Press Action ::: Golf's 10% solution to the gender gap

Friday, December 06, 2002

Golf's 10% solution to the gender gap

I can’t resist. It’s been almost three weeks since I’ve broached the subject of golf. I’ve waited long enough. It’s just that golf has been on my mind a lot this year, for a number of reasons. For starters, it was probably the most memorable year of golf in the 25 years I’ve been playing the sport (yes dear, it’s a sport). Shot my lowest nine-hole score in May. Had my Mastercard “Priceless” moment in September when I hit my first-ever hole-in-one.

Par 3, 135 yards into a stiff headwind with a seven iron. One bounce on the green and it gently rolls in. As luck would have it, I didn’t see it actually go in the hole because I was pulling my tee out of the ground. (Can’t leave your two-cent tee behind, especially when your first hole-in-one is about to drop in.) I had witnesses, though. My playing partners kindly alerted me to the gravity of the moment. “It went in the hole!” they hollered. Pardon their animated reaction. But it was the first hole-in-one experience for them, too, as either a spectator or hitter.

The other reason why I raise the subject again is to comment on the hoopla surrounding a woman named Suzy Whaley who made the decision this week to play in next year’s Greater Hartford Open stop on the PGA Tour after “qualifying” for it in September. I place the patronizing quotes around “qualifying” because it’s not the word that I would use to describe what she did in September.

The sportswriters — all of those chauvinists who mock The New York Times for worrying about Augusta National not allowing women instead of publishing exposes about all of the hungry, homeless people roaming the sidewalks of Manhattan — see it differently. In their news stories, they neglect to highlight the fact that Whaley played a different course than the men seeking to qualify for the same tournament. Whaley had 700 fewer yards of grass, sand and dirt to knock her little white ball around than the men. It may have been the same piece of real estate but 6,200 vs. 6,900 yards is not the same course.

In a Dec. 5 article on how the Bush administration could weaken Title IX — the 1972 law that outlawed sex discrimination in any school that received federal funds — Steve Wilstein, a national sports columnist for the Associated Press, described how Title IX gave Whaley a chance to play golf at the University of North Carolina in the 1980s, which led to her being “the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event.” Wilstein’s words, not mine.

Title IX has produced many wonderful results for girls and women, but Suzy Whaley’s “qualifying” for the 2003 Greater Hartford Open isn’t one of them.

If women want a go at the bigger purses on the PGA Tour, they have my full support. I say give them access to as many PGA tournament qualifying rounds as they request, as long as they hit from the same tees as the men and then post a low enough score to get them into a tournament. Any woman who could qualify for a PGA Tour event under these ground rules would be worthy of 10 times the media coverage that Whaley is receiving for her feat of “qualifying” for an event after playing a course that was 10% shorter than the one played by her male counterparts.

In golf, distance matters. That’s one of the big reasons why Tiger Woods has won so many tournaments in the past five years and Corey Pavin hasn’t. Pavin’s average drives off the tee go as far as the longest hitters on the LPGA Tour. This ranks him as one of the shortest hitters on the men’s tour. Should the PGA Tour allow Pavin to hit from the front tees during tournament qualifying rounds? If any PGA Tour official were to make such a recommendation, he or she would be considered nuts by the entire sports world. Plus, you would insult the diminutive Pavin, who actually has won a U.S. Open title, although it was in 1995. A lot has happened in those seven-and-a-half years since Pavin’s big U.S. Open victory, most important the amazing improvement in golf club technology that allows the slight Charles Howells of the PGA Tour to become some of the longest hitters.

Distance definitely played a part in my hole-in-one. If the par 3 hole had been 10% longer, let’s say a total of 148 to 150 yards, I probably would have lost some accuracy because I would have needed to use at least a six, probably a five iron, given the strength of the headwind. Anybody who plays golf understands that it’s much more difficult to hit a longer iron because of the length of the club’s shaft and the greater distance that the ball must travel. The shorter yardage definitely played a role in my hole-in-one.

