Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GregJWillis Remember...sponser exemptions have nothing to do with weather they "deserve" it or not...it is all about the sponser's choice. Those that think otherwise are kidding themselves.
A agree with the idea that it is wrong giving an exeption to someone who would not be able to even be competitive. She is. Sponcers choice.
If it was your tourny, and by allowing a young, beautiful, popular phonom to play that increases your revenue by some significant %...the choice is already made. If her popularity wears out, then there you go...no exemtitions and you will see her on the ladies tour. But just pe patient and adjust your idea of what she is capable of. He really is the one in control here, not us. |
Greg I respect you point of view.
I understand the sponsorship concept and what they're there for after all is the halo effect the event gives their brand. I also understand that MW is probably one of the best golfers the world has ever seen. Male or Female. And she's only 16. No doubt about it she and Tiger are in a class all of their own.
That being said, my point is, the golf world is a "meritocracy". In other words you can play or you can't it's up to your skills and talents. You can buy a better ball and a better driver, but in general, it won't do much for you game. You have no team-mates to lean on as with most sports (except in some situations) so you have to produce every time you step up to the ball. Steroids probably won't help.
Queue jumping doesn't build the game of golf it diminishes it. Yes I understand WHY the exemptions exist, why sponsors feel they should use them, why events are tempted to have a MW attend their events. It all makes sense.
My question is what does the game of golf get out of it? More viewers? More people taking up the sport (the "Tiger Effect")? Maybe I just answered my own questions.