LPGA Purses and Endorsements

[Rapidcat]

6 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

Why are they fawning?  Because while there is what you said, there are many other opportunities that do the same, and the company chose the LPGA over other options.  

 

They aren't such a good sponsorship that they can assume they bring more than other options.  

 

 

Are there really 'many options that do the same'? The LPGA is a unique product that is marketed as such.

 

Most of the leading women golfers present well and seem genuinely nice and this is good for their sponsors and consumers. I am not advocating that they present instead in an off-hand, entitled manner, rather shift a little from the 'thankyou, thankyou so much' attitude (what I call subservient, fawning) to a  'isn't this great, look what we are accomplishing together" - nice and positive on a more equal footing with their sponsors, more win win.

 

Coming back to Mollie's own comment:

There’s no secret that there has been burgeoning interest and support for the world’s premier women’s golf tour – and women’s sports in general. Marcoux Samaan calls it an “awakening” as, in her words, sponsors have realized, “Wow, this is an undervalued asset out in the world. We need to accentuate that value.”

“And our opportunity is to capitalize on that,” she said.

 

I would be conducting some fresh media training with the players to instil a message shift that leverages the above. 

[golfortennis]

17 hours ago, Rapidcat said:

Are there really 'many options that do the same'? The LPGA is a unique product that is marketed as such.

 

Most of the leading women golfers present well and seem genuinely nice and this is good for their sponsors and consumers. I am not advocating that they present instead in an off-hand, entitled manner, rather shift a little from the 'thankyou, thankyou so much' attitude (what I call subservient, fawning) to a  'isn't this great, look what we are accomplishing together" - nice and positive on a more equal footing with their sponsors, more win win.

 

Coming back to Mollie's own comment:

There’s no secret that there has been burgeoning interest and support for the world’s premier women’s golf tour – and women’s sports in general. Marcoux Samaan calls it an “awakening” as, in her words, sponsors have realized, “Wow, this is an undervalued asset out in the world. We need to accentuate that value.”

“And our opportunity is to capitalize on that,” she said.

 

I would be conducting some fresh media training with the players to instil a message shift that leverages the above. 

 

The LPGA product is not that unique.  There's tennis, WNBA, there are women's soccer leagues popping up every where, and that's just a few opportunities in the sports realm.  And that assumes they want to be seen as "supporting women's sports", because the ROI is not the same as men's sports.  There are plenty of other things outside of the sports realm as well.  Just because she says something doesn't make it so.

 

These companies have so many different to spend money in an advertising manner(and that's what this is, don't kid yourself).  It's all about getting their name out in front of people.  

 

You had the right attitude, that it is a business decision, but you seem to think the power lies on the wrong side of the equation.

[Rapidcat]

On 12/13/2021 at 5:44 AM, golfortennis said:

 

Why are they fawning?  Because while there is what you said, there are many other opportunities that do the same, and the company chose the LPGA over other options.  

 

They aren't such a good sponsorship that they can assume they bring more than other options.  

 

 

The LPGA product IS unique. Women’s tennis, WNBA, soccer etc is not the same as the LPGA just because they are women players. Each have their own appeal to different target markets. Just think about soccer and golf, different appeal to different consumers and hence will attract different sponsors. The LPGA must resist the thought process that you state that women’s sport can be viewed as a group with no differentiation.

The thing that they these women’s sports have in common is “the burgeoning interest and support ….for women’s sport in general” (quoting Mollie as I have done previously). It is now up to Mollie to differentiate women’s golf from other women’s sports seeking sponsorship.

You have misrepresented one element of my comments when you state “you seem to think the power lies on the wrong side of the equation”. I don’t, and I purposely used words in my original post such as “Sure, be nice and respectful” and “Doesn't need to be arrogant”. It is now a more BALANCED relationship, more equal for both the LPGA and sponsors and I am advocating that it is promoted as such. A win win on a business basis, more than a “be nice to women’s sport”.

Each sponsor organisation will make the decision as to what is the best vehicle for what they seek and sure, there are multiple choices for the sponsor $. Mollie needs to nail the ROI with potential sponsors and the differentiation from other sports, both male and female  – which is legitimate – is a key.

 

No reason to think that she can’t, her initial macro comments are encouraging.
 