At the qualifying tournament for the GHO, the yardage that Whaley needed to manage averaged about 40 yards less per hole (a even greater difference for the par 5s and less for the par 3s). A 40-yard difference on a par 4 can mean the difference between hitting a five wood on your approach shot to the green vs. using a five iron if you have the 40-yard head start.

What galls me more than the officials who allowed Whaley to hit from the forward tees in the qualifying round are the traditionally pit-bull sports reporters who won’t go near penning a public challenge of Whaley’s qualifications for becoming the first woman to play in a PGA Tour event for fear of being labeled sexist and insensitive. Or maybe the sportswriters realize Whaley poses less of a threat to the male sports establishment than Martha Burk.

A larger number of sports reporters and columnists criticized the court ruling that allowed Casey Martin to drive a cart because of a debilitating disease that’s ravaging one of his legs than are tackling the Whaley GHO absurdity. I supported the PGA in its fight against letting Martin use the cart. Walking the few miles involved in a round of golf definitely has an effect on the quality of your play. A cart also can get you to your ball faster than your competitors. In the case of Martin, though, the PGA came up with a good compromise. Martin must drive his cart at the same pace that is playing partners walk to each of their shots. After watching in person Martin struggle to walk from his cart to his ball at last year’s Kemper Open, though, I don’t think he will be able to play pro golf much longer, even with the aid of a cart.

How would the sports reporters react if baseball decided to promote women to the major leagues (Ila Borders has pitched in the minor leagues but no women has played in an official Major League Baseball game) and then forced team owners to build movable walls at their stadiums so that the fences could be brought in about 75 feet each time a women came to the plate?

In Whaley’s case, we have sports columnists calling her brave for opting to play in the GHO. In the Nov. 5 York Daily Record, sports columnist David Salter says, “Why shouldn’t she play? She has earned the right to participate in the GHO.”

Salter notes that “pessimists” will say that Whaley played from forward tees. “As an avid bad golfer, I don’t see that as a large advantage,” Salter writes.

The second reason she should play, according to Salter, is that “she is not a Martha Burk clone. ... Whaley is not competing in the GHO for the notoriety, or to prove a point to the guys. Her intentions are genuine and admirable.”

What exactly are Whaley’s intentions? To play in the GHO, I assume. But who really knows? By praising Whaley for her decision, Salter backhandedly is attempting to prove that Martha Burk’s intentions in fighting bigotry at Augusta National are not “genuine” and “admirable.”

In a previous column, Salter blasted Burk and her National Council of Women’s Organizations: “Aren’t there more pressing issues for this group to champion? How about breast cancer awareness, one of the leading causes of death among women? What about equal pay for equal effort in the workplace?”

In fact, many of the member organizations of Burk’s NCWO are working on the issues that Salter believes they should be championing. No less important, though, is the cause of knocking down those barriers that were erected by men throughout history but still stand to keep women subservient. At the core of Burk’s campaign to end gender discrimination at Augusta National is the goal of giving women equal access to the same opportunities that men have. No special advantages; just equal chances to succeed or fail.

In the case of Whaley “qualifying” for the Greater Hartford Open, she’ll probably turn out to be only a footnote in sports history. When next July rolls around, though, I will be rooting for Whaley at the GHO. She will be playing from the same tees as the men. Hence, the chances of me repeating my hole-in-one feat next summer are greater than Whaley making the cut at the GHO.

Whaley decided to play in the GHO because she is a competitive golfer, not because she is trying to blaze a trail for women to the PGA Tour. And why shouldn’t she be thinking about herself? At the end of next summer, Whaley will probably look back at it as the best experience in her golfing career. Playing in the GHO will be her own personal experience that will have no far-reaching effects on the status of women in the golfing world. Not everyone wants to be a Martha Burk. And personal improvement is good for oneself. I’m still feeling good about my most memorable year in golf.

-- Mark Hand

More from Mark Hand