The Michael Jordan Syndrome

[libertango]

Thoughts about Annika Sorenstam:

There seems to be this undercurrent -- even by Ms. Sorenstam herself -- that somehow the whole venture was a failure.

This mystifies me. Even if we have seen it before.

It's true, Ms. Sorenstam didn't make the cut, that halfway winnowing of the field.

But.

But she did beat eleven other players, and tied with five. Even though this was her first PGA tournament ever. Even though she was, basically, a rookie.

I'm reminded of the progress that's been made in the marathon.

Back in 1969, the men's world record for the marathon stood at 2 hours, 8 minutes. The women's record was at 3:07.

Today, a full generation later, the men's record stands at 2:05. Male marathoners today are a whole 3 minutes faster than they were 34 years ago. And the women's record?

2:17.

That would be fifty minutes faster, and a mere 12 minutes behind the men. At that pace, the handwriting is clearly on the wall -- within my lifetime, women will quite probably be beating men in the marathon.

My point? My point is that, sure, Ms. Sorenstam didn't make the cut -- this time. But what would happen next time? Or the time after that?

Still, don't look for Ms. Sorenstam to be out there anytime soon. She's been quoted as saying, "I've got to go back to my tour, to where I belong. I'm glad I did it but this is way over my head."

Which is wrong on both counts.

We've seen this all happen before, of course. Which is where the title of this post comes in.

A few years back, many may remember how Michael Jordan tried to break into Major League Baseball. An effort that, again, while not stellar, was certainly better than about 1/4 to 1/3 of the players currently out there.

The trouble was... He wasn't a star. He wasn't MICHAEL JORDAN.

And, apparently, that was more important than his "dream" of being a professional baseball player. The clause we never heard about was that he wanted to be a baseball star.

Now Ms. Sorenstam appears to be falling into the same trap. Could she play at the PGA level, and even make a living at it? Based on this weekend, yes, she could.

But would she be a star, the way she is in the LPGA?

Well, no.

But, sooner or later, the number two or the number three player in the LPGA is going to realize, "You know... I might not beat eleven the first time out, but I bet I could beat five.... And I bet I'd get better..." In other words, sooner or later, some woman is going to realize that successfully playing the game is more important than being a star.

And that's when history will be made.

Comments

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Actually, Jordan hit .200 in the minor leagues and never appeared in the majors, but your point is well taken. The men's golf establishment was assuming that she would finish so low that she obviously didn't belomg there, but she didn't. And, as you point out, the next one will do better.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I wonder if this isn't confusing two different things. I recognise the thing you're talking about, gotta-be-a-star, but there's also the attitude to women in sport, especially when their scores challenge men in sport.

Not that I'm a sports geek myself, but a quick google established that the world marathon record by a woman is actually now 2 hours 15 minutes 26 seconds - and has been since Sunday 13th April this year, when Paula Radcliffe beat her previous record in the Chicago marathon.

Who was the first person to win the Iditarod race three years in succession?

Who holds the world record for the longest swim?

Who is the youngest person ever to climb Mount Everest?

Who holds the world record for the fastest swim across the English Channel?

Answers all available by googling (that's where I got them: I recalled the factoids, but not the names) but as you'll already have guessed, all four world records are held by women.

(Interesting factoid turned up when checking marathon records, re Discus Throw: If Robert Weir, the British men's champion, had competed with Gabriele Reinsch, the world women's champion, he would have lost by 12.2 meters - the American men's champion, Ben Plucknett, would only have lost by 4.46 meters.)

For running a mile, who's fastest? Hicham El Guerrouj (3.43.13) Steve Cram (3:46.32), Steve Scott (3:47.69), Svetlana Masterkova (4:12.56), Mary Slaney (4:16.71), Zola Budd (4:17.57)? Yes, Svetlana Masterkova would come in a whole 29.43 seconds later than Hicham El Guerrouj: but those record figures look suspiciously like the figures that used to stand before 1954, when it was a given that the 4-minute mile was impossible.

It still seems to be a given that women don't beat men. I realise that this isn't explicitly what you meant: within my lifetime, women will quite probably be beating men in the marathon. - but taken literally, you know this has already happened. The vast majority of men who compete in marathons don't come anywhere near 2 hours 15 minutes - women are already beating men in the marathon.

There was an article in the Guardian sports section, many years ago (I'd guess, in 1988) that I clipped out and kept for some time. It was about the British women's judo team, who were having a record year: they'd picked up gold and silver medals at the Olympics in several events, plus winning at a couple of other world-class judo events. Except that the writer spent most of the article bemoaning how unfair this was, because the British men's judo team were having a really bad year - not a single medallist. I could not imagine the same thing in reverse: if the British men's judo team had won several Olympic medals, and the British women's judo team none, it's possible that the article writer might have spared a single sentence for the women's team, but more than likely they would simply never have been referenced.

I speak from a little experience myself: way back twenty years ago, I was my local swimming group's best player at underwater hockey. My team always won. I was extremely popular as a player. Outside the pool, I got a hell of a lot of hostility from all the boys who weren't as good as I was - much, much more than the two other girl swimmers, who were well below average.

Annika Sorenstam got hostile razzing, reportedly, from her fellow players before the game. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what she meant when she said she wouldn't play at this level. Not because she wouldn't be a star, but because she wouldn't be accepted simply as a crack player, capable of beating men.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"It still seems to be a given that women don't beat men. I realise that this isn't explicitly what you meant: within my lifetime, women will quite probably be beating men in the marathon. - but taken literally, you know this has already happened. The vast majority of men who compete in marathons don't come anywhere near 2 hours 15 minutes - women are already beating men in the marathon."

Absolutely.

