Can Annika make the cut? Friday's action at Colonial (LIVE DISCUSSION)

[1Old Pro]

Good post

[discostu]

No you tried to force the feminist agenda on me but I ignored it, no where have I indicated there's any form of equivalence or that the genders can perform equally.

Checking is illegal which sucks (and nobody complains about that fact more than the players, a lot of them got into hockey as a chance to get revenge on their brothers) but at least the women playing in women's hockey actually can play the game which the women's basketball players cannot do. European hockey has much less contact than North American, there's something to be said for it the game is faster and players get more of a chance to demonstrate their skills, so low impact hockey isn't entirely the realm of women. The problem right now with women's hockey is that only America and Canada are putting good teams on the ice, but the Swedes Fins and Russians are getting better and there should be a proper big 5 just like in men's national hockey by the next Olympics.

[Ready4Freddy]

"No, he doesn't.

Idiot. "

EXEMPT STATUS: Special Temporary Member
FULL NAME: Hank Kuehne
JOINED TOUR: 2003
Current Year PGA TOUR Highlights:
Earned top-10 exemption into Shell Houston Open for his T3 finish at BellSouth. Posted a T2 in Houston ($356,657) and earned enough money to push him past the 150th player (Tom Scherrer) on the 2002 PGA TOUR money list and enabled him to become a Special Temporary Member of the TOUR.

Fool.

[Admin Moderator]

Lose that tagline or face suspension or banning.

[presidio9]

Aparently you are not familiar with the rules of the PGA Tour and how players get to play in tournaments. But, hey, why let a little thing like ignorance hold you back, right?
Keuhne's status was not updated in time for him to qualify for the Colonial, which is what we were talking about. Sorenstam's little publicity grab cost him a spot in the tournament. They give out cards once a year. Keuhne does not have one. His "special exemption" amounts to first alternate status.

[Ready4Freddy]

"Keuhne's status was not updated in time for him to qualify for the Colonial, which is what we were talking about."

You asserted that Hank doesn't have a card, period. That is false, and was at the time you made the assertion.

"Sorenstam's little publicity grab cost him a spot in the tournament."

False. Colonial didn't even use all their sponsor's exemptions.

"They give out cards once a year."

Also not true. There are several categories of exemptions that result in the issuance of cards during the current Tour year.

"Keuhne does not have one."

False. He qualified for an exemption with his (cumulative) performance in the Houston Open, and has had his card since shortly thereafter.

"His "special exemption" amounts to first alternate status."

Also false. The only 'alternate positions' are those which result from the exemption categories that have the phrase "if needed to fill the field" in them, and those which result from Monday qualifying rounds. The category under which Hank received his 2003 Tour card isn't one of the 'fill the field' categories, and Colonial, being an invitational, doesn't have Monday qualifying.

The 'temporary' in Hank's exemption classification refer's only to the Tour year. He's got his ticket for the remainder of this year, and is therefore exempt for any full field Tour event remaining. Looks like he's got a chance at keeping his card for next year, which will be the first time he's been able to do so.

[presidio9]

Hank does not have a "card." But I am sick of this argument. Knock yourself out.

[Ready4Freddy]

"Hank does not have a "card."

Jeez, presidio, how obtuse can ya be, laddie? Look at the frickin' Tour site if you don't believe me.

[presidio9]

He has a special exemption. That is not the same as a "card." For tournament purposes, it means he gets in line behind every card-carrying player.

[Ready4Freddy]

"He has a special exemption. That is not the same as a "card." For tournament purposes, it means he gets in line behind every card-carrying player."

Hank is a 2003 Tour player, presidio. Now if you think he should be higher up the priority list than say...., a PGA or U.S. Open champion, I guess that's your right.

Point is, he is an official member of the PGA Tour, which means that he indeed has his card for the remainder of the year (there's only 1 exemption category that does not have any time limit). It's up to him to keep it, something he's never been able to do in the past. I hope he does, he's a nice guy, and a decent player.

[Ready4Freddy]

Have y'all noticed the similarities between Olympia Fields North Course and Colonial Country Club?

[presidio9]

You mean besides the fact that Olympia is 7200 yds?

Man am I looking forward to seeing a real field this week at the Memorial and in 3 weeks at the Open.

[Ready4Freddy]

"You mean besides the fact that Olympia is 7200 yds?"

Yeah, one short 7 iron longer than Colonial. Also par 70, old classic style course. They're clubhouse is bigger, tho. :>)

[TomB]

ALL HAIL PRESIDIO9, THE KING OF CHANGING THE SUBJECT!

Once he gets spanked on one subject, he slithers on to another.

[presidio9]

I did not get "spanked" on the other thread, discostu went home crying. Because none of you could credibly show how Sorrystam's involvement and subsequent failure to make the cut made one bit of financial difference to BofA.

And I have been involved in this ongoing thread forever.

But thanks for playing.

[TomB]

Because none of you could credibly show how Sorrystam's involvement and subsequent failure to make the cut made one bit of financial difference to BofA.

I posted SPECIFIC information from a sports marketing company. Where did you get your information?

[presidio9]

I have a brain in my head. Passing mention of the Sponsor's name as part of the name of the tournament and dedicated commercial time are not the same thing. Not even close. And they never will be.

[TomB]

I have a brain in my head.

But no references.

Serious question: If you were so slimy so as to make up another screenname to help you out in arguments, why should I believe any unsourced information you present?

[presidio9]

You are fixated on the inconsequential, which may be the reason why you fail to recognize plain reality. The article is incorrect in its enthusiasm. That's all.

I predicted that we would be seeing a lot of this nonsense from the liberal media (and did you ever know a sportswriter who wasn't hopelessly and ashamedly liberal?) and it has come to pass.

I don't need referrences to point. Again, the idea that the mention of a sponsor's name is less valuable than dedicated commercial time with an agenda is self-evident.