examines the financial realities of the average LPGA Tour player

[golfortennis]

2 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Gotta disagree. There are tons of American and European players who have good fundamentals, and put in the hours. However, they have limited opportunities to play at the highest level. A Korean player has dozens of professional tournaments available each year. OTOH, college players in the U.S. will only play a handful of (amateur) events. The majority are match play. 

 

It's been a while since a player came out of the college ranks and had significant success in her first two seasons. The players coming from the KLPGA are basically seasoned vets by the time they hit the LPGA.

 

 

I'm not sure he is off base.  I'm pretty sure I have heard stories of Koreans getting to a US college having not really played many rounds on an actual golf course(comparatively speaking).  They spend a lot of time on a driving range growing up, due to the realities of a country the size of Indiana with a population north of 50 million.  They can't just hop on a course like juniors over here.

[Abh159]

At the end of the day we all have to remember that both the PGA and LPGA are businesses even if they are classified as a "non-profit". It's all about revenue. The PGA Tour has bigger prizes and earning potential because they generate a lot more revenue than the LPGA Tour. Men's endorsement deals are worth more because they result in more sales for the OEM when compared to women. If women's golf and the LPGA Tour continue to become more popular (like they have in recent years and hopefully continue to do) then their revenue will increase and so will their earning potential.

 

Will the LPGA ever be as popular as the PGA? No, just like the WNBA will never be as popular as the NBA and the Women's World Cup will never be as popular as the Men's. It's no ones fault really that's just the way it is.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Abh159

[Ironman_32]

59 minutes ago, Abh159 said:

At the end of the day we all have to remember that both the PGA and LPGA are businesses even if they are classified as a "non-profit". It's all about revenue. The PGA Tour has bigger prizes and earning potential because they generate a lot more revenue than the LPGA Tour. Men's endorsement deals are worth more because they result in more sales for the OEM when compared to women. If women's golf and the LPGA Tour continue to become more popular (like they have in recent years and hopefully continue to do) then their revenue will increase and so will their earning potential.

 

Will the LPGA ever be as popular as the PGA? No, just like the WNBA will never be as popular as the NBA and the Women's World Cup will never be as popular as the Men's. It's no ones fault really that's just the way it is.

Maybe it just be a time factor. Both the PGA and NBA are older than the LPGA and WNBA, even though they can basically apply the same tactics in terms of marketing and exposure, it still takes time to build up a league. 

[MagicClassic407]

1 hour ago, Ironman_32 said:

Maybe it just be a time factor. Both the PGA and NBA are older than the LPGA and WNBA, even though they can basically apply the same tactics in terms of marketing and exposure, it still takes time to build up a league. 

Thank gawd for figure skating..........sheesh.

[new2g0lf]

On 12/11/2020 at 12:36 PM, Ironman_32 said:

Maybe it just be a time factor. Both the PGA and NBA are older than the LPGA and WNBA, even though they can basically apply the same tactics in terms of marketing and exposure, it still takes time to build up a league. 

The LPGA was founded in 1950, I don't think time is a factor.  Unless you're female or a hard core golfer / golf fan there's no reason to watch the LPGA just as there's no reason to watch the WNBA.  The quality of golf isn't comparable to the PGA Tour, the marketing is lacking and overall the Tour has more of an international appeal than it does domestically.  

[Ironman_32]

3 hours ago, new2g0lf said:

The LPGA was founded in 1950, I don't think time is a factor.  Unless you're female or a hard core golfer / golf fan there's no reason to watch the LPGA just as there's no reason to watch the WNBA.  The quality of golf isn't comparable to the PGA Tour, the marketing is lacking and overall the Tour has more of an international appeal than it does domestically.  

I think you're right on those aspects. 