[golfortennis]

6 hours ago, Rapidcat said:

The LPGA product IS unique. Women’s tennis, WNBA, soccer etc is not the same as the LPGA just because they are women players. Each have their own appeal to different target markets. Just think about soccer and golf, different appeal to different consumers and hence will attract different sponsors. The LPGA must resist the thought process that you state that women’s sport can be viewed as a group with no differentiation.

The thing that they these women’s sports have in common is “the burgeoning interest and support ….for women’s sport in general” (quoting Mollie as I have done previously). It is now up to Mollie to differentiate women’s golf from other women’s sports seeking sponsorship.

You have misrepresented one element of my comments when you state “you seem to think the power lies on the wrong side of the equation”. I don’t, and I purposely used words in my original post such as “Sure, be nice and respectful” and “Doesn't need to be arrogant”. It is now a more BALANCED relationship, more equal for both the LPGA and sponsors and I am advocating that it is promoted as such. A win win on a business basis, more than a “be nice to women’s sport”.

Each sponsor organisation will make the decision as to what is the best vehicle for what they seek and sure, there are multiple choices for the sponsor $. Mollie needs to nail the ROI with potential sponsors and the differentiation from other sports, both male and female  – which is legitimate – is a key.

 

No reason to think that she can’t, her initial macro comments are encouraging.
 

 

Ok, so who is the target market reached through LPGA sponsorship?  It's not women, cause women don't watch women's sports.  So who exactly?

 

It is exactly a "be nice to women's sport" basis.  The current political climate means it plays well right now, but AIG putting up $8 million for the Women's Open is not going to last into perpetuity without some serious increases in ratings/eyeballs.  

 

I stated in another thread my concern with choosing her as commissioner, coming from an athletic department, was that she would expect sponsorship because "it's the right thing to do" or some such other pabulum.  Frankly, her comments suggest to me that is her attitude.  She can milk it for a little bit, but the moment companies have to start making decisions, the LPGA sponsorship will be one of the first things on the chopping block.

 

[Rapidcat]

7 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

Ok, so who is the target market reached through LPGA sponsorship?  It's not women, cause women don't watch women's sports.  So who exactly?

 

It is exactly a "be nice to women's sport" basis.  The current political climate means it plays well right now, but AIG putting up $8 million for the Women's Open is not going to last into perpetuity without some serious increases in ratings/eyeballs.  

 

I stated in another thread my concern with choosing her as commissioner, coming from an athletic department, was that she would expect sponsorship because "it's the right thing to do" or some such other pabulum.  Frankly, her comments suggest to me that is her attitude.  She can milk it for a little bit, but the moment companies have to start making decisions, the LPGA sponsorship will be one of the first things on the chopping block.

 

Wow, I’ve found your comments very interesting and you’ve gone in a direction in our exchange that I wasn’t expecting in regard to Mollie, of which I agree with some.

 

Ok, so who is the target market reached through LPGA sponsorship?  It's not women, cause women don't watch women's sports.  So who exactly?

I can’t answer this specific question with any detail, I haven’t done that research and unless I was working currently in this arena, you can’t expect me to. I doubt that you can answer it with any specific knowledge, either. I’m not going to become your forum butler and research it – I guess you can do that if you wish. So I expect that you and I are both commenting at a level of general knowledge fuelled by interest in women’s golf, which is normal on a social golf forum.

 

However, I do come to this from a relevant background with a business degree in marketing and having run and participated in corporate sponsorship programs in Australia, NZ & SE Asia Pacific including golf tournaments (men not women, though). From my background I judge that LPGA sponsorship will appeal to SOME different target markets than say women’s soccer, some of this will be aligned to the image of golf as a country club elitist sport and so the KPMG’s of the world may be drawn to this. It’s not important to me whether the target markets are male rather than female, $ are $, the LPGA just has to get them .

 

I will touch on women not watching women’s sport later.

 

Corporate sponsorships are always precarious, orgs go through downturns and any marketing expenditure is at risk, it is what it is. Orgs today don’t make decisions on a "be nice to women's sport" basis as you say, there is always an ROI justification before $ are spent. $ trumps sentiment. Mollie and her team will have sponsorship pitches with all the market research justifications and you would expect them to work closely with a potential sponsor to establish a business case for any orgs sign-off. It’s just how these things are done and I agree with you that the AIG’s of the world will be looking to grow and maximise returns and judging the LPGA offering vs alternatives including no spend anywhere.

