I have nothing against Annika and I can understand a top female athlete wondering how she would match up against the males.
But I still think inter-gender sports are silly. People keep talking about how impressed they were with Annika's showing. Well, she's likely the best female golfer in the world, and she didn't make the cut. What does that tell us about the differences between the sexes?
I enjoy watching many women's sports. I encourage young girls to be athletic if they so choose. I respect the LPGA. But it's just silly PC nonsense to agitate for women to be put in the men's league, and then to gush over the top woman player on earth for putting in a performance that would be dismissed as mediocre for a male.
If we abolished separate gender leagues in sports, women would nearly vanish in athletics. Most sports would be 99% to 100% male. How would that help women's sports?
Even if an occasional exceptional female came along who could keep up with the men, she'd be such a rarity that it would merely underscore the differences between the sexes. And while it's possible that a rare woman could make the cut competing against males, it's impossible to believe one could ever become a Tiger Woods, a Michael Jordon, a Mario Andretti, etc. There would never be a female SUPERstar, though the lavish and fawning press coverage of ANY female who falls short of embarrassing herself would probably make people think she was a superstar.
Yes, Annika is a great golfer. But ONLY when matched against other females. Matched against males, she's just one of many in the back of the rankings. As the best female golfer on earth, she's good enough not to look bad when playing men. That's hardly an image that people who respect women's sports should find encouraging.
Let the men play the men and the women play the women, and women overall will benefit. Mixing the two only allows a rare top level female to make the lower levels of the male leagues.