 

Just spit balling, the men's US Open started in 1896, and the women's in 1946. While the LPGA was just starting the PGA basically was already established, had Hogan and Snead around, and was basically getting into the Palmer and NIcklaus eras. Basically, I'm thinking, it takes a certain amount of time to build up a tour/league, in which the sport has to be more available for people, which leads to more people playing and better competition. For example, look at Tiger, his father learned the game, then got Tiger involved. Which, if you start from the first US Open to late 90s when Tiger popped up, was ~100 years. Maybe it will take that long for the LPGA to become relevant. Its one of those Malcolm Gladwell ideas, if someone else puts in 10,000 hours, and you're starting at 0 hours, they can prob give you tips on how to get better, but it won't cut down your workload to 1,000 hours. 

 

Counter argument, 70 years, give or take, it took for the PGA tour to find footing, and build up to good players, like Palmer and Nicklaus. If you use the US Open as start dates, we're at that 70 year mark for the LPGA and it seems a lot more off.  

[golfortennis]

On 12/14/2020 at 6:33 PM, Ironman_32 said:

I think you're right on those aspects. 

 

Just spit balling, the men's US Open started in 1896, and the women's in 1946. While the LPGA was just starting the PGA basically was already established, had Hogan and Snead around, and was basically getting into the Palmer and NIcklaus eras. Basically, I'm thinking, it takes a certain amount of time to build up a tour/league, in which the sport has to be more available for people, which leads to more people playing and better competition. For example, look at Tiger, his father learned the game, then got Tiger involved. Which, if you start from the first US Open to late 90s when Tiger popped up, was ~100 years. Maybe it will take that long for the LPGA to become relevant. Its one of those Malcolm Gladwell ideas, if someone else puts in 10,000 hours, and you're starting at 0 hours, they can prob give you tips on how to get better, but it won't cut down your workload to 1,000 hours. 

 

Counter argument, 70 years, give or take, it took for the PGA tour to find footing, and build up to good players, like Palmer and Nicklaus. If you use the US Open as start dates, we're at that 70 year mark for the LPGA and it seems a lot more off.  

 

You can hope for that, but as discussed in this thread already, until women watch women's sports, it's not going to happen.  EVeryone tries to get men to watch more women's sports and totally misses the fact they are aiming in the wrong direction.

[Ironman_32]

6 hours ago, Bluefan75 said:

 

You can hope for that, but as discussed in this thread already, until women watch women's sports, it's not going to happen.  EVeryone tries to get men to watch more women's sports and totally misses the fact they are aiming in the wrong direction.

Yes, but I don't think its that simple. If you subset groups into men and women, probably a smaller percentage of women watch sports, while a larger percentage of men do. 

 

Golf is unique in that, people watch for more varied reasons than in other sports. For example, you watch the Chiefs play football, you want them to win. You don't care if they win by 10 or 50. With golf, players win less; so are you watching for long drives, score, following a certain players; someone making putts? What I'm getting at is, golf with men is basically the same thing with women, maybe shorter drives, but essentially the same, its a wonder more people don't watch, men or women.  

[2bGood]

On 12/14/2020 at 3:33 PM, Ironman_32 said:

I think you're right on those aspects. 

 

Just spit balling, the men's US Open started in 1896, and the women's in 1946. While the LPGA was just starting the PGA basically was already established, had Hogan and Snead around, and was basically getting into the Palmer and NIcklaus eras. Basically, I'm thinking, it takes a certain amount of time to build up a tour/league, in which the sport has to be more available for people, which leads to more people playing and better competition. For example, look at Tiger, his father learned the game, then got Tiger involved. Which, if you start from the first US Open to late 90s when Tiger popped up, was ~100 years. Maybe it will take that long for the LPGA to become relevant. Its one of those Malcolm Gladwell ideas, if someone else puts in 10,000 hours, and you're starting at 0 hours, they can prob give you tips on how to get better, but it won't cut down your workload to 1,000 hours. 

 

Counter argument, 70 years, give or take, it took for the PGA tour to find footing, and build up to good players, like Palmer and Nicklaus. If you use the US Open as start dates, we're at that 70 year mark for the LPGA and it seems a lot more off.  

For fun - just some fun...

 

If the LPGA is 50 years behind the LPGA than lets look at PGA numbers from 50 year ago and compare them to today.