 

I also thought that choosing Mollie was concerning and, in another post, commented that her internal-only focus at the start of her role was not what I would have recommended. I’m ok with her macro statements about her plan but like you, don’t want to just see her ride the wave of interest in women’s sport – yes, she should do this but she must also create initiatives beyond that and some of those must last beyond any wave. One such can be getting more women to watch women’s golf, there's a challenge - can it be done, I think so. It won’t be easy though and a stronger commercial background would have been useful.

 

The other key point is that she has to execute – sure, set a decent plan but then work it. Maybe that is happening, there have been announcements with tournaments and prizemoney increases for next season as we know.

 

I don’t want to see “Mollie-coddling©” eg just wave-riding, warm and fuzzy but also lets see real initiatives beyond that.

 

Anyway, I am hopeful and wish her success – lets see.

[18majors]

@golfortennis, @Rapidcat

 

 

Thank you both for your discourse and deliberation!  Both of you have been comprehensive and passionate about your view points.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by 18majors

[golfortennis]

9 hours ago, Rapidcat said:

Wow, I’ve found your comments very interesting and you’ve gone in a direction in our exchange that I wasn’t expecting in regard to Mollie, of which I agree with some.

 

Ok, so who is the target market reached through LPGA sponsorship?  It's not women, cause women don't watch women's sports.  So who exactly?

I can’t answer this specific question with any detail, I haven’t done that research and unless I was working currently in this arena, you can’t expect me to. I doubt that you can answer it with any specific knowledge, either. I’m not going to become your forum butler and research it – I guess you can do that if you wish. So I expect that you and I are both commenting at a level of general knowledge fuelled by interest in women’s golf, which is normal on a social golf forum.

 

However, I do come to this from a relevant background with a business degree in marketing and having run and participated in corporate sponsorship programs in Australia, NZ & SE Asia Pacific including golf tournaments (men not women, though). From my background I judge that LPGA sponsorship will appeal to SOME different target markets than say women’s soccer, some of this will be aligned to the image of golf as a country club elitist sport and so the KPMG’s of the world may be drawn to this. It’s not important to me whether the target markets are male rather than female, $ are $, the LPGA just has to get them .

 

I will touch on women not watching women’s sport later.

 

Corporate sponsorships are always precarious, orgs go through downturns and any marketing expenditure is at risk, it is what it is. Orgs today don’t make decisions on a "be nice to women's sport" basis as you say, there is always an ROI justification before $ are spent. $ trumps sentiment. Mollie and her team will have sponsorship pitches with all the market research justifications and you would expect them to work closely with a potential sponsor to establish a business case for any orgs sign-off. It’s just how these things are done and I agree with you that the AIG’s of the world will be looking to grow and maximise returns and judging the LPGA offering vs alternatives including no spend anywhere.

 

I also thought that choosing Mollie was concerning and, in another post, commented that her internal-only focus at the start of her role was not what I would have recommended. I’m ok with her macro statements about her plan but like you, don’t want to just see her ride the wave of interest in women’s sport – yes, she should do this but she must also create initiatives beyond that and some of those must last beyond any wave. One such can be getting more women to watch women’s golf, there's a challenge - can it be done, I think so. It won’t be easy though and a stronger commercial background would have been useful.

 

The other key point is that she has to execute – sure, set a decent plan but then work it. Maybe that is happening, there have been announcements with tournaments and prizemoney increases for next season as we know.

 

I don’t want to see “Mollie-coddling©” eg just wave-riding, warm and fuzzy but also lets see real initiatives beyond that.

 

Anyway, I am hopeful and wish her success – lets see.

 

So here's the thing:  it does matter if the target markets are male or female.  Why?  Because, when men watch women's sports, they see people doing things they can do.  Maybe the basketball players shoot a bit better, but guys see bounce passes and layups just like they can do.  They see fairways and greens.  Sure the women shoot 67s, but that doesn't draw interest.  340 yard drives, knocking irons close to the hole.  There are people who will say that is not the case, but it's simply an inconvenient truth they wish to avoid.  Men want to watch people do things they can't do.  The degree to which women pros do things better than men is not enough to get a wow factor.  A centerfielder can field every ground ball and catch every routine fly, but people want to see the guy who makes the catch over the wall, even if he drops too many regular one.   

 

Why does that matter?  The moment there is an option, men will go to that.  The women are much more likely to stick, but even then, women watch men's sports far more than women's sports.  And that is the hurdle that needs to be climbed.  How?  I have no idea, but you have a world where until very recently, the idea of women playing sports period was not considered.  Why do you think the US and Canada can do so well at women's soccer, when the men can barely qualify for the World Cup?  

