[benjaminthomas]

I've been brainwashed by nobody. Look, I don't for a minute think Sorenstam, or anyone else on the LPGA tour can compete with the men, at least not on a regular basis. Frankly, I thought she would shoot 80-77 -- and I was a bit surprised that she did as well as she did.

But the fact remains, her participation thrilled both TV and the sponsors. It led to huge publicity for the event itself, as well as for future LPGA events. Whether the other tours lose money or not is irrelevant -- they'd lose a helluva lot more without sponsors and TV. And frankly that's irrelevant too -- the sponsor can give an exemption to anyone they want to -- with the possibly limitation being that they must have a scratch handicap or better (I'm not sure of the exact rules).

Nothing prevented them from giving a spot to Sorenstam, just like nothing prevents them from giving exemptions to all kinds of over-the-hill or "local hero" players every week of the year. Funny we never hear about them taking bread off the table of the Hank Kuehnes of the world when they let Arnold Palmer play.

[irish_links]

"...But the fact remains, her participation thrilled both TV and the sponsors. It led to huge publicity for the event itself, as well as for future LPGA events. Whether the other tours lose money or not is irrelevant -- they'd lose a helluva lot more without sponsors and TV. And frankly that's irrelevant too -- the sponsor can give an exemption to anyone they want to -- with the possibly limitation being that they must have a scratch handicap or better (I'm not sure of the exact rules)...."

Your arrow is true BT. A bit of advice, however; don't try to overcome presidio with logic. He either can't grasp it or is too obtruse to relent to it. You will wear out your keyboard before he accepts the fact that sponsors are good for the tour and should be free to exercise their sponsors' exemptions rights as they please, within reason.

Regards

[an amused spectator]

The guy you're arguing with is the one that fervently believes that Woods would shoot four straight rounds in the 50s on any LPGA tour track, most of the time.

Give it up.

[presidio9]

I've been brainwashed by nobody... the fact remains, her participation thrilled both TV and the sponsors. It led to huge publicity for the event itself, as well as for future LPGA events. Whether the other tours lose money or not is irrelevant -- they'd lose a helluva lot more without sponsors and TV. And frankly that's irrelevant too -- the sponsor can give an exemption to anyone they want to -- with the possibly limitation being that they must have a scratch handicap or better (I'm not sure of the exact rules).

Quick: Who won this week's LPGA event? This is a rhetorical question, I know that you can easily look it up on ESPN.com. The point is, you don't know now, as you are reading this. Neither does anybody else. Sorenstam's play caused a minor media sensation for the same reason a plane crash does: It was unusual. And it required everyone to be on his PC-best behavior. But it accomplished nothing other than to demonstrate that she had no business being out there. Case-in-point: Every single one of the 11 men she supposedly "beat" had twice as many birdies than she did. The difference? She was trying to make the cut. They were trying to compete and win money. You can't win money at Colonial without making birdies. In the end, Colonial could have had a similiar ratings boost if they invited Anna Kournikova to play in their tournament. Her inclusion would have been more entertaining, and just as relevant. But, then, you've been willingly brainwashed, so you probably don't understand this.