 

1970 PGA money leader was Trevino with $157,000. In 'todays money' that is $1.1M

 

2020 LPGA tour money leader - Park with $1.3M. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by 2bGood

[Ironman_32]

9 hours ago, 2bGood said:

For fun some fun...

 

If the LPGA is 50 years behind the LPGA than lets look at PGA numbers from 50 year ago and compare them to today.

 

1970 PGA money leader was Trevino with $157,000. In 'todays money' that is $1.1M

 

2020 LPGA tour money leader - Park with $1.3M. 

 

 

That's a good comparison

 

I'm not saying the LPGA will go exactly step for with how the PGA tour developed, but it could be similar. To really get the LPGA tour moving they just need a Tiger like figure. Some woman who comes out, bombs it everywhere, hits all the shots, makes all the putts, is marketable, has the look, and has the push behind her (tough to do I know). I think a lot of people thought that would be Michelle Wie, but it just didn't happen. I mean this in a nice way, but Wie is basically Ben Curtis in terms of career, a major and a couple of wins. Imagine if the PGA had to build a tour around Ben Curtis? 

 

Another thing about it could be the history of the tournaments. LPGA is a little more fluid with what counts as a major, and majors have a little bit more corporate feel to them on the LPGA than and the "religious" experience they get on the PGA tour.  

[Abh159]

19 minutes ago, Ironman_32 said:

That's a good comparison

 

I'm not saying the LPGA will go exactly step for with how the PGA tour developed, but it could be similar. To really get the LPGA tour moving they just need a Tiger like figure. Some woman who comes out, bombs it everywhere, hits all the shots, makes all the putts, is marketable, has the look, and has the push behind her (tough to do I know). I think a lot of people thought that would be Michelle Wie, but it just didn't happen. I mean this in a nice way, but Wie is basically Ben Curtis in terms of career, a major and a couple of wins. Imagine if the PGA had to build a tour around Ben Curtis? 

 

Another thing about it could be the history of the tournaments. LPGA is a little more fluid with what counts as a major, and majors have a little bit more corporate feel to them on the LPGA than and the "religious" experience they get on the PGA tour.  

 

Do you not remember Annika Sorenstam? Her career numbers are pretty close to Tiger's (75ish tour wins and 10 majors), and she retired at 38 yo. Having one superstar isn't going to turn things around unfortunately. They need multiple stars with big time appeal. 

 

The reality is that until the LPGA starts getting more people to watch (especially in the US where most of their revenue comes from) and generating more revenue they are going to continue down the same path. It's no surprise they have a difficulty with ratings though. American players only make up 25% of the top 50 in the women's world rankings. I know I have no interest in watching a European league soccer game so why would the large majority of US viewers have any interest in watching 10 international players battle it out on the LPGA tour each week?

 

 

[uitar9]

Just looking at PGA vs LPGA 2020 total purses.

 

LPGA $75,000

 

PGA $400,000

 

I'm a male. I like the LPGA product (as I like the European product). Surprisingly, in our house, my wife, a golfer, has no interest in the LPGA.

 

I asked her why. Her response: She finds the men are just better golfers; and Little name recognition; doesn't like the fashion show

 

 

[Ironman_32]

16 minutes ago, Abh159 said:

 

Do you not remember Annika Sorenstam? Her career numbers are pretty close to Tiger's (75ish tour wins and 10 majors), and she retired at 38 yo. Having one superstar isn't going to turn things around unfortunately. They need multiple stars with big time appeal. 

 

The reality is that until the LPGA starts getting more people to watch (especially in the US where most of their revenue comes from) and generating more revenue they are going to continue down the same path. It's no surprise they have a difficulty with ratings though. American players only make up 25% of the top 50 in the women's world rankings. I know I have no interest in watching a European league soccer game so why would the large majority of US viewers have any interest in watching 10 international players battle it out on the LPGA tour each week?

 

 

I mean, you could argue that the LPGA was in its best place when Annika was on top. Yes she could "bomb it", played on the men's tour, had some appeal, but not as much as Tiger brought. I think Annika was more if Tiger never existed and Phil was the #1 guy through the 2000s; PGA would be in a different place. 