 

As far as the ROI stuff, without running aground of forum rules, the "benefit" to sponsor women's golf comes from the same benefit that came from donating to certain organizations in 2020.  It's more about showing as a "good corporate citizen" and all that gobbledygook.  That is what she is referring to in the "increasing interest in women's sports."  

 

But we will likely remain on opposite sides of the fence on this one.  More importantly, if I'm not mistaken, you're in Melbourne.  Are you allowed to play yet?      

[18majors]

 

Some of you may've already viewed this video that I really like; the interaction between Judy Rankin and Mollie Marcoux Samaan are truly remarkable:

 

https://www.lpga.com/videos/2021/mollie-marcoux-samaan-interview-2021-cme-group-tour-championship

[Rapidcat]

7 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

So here's the thing:  it does matter if the target markets are male or female.  Why?  Because, when men watch women's sports, they see people doing things they can do.  Maybe the basketball players shoot a bit better, but guys see bounce passes and layups just like they can do.  They see fairways and greens.  Sure the women shoot 67s, but that doesn't draw interest.  340 yard drives, knocking irons close to the hole.  There are people who will say that is not the case, but it's simply an inconvenient truth they wish to avoid.  Men want to watch people do things they can't do.  The degree to which women pros do things better than men is not enough to get a wow factor.  A centerfielder can field every ground ball and catch every routine fly, but people want to see the guy who makes the catch over the wall, even if he drops too many regular one.   

 

Why does that matter?  The moment there is an option, men will go to that.  The women are much more likely to stick, but even then, women watch men's sports far more than women's sports.  And that is the hurdle that needs to be climbed.  How?  I have no idea, but you have a world where until very recently, the idea of women playing sports period was not considered.  Why do you think the US and Canada can do so well at women's soccer, when the men can barely qualify for the World Cup?  

 

As far as the ROI stuff, without running aground of forum rules, the "benefit" to sponsor women's golf comes from the same benefit that came from donating to certain organizations in 2020.  It's more about showing as a "good corporate citizen" and all that gobbledygook.  That is what she is referring to in the "increasing interest in women's sports."  

 

But we will likely remain on opposite sides of the fence on this one.  More importantly, if I'm not mistaken, you're in Melbourne.  Are you allowed to play yet?      

Again interesting stuff, particularly for me re women watching women's sport. It's easy to think that getting more girls into playing golf will translate down the track to more women watching women's golf and maybe it will but plenty of my golfing buddies don't bother to watch men's golf so maybe not so much.

 

Yes we are open for golf again in Melbourne and just in time for our summer. We have a reactionary and heavy-handed state gov't who have just manipulated parliament to vote them more power, so how long that will last with omicron cases about to surge, who knows? Anyway, I'm living in the moment and enjoying playing again for now.

[18majors]

 

That's about US$ 9.0 millions, more than twice of Symetra Tour:

"Total prize money for next year reaches HK$70 million, the most since tour’s inception in 1989."

 

Two China tournaments part of record-breaking 2022 European Challenge Tour season

 

[18majors]

 

The $4.0 million for four tournaments Saudi threw at LET is a great deal for their money compared to this.  Incidentally, Saudi invited a total of 30 players to this tournament.  The purse of US$ 5.0 million are peanuts compared to the appearance fees.

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by 18majors

[18majors]

 

Good things are happening:

Golf dad creates women's developmental tour to debut in January

 

"The ECWPGT’s Winter Series will begin Jan. 17 at Black Bear Golf Course in Orlando, Florida, and continue with seven more events in Florida. Each event will feature $25,000 purses with $10,000 to the winner and $425 entry fees. The summer schedule will start in late April with events coinciding with state opens in New England, the Mid-Atlantic, Carolinas and Georgia before culminating in the season-ending PXG Women’s Match Play at World Golf Village in St. Augustine, Florida."

 

"To help players pay for entry fees and travel, the tour is also establishing the Access Golf Fund, which will allow the public to donate to the competitors. The tour plans to cover operating costs and purses via sponsorship dollars."

 

[MagicClassic407]

2 hours ago, 18majors said:

Good things are happening:

Golf dad creates women's developmental tour to debut in January

Thank you, Dads! Especially for Title IX.

