LGPA Tour among the biggest winners at Colonial

Yahoo ^ | May 29, 2003 | DOUG FERGUSON, Associated Press

[USAF_ret]

For three months leading up to the Colonial and two rounds that she spent as the first woman in 58 years on the PGA Tour, Annika Sorenstam brought more attention to women's golf than at any other time in history.

The trick is getting it to last.

Sorenstam goes back to where she belongs this week -- those are her words, not Vijay Singh's -- when she defends her title in the Kellogg-Keebler Classic outside Chicago.

Media requests have doubled. Advance ticket sales are up 50 percent.

The ripple effect from Colonial is not quite the tidal wave that Tiger Woods creates whenever he wins majors, but at least it's visible.

The more significant test is next week in Wilmington, Del., when the LPGA Championship goes head-to-head with the Senior PGA Championship about 30 miles away at Aronimink Golf Club in Newtown Square, Pa.

This is the second time in nine months that the PGA of America has shown little regard for women's golf by staging a big event in the same neighborhood. It took the 2002 PGA Championship to Hazeltine, just one month before the Solheim Cup was played down the road at Interlachen.

This time, however, LPGA Tour commissioner Ty Votaw might be holding the trump card in Sorenstam, one of the hottest properties in golf.

Whom to watch?

A group of aging men at least a dozen years past their prime? Or a woman who captured the imagination of millions worldwide with a gutsy performance in the Colonial?

``Her name recognition has never been higher,'' Votaw said.

Sorenstam was never in this for the LPGA Tour.

Some feared she could bring irreparable harm to women's golf if she embarrassed herself at Colonial. That camp included Louise Suggs, an LPGA founder who said, ``I hope to hell she plays well. This could mean trouble for her and the LPGA Tour.''

Not to worry.

Even though Sorenstam missed the cut by four shots, she left an indelible mark on golf by the way she handled more pressure than any other player has faced, and held her own on the toughest course she has played against the best competition she has ever seen.

``I think it was an overall positive,'' Lee Janzen said. ``It brought a lot of attention to the tournament, a lot of attention to both tours. I think a lot of people have a little more respect for the women's tour than they did, from a player's perspective.''

Considering all Sorenstam accomplished the last two years, that respect was lacking.

She won four straight times early in the 2001 season, which included a 59 in Phoenix, a 10-stroke comeback in Los Angeles and a major championship. Last year, she won 13 times in 25 tournaments worldwide, the most by any golfer -- male or female -- in 39 years.

Still, it took a missed cut on the PGA Tour for anyone to notice.

That Sorenstam was willing to risk failure before such an enormous audience has made her one of the biggest stars ever in women's sports.

What remains to be seen is whether that alone is enough to spike television ratings and attendance at LPGA Tour events.

``Success is going to be an evolutionary formula,'' Votaw said. ``By any standard, you could judge what she has done as a success for golf, the LPGA Tour and for herself.''

The only thing that could dent her success would be a repeat performance.

Woods was among those who thought Sorenstam should play at least four or five PGA Tour events to give herself a fighting chance.

Sorenstam said once was enough, and she stood her ground after her emotional exit from the Colonial.

Smart move.

Colonial was such an overwhelming success that Sorenstam has nowhere to go but down. While her rounds of 71-74 were respectable, the fabled course played as easy as ever and she didn't come particularly close to making the cut.

If she played a few more times and made the cut, what would that prove? Kenny Perry won the Colonial with a record 19 under par. Sorenstam made two birdies in two rounds.

The pressure now shifts to Suzy Whaley, who earned the right to play in the Greater Hartford Open in July by winning a tournament for club pros while playing from a shorter set of tees (another double bogey for the PGA of America).

``I hope people are educated enough to know that she's a teacher,'' Sorenstam said earlier this year. ``It's different.''

No other woman will make the same impact as Sorenstam at Colonial, until there comes a time -- if there comes a time -- that a woman is capable of winning on the PGA Tour.

She can only hope that more people start paying attention to her when she wins on the LPGA Tour, and also notice the capable women who beat her.