 

 

[J13]

Equal play should get equal pay.  I respect all professional players (men and women) but understand there is a pecking order and the top gets most of the money.   Mike Wahn IMO has done a great job but has made some big mistakes that hurt the womens game (like the giant blue wall blocking a water hazard in a major).

 

Reality of pecking order:

1.PGA Tour

2.Euro PGA Tour

3.Champions Tour

4.LPGA

 

Euro tour doesn't make as much as the PGA Tour, Champions tour doesn't make as much as Euro tour, LPGA doesn't  make as much as Champions Tour.

 

 

Also I hear a lot about the LPGA playing a game more familiar to the average player which i agree with.  Problem with that is maybe people don't want to see something relatable on tv when it comes to sport.  Ratings dictate they want to see a game they are unfamiliar with because after all sports is merely entertainment.

 

[GSDriver]

LPGA purses would increase if/when revenue generated by LPGA activities approaches PGA Tour.  It's not gender, it's just business.

[Holy Moses]

1 hour ago, J13 said:

Equal play should get equal pay.  I respect all professional players (men and women) but understand there is a pecking order and the top gets most of the money.   Mike Wahn IMO has done a great job but has made some big mistakes that hurt the womens game (like the giant blue wall blocking a water hazard in a major).

 

Reality of pecking order:

1.PGA Tour

2.Euro PGA Tour

3.Champions Tour

4.LPGA

 

Euro tour doesn't make as much as the PGA Tour, Champions tour doesn't make as much as Euro tour, LPGA doesn't  make as much as Champions Tour.

 

 

Also I hear a lot about the LPGA playing a game more familiar to the average player which i agree with.  Problem with that is maybe people don't want to see something relatable on tv when it comes to sport.  Ratings dictate they want to see a game they are unfamiliar with because after all sports is merely entertainment.

 

That was my argument earlier. We watch athletes on TV who do things that we can’t do and that’s why there’s there’s interest. It’s not as compelling to watch sports on TV if we could do the same things they do, even if we can’t do them anywhere as regularly as they do it. That’s the reality that those advocating for equal pay refuse to admit. The ladies who are on the LPGA Tour are worth watching and I’m a fan. But they can’t be forced upon an audience as if we HAVE to watch them. That won’t work. As I noted in my earlier post, LPGA purses are growing at a significantly higher % than any other pro golf league - that is good news. Progress is being made. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Holy Moses

[Argonne69]

2 hours ago, Holy Moses said:

That was my argument earlier. We watch athletes on TV who do things that we can’t do and that’s why there’s there’s interest. It’s not as compelling to watch sports on TV if we could do the same things they do, even if we can’t do them anywhere as regularly as they do it. That’s the reality that those advocating for equal pay refuse to admit. The ladies who are on the LPGA Tour are worth watching and I’m a fan. But they can’t be forced upon an audience as if we HAVE to watch them. That won’t work. As I noted in my earlier post, LPGA purses are growing at a significantly higher % than any other pro golf league - that is good news. Progress is being made. 

 

The top 5 players in scoring average this season are all averaging under 70. What percentage of WRXers average under 70 in tournament conditions for 30+ rounds? Less than 5% I'd say. General public? Less than 1%?

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Argonne69

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

 

The top 5 players in scoring average this season are all averaging under 70. What percentage of WRXers average under 70 in tournament conditions for 30+ rounds? Less than 5% I'd say. General public? Less than 1%?

 

 

 

 

Given a 4 handicap can beat and LPGA player* and 7.51% of golfers are a 3.9 handicap or better. That means 7.51% of golfers (that keep a handicap) are better than LPGA players. I assume it is more like 20% of wrxers that are better than a 4 cap. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* if you don't get the joke, I apologise. 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by 2bGood

[Argonne69]

7 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

Given a 4 handicap can beat and LPGA player* and 7.51% of golfers are a 3.9 handicap or better. That means 7.51% of golfers (that keep a handicap) are better than LPGA players. I assume it more like 20% of wrxers that are better than a 4 cap. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* if you don't get the joke, I apologise. 