No, what I meant is that, within my lifetime, women will be winning the prestige marathon events like Boston, New York, and the Olympics -- hands down, first past the post, regardless of gender, period.

In fact, talking about this, Ulrika and I had already mentioned that current times mean the top flight women are beating 90+% of the men. I just didn't get that written down. :)

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Oh, and...

"...the world marathon record by a woman is actually now 2 hours 15 minutes 26 seconds - and has been since Sunday 13th April this year, when Paula Radcliffe beat her previous record in the Chicago marathon."

Ah. Thank you. Amother fine illustration ot Tom Digby's observation that the best way to get information on the Net isn't to ask for it, but post the wrong information and wait for people to correct you. :)

I had been using this list of women's marathon records, and the reason was that I wanted the historical data. So, they need to do an update.

Still, this just makes my case stronger, IMHO. Beating her own record by two minutes... Hell, that's one year for her to have made two-thirds of the progress the men have made over 34.

---

There was an article in the Guardian sports section, many years ago (I'd guess, in 1988) that I clipped out and kept for some time. It was about the British women's judo team, who were having a record year: they'd picked up gold and silver medals at the Olympics in several events, plus winning at a couple of other world-class judo events. Except that the writer spent most of the article bemoaning how unfair this was, because the British men's judo team were having a really bad year - not a single medallist. I could not imagine the same thing in reverse: if the British men's judo team had won several Olympic medals, and the British women's judo team none, it's possible that the article writer might have spared a single sentence for the women's team, but more than likely they would simply never have been referenced.

{Nod of head in agreement}

Yes, I saw this at my own college, where the women's basketball team cleaned up year after the year, while the men were schlubs.

The former unsuccessful college coach is now coach of the NBA San Antonio Spurs, and is in the playoffs. I have no idea what happened to the highly successful women's coach.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Another fine illustration ot Tom Digby's observation that the best way to get information on the Net isn't to ask for it, but post the wrong information and wait for people to correct you. :)

I have a kind of interest in women breaking sports records - I hardly ever recall the actual data unassisted, but I usually manage to recall that there was a record-breaker, which (given google) is usually enough to look it up.

[numbat.livejournal.com]

What then do you see as the attaction for a woman to swap from the LPGA to the PGA? I ask because I don't understand in what way you mean some woman is going to realize that successfully playing the game is more important than being a star. When you refer to playing the game do you mean this hypothetical woman will prefer the LPG because it's a tougher competition and thus more of a challenge? Or do you mean playing the game as in working within the system to her own advantage? Which would make sense if she were able, for example, to earn more by playing in the LPGA.

I would disagree with you're calling Annika Sorenstam a rookie by the way. Her experience in the LPGA is of a much higher level than that of the average first time entrant. I would describe her as being between rookie and veteran.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"What then do you see as the attaction for a woman to swap from the LPGA to the PGA? I ask because I don't understand in what way you mean some woman is going to realize that successfully playing the game is more important than being a star. When you refer to playing the game do you mean this hypothetical woman will prefer the PGA because it's a tougher competition and thus more of a challenge? Or do you mean playing the game as in working within the system to her own advantage? Which would make sense if she were able, for example, to earn more by playing in the LPGA."

All of the above, actually.

Look. What's the motivation of the 11 men Sorenstram beat, the 5 she tied? To compete, possibly to win if that's within their grasp, to excel. I don't see anyone suggesting that the 16 men in question should retire from the game... So what is it about Sorenstram's situation that makes it so different?

But, yes, the money on the PGA tour is about double the money on the LPGA. Mitigating against that would be that one would suddenly be going from the top purses in the LPGA to the bottom ones in the PGA... But, again, I'm firmly convinced that would change over time.

Another aspect to consider... I know you're from Australia, and thus probably don't follow US baseball. But consider Roger Maris, and his real or imagined asterisk behind his single-season home run record. The argument was that sure, maybe Maris more home runs, but he had a longer season to work with.

In the same way, look at the reaction Sorenstram is receiving. "Sure, shes plays golf well... for a woman." Which is a very similar kind of asterisk.

If one wants, as a player, to just say, "I beat X many players last year." -- and not have any fine print, just say it on a purely competitive basis -- the only way to do that is to play that way.

"I would disagree with you're calling Annika Sorenstam a rookie by the way. Her experience in the LPGA is of a much higher level than that of the average first time entrant. I would describe her as being between rookie and veteran."

This also reminds me of a baseball situation. Ichiro Suzuki. Of whom many said that since he'd played pro ball in Japan for many years, he shouldn't be eligible for Rookie of the Year.

The problem with that, and with Sorenstram, is that to make an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to say that baseball in Japan is just as competitive as in the US, or that the LPGA is just as competitive as the PGA. And that is manifestly not so.

While she has played professional golf for years, in the PGA Sorenstram is a rookie.

[numbat.livejournal.com]

Mind you, I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I was simply not sure which of several argument(s) you were trying to make.

The personal satisfaction one makes sense to me. The money one less so for reasons you put forward. Of course not being up on the difference in prize money between the two competitions I had no idea how well somebody from the LPGA would have to perform to do better, or at least as well, financially.

I still disagree with you on the rookie question. Your argument only works if I'm willing to accept that everyone can only be A or B, that is experienced or a rookie. I see no reason to accept such limited options. As you yourself point out a baseball player who has played at the top level in Japan is far better equipped to handle the conditions of top level baseball in the US than a teenager from AUstralia. The Japanese may still may still have a great deal to learn but he won't be a true rookie due to not being totally inexperienced. Of course you might argue that anybody who hasn't played in a particular competition is by default a rookie. This almost works in regards to the US which is so isolated sports wise. It wouldn't work here though. It would lead to too many anomalies.