``We'll see what happens,'' Sorenstam said as she left Colonial. ``Hopefully with this week ... we'll take women's golf to a different level, and hopefully way higher.''

Sorenstam certainly did her part.

[USAF_ret]

Isn't it great how we have allowed the lefty media to re-define success and failure. At the Colonial, Annika didn't fail, she..."captured the imagination of millions worldwide with a gutsy performance." What a crock. Sorry, but in my world, finishing in bottom 15% is hardly a victory...heck, it's not even mediocre.

[1Old Pro]

The LPGA tour will become a success when people want to watch the tournaments on TV. People will want to watch LPGA torunaments on TV about the same time the WNBA becomes a ratings bonanza.

[Mr. Bird]

I read in USA Today this morning that Women's BOWLING has a higher rating than the LPGA, WNBA, and whatever the women's soccer league is. And they (the women's PBA) have lost over $4 million this year. Yep, sure is a tremendous demand for women's sports. Who wouldn't want to watch a bunch of girls play sports as well as a decent boys' high school team...

[KellyAdmirer]

Ratings may indeed spike for the LPGA - for about five minutes. Never knew that missing a cut badly and falling apart in your second round made one a hero, if that's the case, I'm Audie Murphy.

[CMAC51]

..Who wouldn't want to watch a bunch of girls play sports as well as a decent boys' high school team...

Other than the people who really appreciate skill and knowledge demonstrated by athletes, I can't imagine who. Yes, men's athletics are great for a testosterone buzz, but the truth is today's typical male athlete while bigger, faster and stronger than ever before is poorly trained in fundamentals, poorly behaved and overly dependent on bursts of speed and power to overcome what they lack in skill and discipline.

An embarrasing number of male athletes are just that "embarrasing in their behaviour and attitude". "My team may be losing by 20 points, but if I make a monster slam I pump up my chest and woof." The major pro sports are becomming more like wrestling every day, more show than substance with rules and refs controlling things to the point of not knowing what is real or contrived.

Even golf, which had been the bastion of class in sports, is falling prey to the degradation. Controversy becomes more important than performance. Stardom becomes an excuse for poor behaviour. Although Tiger and most of the other top winners still exude class, to many of the young guns breaking in and journalists hyping there work are planting the seeds of boorish behaviour. The effects show at local courses and clubs.

If you ever come down off your testosterone high, take a look at the flow of the defense when a top WNBA team is playing. Check out the mechanical purity of Anika's swing. If you really know and appreciate sports, you might be amazed. Oh, while you are at it, check out the character and class displayed by a Sherly Swoopes or Anika Sorenstam. I'll take that to the "punk' behaviour of an Allen Iverson or Rasheed Wallace, any day.

[dosadi]

The LPGA has ONE very big problem. It isn't so apparent on TV but obvious in person. It rhymes with "spikes"

[capitan_refugio]

I had hoped that Annika had done better at Colonial, or at least tried in a few more golf tournaments. When she said that she would not be back, it was clear that the best woman golfer in the world (today) couldn't cut it on the men's tour.

The LPGA, WNBA, and so on, exist because the women can not compete on a level playing field with the men. Do the women, then, deserve to be paid on par with the men? I don't think so, because the level of performance isn't there. I don't mind the an LPGA or WNBA exists; I just don't want to hear the whining about the lesser pay.

[southernnorthcarolina]

The LPGA has ONE very big problem... It rhymes with "spikes"

Yikes!

Really, you shouldn't be so anti-Semitic.

[Sgt_Schultze]

...The pressure now shifts to Suzy Whaley, who earned the right to play in the Greater Hartford Open in July by winning a tournament for club pros while playing from a shorter set of tees (another double bogey for the PGA of America).

``I hope people are educated enough to know that she's a teacher,'' Sorenstam said earlier this year. ``It's different.''

Sounds like groudwork being laid there to excuse a poor performance. She might have used this, more popular expression...

Those who can, DO; those who cannot, TEACH.