 

 

Lol. I didn't ask what percentage of players could beat an average LPGA player. That topic has been beaten to death. 

 

What percentage of players can average under 70 for a season? That in the +5 index range. 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Argonne69

[Old Tom Morris]

On 12/9/2020 at 8:42 PM, Holy Moses said:

I don't think having a bunch of American stars would help. The average person just doesn't really like to watch women's golf. 

If you had attractive, outgoing, personable sexy stars, playing great golf it would provide the equivalent Tiger Woods factor in generating interest.  Of course, the rest of the field would resent it.  

[Abh159]

39 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Lol. I didn't ask what percentage of players could beat an average LPGA player. That topic has been beaten to death. 

 

What percentage of players can average under 70 for a season? That in the +5 index range. 

 

 

I think @Holy Moses was talking more about the type of shots they hit instead of their total scoring average. Sure the average golfer isn't going to shoot in the 60's consistently, but they can easily hit their 3 wood 200 yards (which is the average distance for an LPGA player with a 3 wood). Why would the casual golf fan find that impressive when they can watch the PGA Tour instead and see guys hitting 7 and 8 irons that distance?

 

Most people watch golf to see players hit crazy or amazing shots that they can't do themselves. LPGA players are great players and amazing scorers, but they aren't exactly pulling of those ridiculous shots you see on the men's side week in and week out - 240 yard 3 iron over water on a par 5 for eagle, 30 yard flop shot over a tree to 3 feet, massive hook out of the trees that lands 6 feet from the hole, and etc.

 

It's similar to the NBA / WNBA. WNBA players are great percentage shooters that can out shoot any average basketball player, but they aren't throwing down posterizing dunks like the NBA and that is what people turn on the TV to watch.  

Edited December 17, 2020 by Abh159

[Argonne69]

12 minutes ago, Abh159 said:

 

I think @Holy Moses was talking more about the type of shots they hit instead of their total scoring average. Sure the average golfer isn't going to shoot in the 60's consistently, but they can easily hit their 3 wood 200 yards (which is the average distance for an LPGA player with a 3 wood). Why would the casual golf fan find that impressive when they can watch the PGA Tour instead and see guys hitting 7 and 8 irons that distance?

 

Most people watch golf to see players hit crazy or amazing shots that they can't do themselves. LPGA players are great players and amazing scorers, but they aren't exactly pulling of those ridiculous shots (240 yard 3 iron over water on a par 5 for eagle, 30 yard flop shot over a tree to 3 feet, massive hook out of the trees that lands 6 feet from the hole, and etc.) you see on the men's side week in and week out. 

 

Like people keep mentioning it's similar to the NBA / WNBA. WNBA players are great percentage shooters, but they aren't throwing down posterizing dunks like the NBA and that is what people turn on the TV to watch.  

 

He didn't say anything about the types of shots. He said, "We watch athletes on TV who do things that we can’t do". I can't shoot 69 in tournament conditions. Not once. Not for 30+ rounds. 

 

Type of shots? Like hitting 80 percent of greens in regular? I don't get excited about a rare 240 yd 3 iron. Golf is about scoring, and not miracle shots. A very small percentage of players here can average 80 percent of their greens. 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Argonne69

[Abh159]

4 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

If he was talking about types of shots then he didn't address my question. Why quote me if one is going to ignore the question? 

 

Type of shots? Like hitting 80 percent of greens in regular? I don't get excited about a rare 240 yd 3 iron. Golf is about scoring, and not miracle shots. A very small percentage of players here can average 80 percent of their greens. 

 

 

That's sort of our point though. The average or casual fan (which the LPGA needs to attract in order to increase viewership and revenue) couldn't care less about stats like GIR or sand save percentages. They care about rare shots. 

 

To answer your original question... you said "The top 5 players in scoring average this season are all averaging under 70." Considering there were 177 LPGA players on the money list this year and if I had to guess probably at least another 30 or so that played but never made a cut you end up with <2.5% who average in the 60s. Yes it's higher than the general public but not astronomically higher when you think about the yardages they play from (6,200 - 6,500 according to the LPGA website).