[18majors]

 

Nelly; No. 1 shot of 2021, men or women:

From Nelly to Phil to Bryson, ranking the top 15 golf shots in 2021

 

"1. Nelly's near albatross

Nelly Korda hit arguably the best 7-wood of the year, in any league, when she almost holed out for albatross from 243 yards out on the par-5 fifth hole at Atlanta Athletic Club. She tapped in the eagle to go two shots up on Lizette Salas and never looked back, winning her first major, at the KPMG Women's PGA."

 

 

[18majors]

 

LET is looking up; their 2022 total purse will be higher than KLPGA.  Of course, LET's total purse is misleading because AIG, Amundi, Trust Scottish and ISPS are joint LPGA/LET events.  On those events, only a small fraction of the entries are allocated to LET players.  Those four events account for a total of $14.8 million out of $27.7 million total purse.

 

LET ANNOUNCES RECORD-BREAKING 2022 SCHEDULE

 

"Record-breaking total prize fund of €24.5 million

31 events in 21 countries worldwide

Two new events added and eight more return to the tournament schedule"

[18majors]

 

More news on 2022 Drive On Tournament at Fort Myers:

CROWN COLONY GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB TO HOST 2022 LPGA DRIVE ON CHAMPIONSHIP

 

What players initiatives?  Do Tournament of Champions players volunteer not to enter the field?

 

“We are so appreciative of partners like those at Crown Colony Golf & Country Club for welcoming us as we continue the spirit of the LPGA Drive On Championship events in Fort Myers,” said Mollie Marcoux Samaan, LPGA Commissioner. “We’ll be taking advantage of another incredible week on Tour with player initiatives that will support our Membership in different ways for the upcoming season.”

 

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by 18majors

[18majors]

 

USGA took a baby step to sign up presenting sponsors for USGA Championships:

 

Lehigh Valley Health Network Is Named Proud Supporter of 2022 U.S. Senior Open Championship

[Rapidcat]

15 hours ago, 18majors said:

 

LET is looking up; their 2022 total purse will be higher than KLPGA.  Of course, LET's total purse is misleading because AIG, Amundi, Trust Scottish and ISPS are joint LPGA/LET events.  On those events, only a small fraction of the entries are allocated to LET players.  Those four events account for a total of $14.8 million out of $27.7 million total purse.

 

LET ANNOUNCES RECORD-BREAKING 2022 SCHEDULE

 

"Record-breaking total prize fund of €24.5 million

31 events in 21 countries worldwide

Two new events added and eight more return to the tournament schedule"

Includes the re-birth of the Irish Open which was last played in 2012.

 

Event will be held September 22-25 so you won't see any Irish at the Walmart NW Arkansas Championship on the LPGA Tour as they have a date clash. Granted, that's not the same impact as saying you won't see any Koreans😄

https://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/leona-maguire-hails-return-of-womens-irish-open-in-2022-41178963.html

 

[18majors]

 

Hope Annika is right; it would be great for LPGA if she is:

Nelly Korda’s Huge 2021 Is ‘Just The Beginning,’ Says Golf Legend Annika Sorenstam

[18majors]

 

In retrospective, 2021 was just a season too long for Nelly Korda; ideally her season should've ended after Tokyo Olympics when she's already done everything she set out to do for 2021.

 

A major, world' #1 and Olympics gold; Nelly had nothing more to play for after that and she played like that.  The Pelican win was an accident.

 

I'd be surprised if 2022 doesn't turn out to be a better season for Nelly than 2021 now she realized she'd a chance to be an all time great!

 

[fredogolfer]

On 12/14/2021 at 1:28 PM, golfortennis said:

 

Ok, so who is the target market reached through LPGA sponsorship?  It's not women, cause women don't watch women's sports.  So who exactly?

 

It is exactly a "be nice to women's sport" basis.  The current political climate means it plays well right now, but AIG putting up $8 million for the Women's Open is not going to last into perpetuity without some serious increases in ratings/eyeballs.  

 

I stated in another thread my concern with choosing her as commissioner, coming from an athletic department, was that she would expect sponsorship because "it's the right thing to do" or some such other pabulum.  Frankly, her comments suggest to me that is her attitude.  She can milk it for a little bit, but the moment companies have to start making decisions, the LPGA sponsorship will be one of the first things on the chopping block.

