LPGA provides enough without players moving
by Nick Nance, Managing Editor

    Annika Sorenstam will become the first woman in nearly 60 years to play in a PGA tour event when she arrives at the Colonial this May.
     There is nothing to be gained, only lost, by this mixing of the sexes within golf.
     Here we are in the 21st century long past the years of bra burnings for women's rights. But the ladies' bras are still en fuego today.
     A heated debate has long endured about women crossing the gender line and playing a man's sport. During the past NCAA football season, a woman kicker played in a division one game for the first time.
     A separate league has been established for such sports as golf, soccer, softball, hockey and basketball. Making recent news is the LPGA tour.
     The current debate concerns the justification of a woman playing in the PGA tour. One argument claims sex does not matter. If she is good enough to play in the tour, let her play, proponents cry.
     Sorenstam's playing in the PGA will kill the LPGA. The LPGA will lose its best golfer and probably future quality golfers. The LPGA already is forced to compete for sponsors, and losing players will only make the competition tougher. Therefore, Sorenstam's move will have negatively impacted women's golf.
     Competition will be very tough for women who decide to play in the PGA tour, and it is unlikely a woman will ever win a PGA event. The underlying reason is greed.
     Women players have their own league-the LPGA. Women within this sport should be happy with what they have.
     However, they are part of a growing trend that is stripping away opportunity from men to give to women. Women want to be part of more sporting activities so they can play in the same league as men.
     A social movement has been stripping more and more opportunities from men in the name of equality for women.
     Women want everything and in the process are forcing men to have less and less input as to what takes place in professional sports.
     One of the best examples I have heard in recent weeks transpired with a local chain of gyms.
     The new chain has opened facilities just for women. Rules prevent men from joining the club. However, a few years ago a gym for men only was ridiculed and forced to become co-ed.
     Now, a similarity between the two occurring at a larger level does exist.
     If women did not already have a tour providing equal opportunity to women, I would be fine with a woman playing in the PGA.
     As we all know, the LPGA tour and the opportunity to win money are pretty close to that of the men.
     If one is not a horrible golfer, she has a chance to win.
     I believe these actions to be those of greedy women who have forced their views on women's golf to further their agenda.
     The move to make the PGA co-ed but not the LPGA is a political action backed by sexist organizations that once had a good purpose.