[Holy Moses]

1 hour ago, Argonne69 said:

 

The top 5 players in scoring average this season are all averaging under 70. What percentage of WRXers average under 70 in tournament conditions for 30+ rounds? Less than 5% I'd say. General public? Less than 1%?

 

 

 

Our games are not near theirs overall. They are great players and LPGA players would crush 99.999% of male amateurs. My point was I can hit the ball farther, higher, and with more spin than them. They don’t have a shot I don’t have, they just do it far more regularly. People watch sports to see things that they cannot due. And that’s the reason they aren't getting the ratings. They just aren’t as good as the top players in the men’s game. I’m saying this as an LPGA fan. But to say that women’s games are more like amateur men than pro men is like amateur men is going to be something than draws the casual golf fan who brings ratings away from the sport.

[Ironman_32]

15 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

Our games are not near theirs overall. They are great players and LPGA players would crush 99.999% of male amateurs. My point was I can hit the ball farther, higher, and with more spin than them. They don’t have a shot I don’t have, they just do it far more regularly. People watch sports to see things that they cannot due. And that’s the reason they aren't getting the ratings. They just aren’t as good as the top players in the men’s game. I’m saying this as an LPGA fan. But to say that women’s games are more like amateur men than pro men is like amateur men is going to be something than draws the casual golf fan who brings ratings away from the sport.

Yes and no on the sports watching. 

 

Yes for sports like the 100 dash in the Olympics; No for an NFL game, where people are more about their team winning. I think if someone won a 100 meter dash in 15 seconds, not many people would watch; where as, say youre a KC fan, how many people would say "I'm sad we won because Mahomes didnt throw over 400 yards".

 

Golf is one of those sports thats become basically a half sport, half WWE. For example, you think most sports fans would rather watch Barkely shoot 95 or watch Robert Streb shoot 65? Just like WWE, its basically storylines and good looking people. I mean, look at the front page of this site, they're asking do you want a podcast with Patrick Reed (pro golfer/major winner) or Paige Spiranac (sometimes holds a golf club?).

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Lol. I didn't ask what percentage of players could beat an average LPGA player. That topic has been beaten to death. 

 

What percentage of players can average under 70 for a season? That in the +5 index range. 

 

 

 

But that's the thing.  Watching someone "shoot a 67" is not something most people want to do.  Which is what the LPGA's "selling point" is. 

 

The number of people who find that interesting is probably right about the same number of people who are currently following the LPGA, plus or minus a few family members.  "They're better golfers" is not something that will draw.  They better be better golfers if there is money being paid to watch.  But as mentioned, just like women's hoops, bounce passes and layups.  While the precision and percentage might be higher, they're still ultimately doing things most men who have played any sport can do.  Same with golf.  They're hitting drives that aren't that far, and they are hitting greens, which guys can do as well.  But the number who are spinning it back closer tot he hole are fewer in number if the last few weeks are any indication.  And I also have to admit I have seen some pretty bad putting recently as well.

 

The viewership in pro sports is there because they want to see genetic freaks do the things they do.  While they are the best women golfers, they don't meet the genetic freak criteria in the eyes of the general public.

 

[2bGood]

34 minutes ago, Bluefan75 said:

 

 

But that's the thing.  Watching someone "shoot a 67" is not something most people want to do.  Which is what the LPGA's "selling point" is. 

 

The number of people who find that interesting is probably right about the same number of people who are currently following the LPGA, plus or minus a few family members.  "They're better golfers" is not something that will draw.  They better be better golfers if there is money being paid to watch.  But as mentioned, just like women's hoops, bounce passes and layups.  While the precision and percentage might be higher, they're still ultimately doing things most men who have played any sport can do.  Same with golf.  They're hitting drives that aren't that far, and they are hitting greens, which guys can do as well.  But the number who are spinning it back closer tot he hole are fewer in number if the last few weeks are any indication.  And I also have to admit I have seen some pretty bad putting recently as well.

 

The viewership in pro sports is there because they want to see genetic freaks do the things they do.  While they are the best women golfers, they don't meet the genetic freak criteria in the eyes of the general public.

