This time it’s Brandel Chamblee. He discussed the women’s game on Live From with Mel Reid for the U.S. Women’s Open weekend. He found it particularly offensive because there weren’t any par-5s with driving greens.
It takes away a lot of the enthusiasm from the LPGA circuit, according to Chamblee.
It does?
It’s definitely an accomplishment to drive a green in two. It’s fascinating. But the novelty of it—the rarity—is what makes it exciting.
Chamblee went on to say that the LPGA should cut the women’s courses by about 1,100 yards. And that’s in addition to the men’s tees that have already been raised.
The same person says that the courses for the men need to be extended to more than 8,000 yards. Wouldn’t that, though, have the reverse effect on the men?
The tweet from the relevant article on Golf.com was addressed by longtime PGA Tour coach and public figure Peter Kostis.
This summarizes my thoughts on golf. The USGA claims that because men hit the ball too far, it should be rolled back. There are too many wedges and not enough 3-shot par 5s.
But because they don’t smash enough wedges and can’t reach par 5s in two, LPGA courses are too long! Which one is it?
— Peter Kostis on July 10, 2023 (@peterjkostis)
He made the perfect observation. Kostis criticized Chamblee for sounding as though he was speaking from two different perspectives.
First off, it was the U.S. Women’s Open, a significant competition.
Although eagles and birdies are crucial to winning golf competitions, there shouldn’t be an excessive amount of them. The USGA does what the majors are supposed to do, which is test golfers to the limit.
The general consensus among golf fans is that major championships with fewer birdies are more exciting. Take a look at what transpired following the first day of the U.S. Open this year.
Fans were in a tizzy due to the low score as Rickie Fowler and Xander Schauffele both shot records of 62.
Furthermore, if the LPGA shortened the courses, it would become a wedge show. Sure, it would result in more birds and eagles, but it would grow old quickly. It rapidly became boring to watch the men win the last three competitions with scores of 20-under or better.
That is supported by the viewership metrics.
In addition, watching professional golfers struggle makes the sport more fascinating and, more importantly, more relatable to the average viewer.
It seems like Chamblee’s remarks are biased.
Few LPGA players are capable of finishing in two. The fact that Bailey Tardy made eagles both times she reached the green in two strokes provided two thrilling moments, but that is the objective. She made a different decision.
In comparison, Chamblee stated on Live From, “you just think about the contrast of the men’s game, and often they’re driving it down there and they’re hitting exciting shots with mid-irons, long irons, getting on the 6th green.”
“These par fives are supposed to be thrilling. They are supposed to get a chance at the 18th green in two shots. Nobody today managed to get to the 18th green in two strokes. When players have the option to attempt par-5s in two, it might be among the most thrilling moments of a major event that is being played here.
In the midst of a women’s competition, he is discussing the men’s game. The reason it’s exciting is that those players are able to do something that nobody else can.
Women’s courses should not be made shorter because this will simply encourage more women to complete them in two years.
It’s important to test these experts.
There are also sexism-related undertones in this argument. It wouldn’t be the first time the Golf Channel commentator had encountered a situation like that.
Lisa Cornwell reported the Golf Channel and Chamblee to the EEOC in March 2021 for allegedly making sexist remarks on-air.
A hostile environment full of sexism and misogyny, according to 18 separate former NBC Network employees, is what the Golf Channel network is alleged to be.
The formula developed by Chamblee and Reid is ineffective. It’s not a smart idea to compare Rory McIlroy to the longest hitters on the LPGA. That would be like comparing apples and oranges as he is a different species of animal.