 

 

You bring up a good point. I live in a state where no matter if both of the big university teams suck for years on end they are going to have multi-million dollar sponsorships because of their brand and fanbase. I imagine the same is true for Princeton because of their prestige and alumni network. Not the same for the LPGA, while sizable because it's probably in the millions and worldwide, people won't sponsor it just because. The LPGA needs to build that fanbase and the fanbase needs to feel a long-term connection with the organizations. Of course there will be some we need to support women sentiment and that is fine and the LPGA should take advantage of that but it's not going to be the sole thing that builds LPGA purses and sponsorships. 

 

Selling college sports is completely different from pro sports. Many university sports departments sell the illusion they're helping students reach their full potential academically and athletically ( not true at all, just look at the grad rates and GPAs for some large sports programs, academics are at the bottom of the priority list). In college, many athletes need to do "just enough" to earn the right to continue playing. I'm an alumnus of one of the large state universities in my state. I get about 10 solicitations a year including opportunities to go to bowl games, rival games, special tailgates etc with guaranteed opportunities to meet coaches, athletes and other prominent staff. One offered up this year was an opportunity to go to the Masters, meet on the PGA Tour playing in the Masters that week, visit onsite hospitality at the Masters and a bunch of other perks all for $25,000 a person with proceeds benefitting the alumni association and the university's athletics department. No doubt some of these events create connections and sponsorships. I used to work at a university where one of the former football players had graduated from there and played on a Super Bowl winning team for a little bit as well with the Dallas Cowboys. He earned a Super Bowl ring as a part of his time with the Super Bowl winning team because he was on a special team. A ring is a ring, right? It was so crazy how any event that we had and people got a chance to take a picture with him or meet him people would sign up to support the official university pep squad, sign up for recurring monthly donations in the thousands . At one event he attended, they raised almost $300,000 and it was just your average run of the mill event with some average auction items, wine pulls etc. His college career was good, borderline great but not quite there and yet he had such power when it came to fundraising that it was a no brainer. Could you see any event raising $300,000 with any LPGA player from any era for charity or for the LPGA just simply because people love the brand?

 

Molly will need to step it up and find ways to bring people in and yes, she can ride societal attitude changes for a bit but along with those changes there are many other women's sporting leagues continuing to grow and develop.

[18majors]

2022 JLPGA schedule is out; they will conduct 38 tournaments with a total purse of US$37.5 million.  There will be more and more financial incentives for JLPGA players to seek out LPGA memberships from 2023 and beyond:

2022 JLPGA Schedule and Purse

 

"The JLPGA Tour, which is the target of the prize money ranking, will have 38 games as in 2009 for reference. Currently, one match is being negotiated as a sponsored competition. The total prize money is 4,296 million yen. In addition, Bridgestone Ladies Open and Rakuten Super Ladies have moved to the 4-day competition. As a strengthening measure for the global standard, a total of 18 games will be held as a four-day tournament."

[HMHS]

6 hours ago, 18majors said:

2022 JLPGA schedule is out; they will conduct 38 tournaments with a total purse of US$37.5 million.  There will be more and more financial incentives for JLPGA players to seek out LPGA memberships from 2023 and beyond:

2022 JLPGA Schedule and Purse

 

"The JLPGA Tour, which is the target of the prize money ranking, will have 38 games as in 2009 for reference. Currently, one match is being negotiated as a sponsored competition. The total prize money is 4,296 million yen. In addition, Bridgestone Ladies Open and Rakuten Super Ladies have moved to the 4-day competition. As a strengthening measure for the global standard, a total of 18 games will be held as a four-day tournament."

You betcha!  Now they're allowing/awarding Mercedes Ranking points for placing well in overseas tournaments participated in by JLPGA members (which means, if any of those 4 win or place well in LPGA tournaments, they might actually earn more points playing in the LPGA and "continue" earning points with JLPGA/LPGA events like TOTO etc).     Also would incentivize golfers like Yuna Nishimura who, despite being able to play in USWO in 2021, decided not to take advantage of such opportunity...  Hopefully this would reverse or at least hinder the "Yui Kawamoto" trend of going back to JLPGA after making the QSeries and actually playing well for a bit before Covid struck/derailed her plans...

 

 

 

 

[18majors]

 

A good Jin Young Ko article; a good Jin Young/Nelly rivalry is a good recipe to drive up the LPGA purses:

LPGA Player of the Year Ko Jin-young hungry for more glory

 

"Just having a chance to play in LPGA tournaments provides enough fuel for me," Ko said. "If I had stayed in Korea, I'd be spending more time with my family and friends. But I gave up on all of that to go play in the U.S. I push myself at every tournament because I know I've made a lot of sacrifices, and I want to make them count."
 