 

You guys seem to picking away at an interesting topic.

 

How many golf fans (PGA or otherwise) watch events tip to tail? It is actually a very rare golf fan the watches the 'entire event'. If a players claim to fame is that they play boring golf (a good thing) and the culmination of that is a low score that wins, it is not very TV friendly. You do need to tune in and see exciting moments to draw tv fans. 

 

LPGA has less big mistakes, big recoveries and big shots in general. 

[kelpie]

As an instructor to college/high school girls and boys, other elite players and regular Joe's, I can tell you that the LPGA can bring some interesting things to the table. I agree that the LPGA doesn't have the bomb/gouge excitement, but they are so freaking consistent, and since they do hit the ball similar in distance to most people playing, I use that to my advantage in instruction. I have my player pay attention to the clubs they use, how awesome their short games are, putting prowess. When I have my players go to an LPGA event they bring more real life excitement back home, something they can relate to. Even the Champions Tour can be intimidating to the average player.

 

The majority of players need to know why these girls, swinging at 95 mph, have a regular shaft with 13 degrees of loft. They quickly question their stiff 9 degree drivers and discover how they can actually hit the ball better and farther. Manufacturers haven't found a way to direct this yet. Other than PXG, I can't think of any manufacturers that actually promote their players anymore. Callaway did with Wie for a time. 

 

I'd like to see some TV segments on the LPGA about their WITB, how they hit shots, strategies for players, etc. I know that Golf Channel does the "Ask the Caddie" thing, which is cool to get to know the players and caddy. But, let's use their amazing athletic abilities and personalities to actually help golfers get better. People can watch the PGA Tour for awe and inspiration, and something that few will attain. 

[Titleist_PT23]

9 hours ago, kelpie said:

As an instructor to college/high school girls and boys, other elite players and regular Joe's, I can tell you that the LPGA can bring some interesting things to the table. I agree that the LPGA doesn't have the bomb/gouge excitement, but they are so freaking consistent, and since they do hit the ball similar in distance to most people playing, I use that to my advantage in instruction. I have my player pay attention to the clubs they use, how awesome their short games are, putting prowess. When I have my players go to an LPGA event they bring more real life excitement back home, something they can relate to. Even the Champions Tour can be intimidating to the average player.

 

The majority of players need to know why these girls, swinging at 95 mph, have a regular shaft with 13 degrees of loft. They quickly question their stiff 9 degree drivers and discover how they can actually hit the ball better and farther. Manufacturers haven't found a way to direct this yet. Other than PXG, I can't think of any manufacturers that actually promote their players anymore. Callaway did with Wie for a time. 

 

I'd like to see some TV segments on the LPGA about their WITB, how they hit shots, strategies for players, etc. I know that Golf Channel does the "Ask the Caddie" thing, which is cool to get to know the players and caddy. But, let's use their amazing athletic abilities and personalities to actually help golfers get better. People can watch the PGA Tour for awe and inspiration, and something that few will attain. 

I would say that your driver comment is a bit excessive (although some of these 50g model "S" driver shafts are fairly soft relatively speaking).  But many of these players have 85-100g r-flex iron shafts, and very rarely do you see an iron approaching 24 degrees of loft (a lot of bags stop in the mid-to-high 20s).  Even some of the (relatively) faster players are moving to hybrids in the mid-20s degrees of loft.

 

I actually have a tough time relating to many of the younger players.  The ones that are hitting it ~270 off the tee have a completely different ball flight than me.  Further, I think a lot of the swings (tempo and rhythm) for these players have changed in the last 10 years too.  These girls are just a lot more athletic and giving it a heck of a whack these days.

[tw_focus]

The deck is stacked against LPGA because most amateur golfers are men. IMHO what LPGA needs is an Anna Kournikova-type golfer who will make headlines and get golfers (and some non-golfers) to watch. If LPGA had an Anna Kournikova-type AND she dominated like TW from the early 2000s, I think LPGA just might put up better ratings than PGA. But unfortunately there's no such player today.