[presidio9]

Make that MOST posting here do not understand the difference. I am impressed as hell with the round she played out there. But that does not mean she somehow now "belongs."

[1Old Pro]

I am impressed as hell with the round she played out there.

I figured she'd be 4 over after the first round and she is 1 over. She's a great golfer and held up impresively. However, it's a short course and she should make the greens in regulation. Thus, she should hit between par and 4 over IMHO.

[KellyAdmirer]

I am surprised she handled the greens as well as she did. Playing for pars is fine, but you still have to sink putts on those ice-slick greens - and she usually was able to do that. It was the only part of her game that really impressed me. She seemed to be playing it completely safe otherwise and got a lot of good bounces. The bounces go the other way - and over time, many will - and imho she is lucky to get out of that round with a 75.

[Jim Noble]

Make that MOST posting here do not understand the difference. I am impressed as hell with the round she played out there. But that does not mean she somehow now "belongs."

I shouldn't jump in at post #910, but isn't the question of whether or not she "belongs" decided by a year's record on the men's tour?

If she qualifies, she does belong, if she doesn't, she doesn't.

This is the central flaw in Title IX. Let all Division One "first teams" be open to men and women both, under the same rules.

Any female athlete who makes it, fine. Any who don't, no $$.

What could be more fair than that?