[ChiMark]

Cosidering this event was carefully planned to give the bored Swede every advantage. She is in primo shape. I'll bet supplement usage. But she did'nt make the cut! Then field was'nt exactly the prime of golf either. I forgot the winner's name but he is a long time journeyman of the PGA tour.

[Mr. Bird]

Other than the people who really appreciate skill and knowledge demonstrated by athletes, I can't imagine who. Yes, men's athletics are great for a testosterone buzz, but the truth is today's typical male athlete while bigger, faster and stronger than ever before is poorly trained in fundamentals, poorly behaved and overly dependent on bursts of speed and power to overcome what they lack in skill and discipline.

I understand what you're saying, and agree that the WWF factor has increased significantly in men's sports, particularly the NBA. However, it appears you yourself are placing "attitude" above ability. It is preposterous to say that the men (in the professional ranks) have poor fundamentals, or a lack of discipline. They have worked tremendously hard over their entire lifetimes to become a part of the minute fraction of the population that plays sport for a living. In every case (as Title IX so often laments), the men have beaten out more competition to get where they are. They are culled from millions of boys who begin playing competitive sports at ages as low as three and four years old. The odds of getting paid to play in Major League Baseball make Keno odds look attractive.

The numbers don't lie. The viewing (and attending) public vote with their dollars and their ratings points. I can appreciate Annika's swing, but quite frankly, put it next to Ernie Els' and all you have is a nice swing.

I would like to say this: there are some sports, in my opinion, in which the women can compete with the men for entertainment value. Tennis and Volleyball come immediately to mind. But of the big ones, they can't hold a candle to the men, regardless of the attitude problems. If I or the country wanted our sports "pure" with lower talent, we'd be filling the parks watching sandlot games for free...

[SB00]

If the ratings for LPGA, WNBA et al even rise to the level of the PGA, NBA et al then I can see women in those leagues being paid as much as men in theirs.

[CanisMajor2002]

The LPGA has ONE very big problem... It rhymes with "spikes"

Yikes!

Really, you shouldn't be so anti-Semitic.

(chuckle) How about, rhymes with "thespians"?

[SB00]

Even Sorenstam admitted she was over her head last weekend and she said she's going back to the LPGA where she belongs. She's aboslutely right and I respect her for admitting it.

[Mr. Bird]

I don't understand why some people find it hard to understand that one can respect Annika Sorenstam's athleticism and still believe men are superior to women in sports. They are not mutually exclusive ideas, but too many people think they are...

[CMAC51]

.....It is preposterous to say that the men (in the professional ranks) have poor fundamentals, or a lack of discipline. They have worked tremendously hard over their entire lifetimes to become a part of the minute fraction of the population that plays sport for a living.....



Spending time playing the game and working to develop fundamental skills are not the same. Yes athletes are spending years at their craft, but are they really working at it? Being a man off very limited talent, who loved to play sports, I developed a real appreciation for fundamentals and the mental qualities that apply. Fewer than 1 in 4 NBA players really know the fundamentals of shooting a basic free throw. It takes them 3 or 4 years in the league to figure out you play defense by moving your feet. Lebron James will be the no. 1 pick in the draft because of his talent, ie size, speed, vision and reflexes. The coach who drafts him will have to deal with the fact that he doesn't know Diddly about basketball.

The youth of the nation spend more time on the field or court than ever before. They especially spend more time at physical conditioning than ever before. They still aren't learning the fundamentals because if you can dunk, you don't have to learn or discipline is just a word in the dictionary. Players in any sport, football, basketball, baseball, you name it, are going pro after a year or less of college. They haven't learned any fundamentals, they are just raw talent.

Being and avid golfer, I am also aware that it is the exception to some of this. Young people are spending more time under disciplined teaching programs than ever before and the skill level displayed shows it. That is one reason that the bleed over of Boorish behavior bothers me so much.

I do not want to give the impression that I don't appreciate talent. I just equally appreciate skill. In today's sports world the female athletes possess less talent, but often demonstrate more skill.

[Mr. Bird]

I think we very much agree on the basketball points, as the game has been transformed into something entirely different than it was just 20 years ago.