week, during which he claimed he’d withdraw if he were to be paired with Sorenstam at the Colonial (an easy threat to make, considering he knew damn well that their names were being drawn from separate pools). Of course, Vijay said he was misquoted, though a look at the reporter’s notes seems to contradict that claim. (As an aside, I think we should partially attribute Singh’s remarks to his culture. I don’t know about Fiji, but I do know that Tonga, which is a couple John Daly-sized drives away, has a culture so misogynist it makes the US look Amazonian by comparison.)
But culturally-catalyzed or not, I don’t see what the big deal is, or why male golfers are so up-in-arms about the situation. Annika has already claimed that this is a one-time shot; the course at the Colonial is shorter than most other PGA tournament courses, and thus is one of few where she could hope to compete for a win. Furthermore, most attempts by male golfers to justify their anti-Annika stances fail to hold water:
Does it take away a spot from someone else? Sure. And so do the other sponsor’s exemptions. As Mark Kreidler explains, these exemptions are usually used as political or personal favors to people who aren’t good enough to “earn” a spot in the field–and Vijay hasn’t said boo about any of them.
Does it lower the integrity of the game? No more than being kicked out of two different golf tours (albeit “only” one for cheating, right, Mr. Singh?).
Shouldn’t men be able to play in women’s tournaments? No. As I pointed out before, the line of thinking doesn’t go both ways; it’s the difference between letting a 12-year-old play against 16-year-olds because he’s good, and letting a 16-year-old play against Little Leaguers because he’s so bad.
Is Annika trying to sexually integrate the PGA? No. She’s just curious; she dominates the women’s circuit in a way Tiger Woods can only dream, and she wants to know how she’d fare against the best competition in the world. Babe Zaharias qualified for the Los Angeles Open in 1945, and that certainly didn’t tear down any gender barriers on the course.
Is Annika good enough to be at the Colonial? Well, if she finishes ahead of even one man, she has proven that she was good enough to beat someone else the rest of the PGA deemed worthy. So as long as Annika doesn’t finish last, I’d say she succeeded.
Are men afraid she’ll make them look bad? If they are, they should be checking out 13-year-old phenom Michelle Wie, instead. In January, Wie played in a qualifying round for the Sony Open and tied for 47th…out of 97! I think the 40-some guys trying to make the tour who couldn’t beat a 13-year-old girl have more to worry about than the ones who already hold a PGA tour card. (In addition, the six-foot, 290-yard driving(!) Ms. Wie today accepted a sponsor’s exemption to the Boise Open. Said the Open President, Mr. Larry Johnston, “Anybody who can hit the ball 300 yards on a consistent basis and can shoot 66 can play in my tournament.”)
For what it’s worth, Tiger Woods has wished Sorenstam luck and encouraged her to play in more than one tournament. This would not be a bad tack for the anti-Annika crowd to follow. If she truly is as bad as they say, then her scores in multiple tournaments would give a truer read of her abilities. After all, anyone can get hot enough for a weekend to win even a Major. Right, Rich Beem?