What’s behind Asian dominance on LPGA?
I read with interest the article about the LPGA and the number of Asian women on the tour (“Asian invasion leaves Americans in dust,” June 4). The article points out the obvious but offers no information about the “why” and “how” of the situation.
Clearly, the South Korean education system as it pertains to golf is different from the American system somehow. I would love to see another article that points out why the South Koreans and other Asians are so successful.
Koreans focus while Americans play
Korean women are pressured into learning the game until it becomes their sole focus going forward. Inbee Park talked about training with the national team on Jeju Island and how rigorous it was in all types of weather and the pressure to succeed.
Chella Choi made an insightful comment on TV. Asked about making birdies, she said she wanted to make more because it meant more money.
That’s the real reason why there are so many South Koreans and the main reason they are on the LPGA: money.
The American model is to let kids be kids. Play other sports, and if they chose golf, then good. If that is what they want, then foster and nurture it, but don't drive them and apply extreme pressure to succeed. That’s the main difference between Korean and American girls growing up in golf.
A world apart
Monday’s Morning Read headline “Asian invasion leaves Americans in dust” could have read, “... and Spaniards, Swedes, Germans, New Zealanders, Canadians, Australians, Mexicans...”
You get the point.
Thank you, Fox
Finally. Uninterrupted and commercial-free coverage of an LPGA event from start to finish (plus or minus rain delays).
Thank you, Fox Sports, for giving the LPGA the respect that it deserves. Not two hours somewhere in the round and cutting out before the leaders finish, not just showing a few feature groups, but real, true, complete and comprehensive coverage, complete with “tracer” graphics, plus the ability to go back and watch it as a podcast if you couldn't catch all of it live.
Catch a clue, NBC/Golf Channel. This is the way to watch the best female golfers in the world.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It's about time.
A zinger for Azinger
At one point in the playoff of the U.S. Women’s Open, there was a shot of Ariya Jutanugarn applauding the shot of her opponent, Hyu Joo Kim. Fox Sports analyst Paul Azinger commented that he just doesn’t get it.
It wasn’t the first time that he had made a similar mention of the apparent lack of cut-throat competition.
Perhaps until he does get it, he shouldn’t be broadcasting women’s golf.
Wayne C. Caballero
Let the big dogs eat
When Laura Davies burst onto the LPGA some 25 years ago, the LPGA decided to negate her length advantage by narrowing the fairways and putting a premium on accuracy. As a result, Davies played many rounds by hitting a 2-iron off of most tees. The LPGA had its own John Daly, but unlike the PGA Tour, the LPGA did not sell its long hitter to the public. I think they whiffed on a great opportunity.
Fast forward to 2018. The U.S. Women’s Open ended up being good stuff. But watching a long hitter again hit 2-irons off most of the tees and watching others crush 240-yard tee shots is not my idea of entertaining golf. (Imagine if the ball weren't jacked up!) The LPGA and the USGA again have put a premium on accuracy. But not just accuracy; they're rewarding short and accurate.
Look at the men's world rankings. Out of the top 10, only Jordan Spieth and Justin Rose are considered not to be crazy long. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club will play 7,400 yards, with wide fairways, for next week’s U.S. Open. The rough will be brutal, but the 7,400 yards will reward long and accurate. You won't see many 2-irons there.
If the LPGA wants to better market its product, tour officials need to lengthen the courses, make the rough more benign, toughen the hole locations and let the long hitters (Ariya Jutanugarn, Michelle Wie, Lexi Thompson and Brittany Lincicome, for example) play bombs-away. I want to see a 400-yard hole played with driver and wedge, not 2-iron and 8-iron or driver and 6-iron.
Who’s oppressing whom?
As one reader pointed out, private clubs are private, meaning they are allowed to discriminate, but they are not racist (“From the Morning Read inbox,” June 4).
One definition of the word racism reads: “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.”
Being able to associate with whom one choses is a hallmark of our freedom in this country.
Given the growing number of female-only work spaces and athletic clubs in the U.S., it would appear that either women are an oppressive class themselves now. Or are they are just exercising their own right to free association?
While you’re at it, add the members of ethnic social and black fraternities to your list of chauvinists.
Calling members of exclusionary clubs racist and/or sexist is not accurate.
That a person should choose not to associate with someone who belongs to an exclusionary club is his or her choice as well, but the individual should at least understand what he or she is standing against.
Make Woods earn it
You are getting as bad as TV. Every time Tiger Woods tees it up, he is the center of coverage. You mention in your article on the Memorial Tournament that Woods finished 23rd (“Keeping score,” June 4). Since when did finishing outside the top 20 become worthy of being mentioned?
I like Woods, but please, he isn’t the only one playing out there. You mentioned the three tied at the top and then the guy who finished tied for 23rd. Give me a break. I’ll watch golf and read your articles, with or without mentioning Woods.
I feel sorry for the young guys out there grinding who finished in front of Woods but were ignored by Morning Read.
Stephen A. Durham
Glen Mills, Pa.
Morning Read invites reader comment. Write to editor Steve Harmon at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please provide your name and city of residence. If your comment is selected for publication, Morning Read will contact you to verify the authenticity of the email and confirm your identity. We will not publish your email address. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and brevity.