I don't buy this "I told my wife I'd take a tournament off if I won" stuff for a bit.
He's a chickenshit, plain and simple. You ever seen a guy who challenges another guy to a fight and then stands there going, "throw the first punch" when they get the jackets off. We got a million expressions for this kind of crap: "you talk the talk but do you walk the walk?" comes to mind.
Whether you want her there or not, you have to agree that Vijay's a pussy for running his mouth and then not playing.
Anyway. . .
As far as I'm concerned, if she beats even ONE SINGLE man that should end all questions of whether she should be there or not. Cause if she shouldn't be there, neither should he.
Shoot. Even if she gets creamed by everyone out there, you can still say all it was was a sponsor's publicity stunt. That's the whole point of being a sponsor isn't it? Publicity.
As far as her getting in. . .hey, sponsor's exemptions happen all the time. They let people in who they think will draw fans and viewers. That's all this is. Maybe she plays so well that it turns out that any woman that wins an LPGA event should qualify for the PGA. But man, one woman plays on the tour in 50 years and before anyone knows how she'll do everyone's pissed off about it. Gimme a break. What century and country are we living in? We can't let one woman have a go to see how well she compares to men?
Maybe the top women are good enough to play with the men every week. Probably not, but maybe. . . Can't you let one woman play 36 or 72 holes to find out. That's so egregious and unfair that everyone's boxers are in a bunch? Come on. Maybe these guys who are so anti-women should stop acting like them.
Doesn't winning the US Amateur get you into some events? Is that any more valid than letting a woman who wins an LPGA major into a tournament? :shrug: A male amateur has more right to play on the professional tour than a female pro?
As far as her making the cut, no friggin' way. I think she's toast. I hope she proves me wrong.
Here's from USATODAY....
Singh said May 11 that he hoped Sorenstam "missed the cut" because she "doesn't belong" in the PGA Tour event. A day later he tried to soften those remarks but maintained that the PGA Tour was a "man's tour."
Singh said his decision to drop out of the Colonial was unrelated to Sorenstam. "It has nothing to do with the controversy," he said. "I've played in four straight tournaments and I need a break." Singh said he had promised his wife he would take the week off if he won Sunday. "I said if I won a tournament, I would take a week off. It just came at the right time, I guess," Singh said.
Singh, who finished at 4-under-par 66 Sunday and 15 under for the tournament, outdueled a surging Nick Price to win by two strokes.
It may have looked like the anti-Sorenstam Invitational, as defending Colonial champion Price also has come out publicly against Sorenstam playing, saying it reeks of a publicity stunt.
He's a chickenshit, plain and simple. You ever seen a guy who challenges another guy to a fight and then stands there going, "throw the first punch" when they get the jackets off. We got a million expressions for this kind of crap: "you talk the talk but do you walk the walk?" comes to mind.
Whether you want her there or not, you have to agree that Vijay's a pussy for running his mouth and then not playing.
Anyway. . .
As far as I'm concerned, if she beats even ONE SINGLE man that should end all questions of whether she should be there or not. Cause if she shouldn't be there, neither should he.
Shoot. Even if she gets creamed by everyone out there, you can still say all it was was a sponsor's publicity stunt. That's the whole point of being a sponsor isn't it? Publicity.
As far as her getting in. . .hey, sponsor's exemptions happen all the time. They let people in who they think will draw fans and viewers. That's all this is. Maybe she plays so well that it turns out that any woman that wins an LPGA event should qualify for the PGA. But man, one woman plays on the tour in 50 years and before anyone knows how she'll do everyone's pissed off about it. Gimme a break. What century and country are we living in? We can't let one woman have a go to see how well she compares to men?
Maybe the top women are good enough to play with the men every week. Probably not, but maybe. . . Can't you let one woman play 36 or 72 holes to find out. That's so egregious and unfair that everyone's boxers are in a bunch? Come on. Maybe these guys who are so anti-women should stop acting like them.
Doesn't winning the US Amateur get you into some events? Is that any more valid than letting a woman who wins an LPGA major into a tournament? :shrug: A male amateur has more right to play on the professional tour than a female pro?
As far as her making the cut, no friggin' way. I think she's toast. I hope she proves me wrong.
Here's from USATODAY....
Singh said May 11 that he hoped Sorenstam "missed the cut" because she "doesn't belong" in the PGA Tour event. A day later he tried to soften those remarks but maintained that the PGA Tour was a "man's tour."
Singh said his decision to drop out of the Colonial was unrelated to Sorenstam. "It has nothing to do with the controversy," he said. "I've played in four straight tournaments and I need a break." Singh said he had promised his wife he would take the week off if he won Sunday. "I said if I won a tournament, I would take a week off. It just came at the right time, I guess," Singh said.
Singh, who finished at 4-under-par 66 Sunday and 15 under for the tournament, outdueled a surging Nick Price to win by two strokes.
It may have looked like the anti-Sorenstam Invitational, as defending Colonial champion Price also has come out publicly against Sorenstam playing, saying it reeks of a publicity stunt.