[18majors]

 

One chapter of Rose Zhang's incredible 2021; can Rose wake up China's appetite for golf?

Woodard: When golf’s bright future was highlighted in lopsided U.S. Girls’ Junior final

 

[Pastit]

On 12/14/2021 at 1:04 PM, Rapidcat said:

The LPGA product IS unique. Women’s tennis, WNBA, soccer etc is not the same as the LPGA just because they are women players. Each have their own appeal to different target markets. Just think about soccer and golf, different appeal to different consumers and hence will attract different sponsors. The LPGA must resist the thought process that you state that women’s sport can be viewed as a group with no differentiation.

The thing that they these women’s sports have in common is “the burgeoning interest and support ….for women’s sport in general” (quoting Mollie as I have done previously). It is now up to Mollie to differentiate women’s golf from other women’s sports seeking sponsorship.

You have misrepresented one element of my comments when you state “you seem to think the power lies on the wrong side of the equation”. I don’t, and I purposely used words in my original post such as “Sure, be nice and respectful” and “Doesn't need to be arrogant”. It is now a more BALANCED relationship, more equal for both the LPGA and sponsors and I am advocating that it is promoted as such. A win win on a business basis, more than a “be nice to women’s sport”.

Each sponsor organisation will make the decision as to what is the best vehicle for what they seek and sure, there are multiple choices for the sponsor $. Mollie needs to nail the ROI with potential sponsors and the differentiation from other sports, both male and female  – which is legitimate – is a key.

 

No reason to think that she can’t, her initial macro comments are encouraging.
 

Whilst hesitating to criticise the LPGA and our ladies’ tour, I feel the course-length standard is far too short. It’s wedge, wedge, wedge. I think the standard length should be that used in their majors, c 6600 yds with the majors at 6,800. This would level-up for gear and technique improvements and allow much more variety. Many ladies are c 6’ now. 
 

I played with a few category one ladies in my youth, including a girl international and future golf-pro with the old equipment. They could handle 6,600 even then. 

[Rapidcat]

1 hour ago, Pastit said:

Whilst hesitating to criticise the LPGA and our ladies’ tour, I feel the course-length standard is far too short. It’s wedge, wedge, wedge. I think the standard length should be that used in their majors, c 6600 yds with the majors at 6,800. This would level-up for gear and technique improvements and allow much more variety. Many ladies are c 6’ now. 
 

I played with a few category one ladies in my youth, including a girl international and future golf-pro with the old equipment. They could handle 6,600 even then. 

I like your thinking and agree their courses should be longer and that the players can handle it. No need to even be 6' to knock it out there, consider Maria Fassi @ 5.9, Brooke Henderson @ 5.6.

 

It's been raised in a few event threads on here this past season the dislike for the LPGA trend for reducing holes to driveable par 4's or silly short par 3's to create some bizarre 'feature' hole. I think that it is disrespectful to the quality of the current players.

[Pastit]

33 minutes ago, Rapidcat said:

I like your thinking and agree their courses should be longer and that the players can handle it. No need to even be 6' to knock it out there, consider Maria Fassi @ 5.9, Brooke Henderson @ 5.6.

 

It's been raised in a few event threads on here this past season the dislike for the LPGA trend for reducing holes to driveable par 4's or silly short par 3's to create some bizarre 'feature' hole. I think that it is disrespectful to the quality of the current players.

Further, but I might be on dangerous ground here. The Ladies Euro Tour ( or whatever it was named on start-up c 1977 I think ) probably just used the ordinary LGU ( Ladies Golf Union ) tees for ease and the custom continued. The top girls I played with in friendly games played off men’s yellow tees ( c 10-20 yds in front of completion tees; not tiger tees ). They would be roughly level in driving distances with me ( HCP 8 ). Our category 1 men ( < 4 HCP ), would all be better than scratch off LGU tees. 
 

Courses, technique and equipment have made the above custom redundant. The main difference I see now is how consistent the lady pros are with wedge play. About time we saw much longer 2nd shots being required in their game, 

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Pastit

[18majors]

 

The message is clear:

 

 

[HMHS]

7 minutes ago, 18majors said:

 

The message is clear:

 

 

The message is perfectly simple.  The meaning is clear LOL.... 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by HMHS