Recovered from the empty broadcast booth at the Ginn Open by a covert HD custodian. It was not written in crayon.
Lorena Ochoa = Tiger Woods
Suzann Pettersen = Phil Mickelson
Annika Sorenstam = not Tiger, not Phil but a unique blend of each
Any one of 46 Koreans = K.J. Choi
Christina Kim = Boo Weekley
Karrie Webb = Geoff Ogilvy
Natalie Gulbis = Camilo Villegas
Juli Inkster = Vijay Singh or Ernie Els
Cristie Kerr = Colin Montgomery
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Recently, Jeff Rude in Golf Week, opined that the reason Lorena is so dominant is that she has no competition (http://www.golfweek.com/commentaries/hatetoberude-041808). At first I was flabbergasted -- how could he even suggest such a thing? Then I considered the remainder of the "Top 30" and realized the only way any of them could get within five strokes of Lorena is if she's exhausted, and that was done by an unranked rookie.
I'm not denigrating the abilities of the rest of the Tour, but it's hard to see how anyone else can win unless Lorena is absent or has an uncharacteristically bad week. I don't recall feeling this way when Annika was the dominant player. It's a good thing the FUTURES Tour has some excitement.
That "no competition" statement, while it is true, is loaded on the negative side. It's not that the rest of the Tour sucks, it's that Lorena makes them look like they do. Look at the 2nd-place scores - Tseng at -16 would have been a five-shot winner, Song-Hee Kim at -14 would have won by one, Annika and Pettersen would have tied at -6 for a major championship. Those people played very well.
You might not recall feeling this way when Annika was dominating but you probably should have felt like it - she had her share of multi-shot victories during '04 and '05.
Jeff Rude was the one who said Lorena has no competition. The remainder of the Tour is loaded with talent, they just can't compete at her level right now. That will change, but right now I'm lamenting that most weeks for the foreseeable future, Sunday afternoon will be boring.
I really get sick of this "no competition" crap, but at least I think I understand it. Here's an example of Joe Blow the typical stupid American sports writer:
2006 (Lots of Koreans win, not so much the Americans)
"Why are all these Koreans winning? What's wrong with the Americans? They (the Americans) must suck."
2007 (More Americans get some wins, less for the Koreans)
"Isn't it wonderful we have all these talented American players?"
The principle is simple. If someone likes the winner, then the opponents' talent level is taken for granted as being very good while the well-liked winner is superlative. But if the complainer isn't so enamored of the winner, then the opponents suck so the disliked winner just sucks a bit less.
Sorry Diane. I just realized how poorly I wrote my comment.
I understood that Rude made the "no competition" statement. My second paragraph should have said:
You might not recall feeling that nobody else could win while Annika was dominating, unless she had an off week. But she had her share of multi-shot victories in '04 and '05.
Sag, I hate it too. If someone is dominating, they say it's boring or the competition sucks. If it's ultra-competitive with four players in the Player of the Year race like in 2006, they say stuff like "why isn't Annika dominating like she used to?" Just enjoy the golf, people!
I think there's a gender twist to it when it comes to the LPGA. Since Annika and Wie did badly in PGA events, it reinforces the view that women pros aren't any good among those who pay no attention to women's golf anyway. This is the least-common-denominator audience golf writers know they have to reach, so when someone new comes along and dominates like Annika, the sexism of the LCD's must not be challenged.
Or something like that.
Post a Comment