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

[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.