Alexis Thompson, LGU and women's British Open

[gxer]

Originally Posted by LoJo

Blue is right. Lexi chose to take the $$ and give up her Amateur status. Don't blame the LGU for choosing not to give her an exemption into final qualifying.

I see you're getting thoroughly lambasted over on the psycho board (Golf Channel DG) over your obsession with this issue. (Your thread "Lexi Denied Chance To qualify WBO.")

Even the most ardent "anti-Wie" fans are ripping you for wanting the same entitlement that you continually griped about Wie getting. Funny. Or should I say....*giggles*

She's got $300k+ and can't play this week. Oh well.

BS! I am talking about a qualifier, not the event itself.
Have a good life Lojo, now hop on your broom and fly away, bye-bye.

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by gxer

BS! I am talking about a qualifier, not the event itself.
Have a good life Lojo, now hop on your broom and fly away, bye-bye.

Did I not SAY "an exemption into final qualifying?" Yes...I sure did. Oops.

My broom is ready to ride, baby. I gotta a big ol' V8 engine on my ride, and I have a great life gettin' my motor running. Wanna go with me?

You are hilarious, gxer. You get onto all these obsessions like women (Annika/Wie/whomever) playing against men....(OMG!!)....Tadd Fujikawa....now, Lexi Thompson. And you can't stand it when someone disagrees with you. Funny as hell.

[gxer]

Originally Posted by LoJo

Did I not SAY "an exemption into final qualifying?" Yes...I sure did. Oops.

My broom is ready to ride, baby. I gotta a big ol' V8 engine on my ride, and I have a great life gettin' my motor running. Wanna go with me?

You are hilarious, gxer. You get onto all these obsessions like women (Annika/Wie/whomever) playing against men....(OMG!!)....Tadd Fujikawa....now, Lexi Thompson. And you can't stand it when someone disagrees with you. Funny as hell.

Lojo,

Here's what I am having a problem with perhaps you can help me.

The discussion is about whether or not the LGU made the correct decision, given the circumstances, about denying Lexi an exemption to final qualifying.
They even cover that exemption in writing, section 6, sub-section i.

Now, for a few minutes keep in mind, the circumstances: a pre-qualifier in England scheduled for the Monday following the women's US Open and the fact that Lexi had a T10 in the women US Open.

Do you honestly think that the LGU made the correct decision in denying Lexi an exemption into final qualifying? There was no guarantee she would earn one of the spots. Lexi had not played the course and as we found out today, +1 or better got 14 of the 17 spots and at +2, there was a 6 way playoff for the remaining 3 spots.

There is also something else to consider and that is IMG. I can almost guarantee you this. If IMG represented Lexi, we would not be having this discussion about Lexi being denied an exemption to final qualifying, she would have received it and in addition, I think there would have been a better than 50% chance that Lexi would have been given an exemption directly to the women's British Open.

Obviously, I have to accept the decision the LGU made but that doesn't mean I have to agree with that decision.

[gxer]

I am glad the exemption story is getting some play, now if only a golf writer with balls (and I don't necessarily mean the golf writer has to be a male) would mention what would have happened if IMG represented Lexi instead of Blue Giraffe Sports in the exemption question, I would be a happy camper.
----------------------------------------------
Hotshot teen Alexis Thompson denied Women’s British shot – The Downswing Golf Blog – Orlando Sentinel

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by gxer

Lojo,

Here's what I am having a problem with perhaps you can help me.

The discussion is about whether or not the LGU made the correct decision, given the circumstances, about denying Lexi an exemption to final qualifying.
They even cover that exemption in writing, section 6, sub-section i.

Now, for a few minutes keep in mind, the circumstances: a pre-qualifier in England scheduled for the Monday following the women's US Open and the fact that Lexi had a T10 in the women US Open.

Do you honestly think that the LGU made the correct decision in denying Lexi an exemption into final qualifying? There was no guarantee she would earn one of the spots. Lexi had not played the course and as we found out today, +1 or better got 14 of the 17 spots and at +2, there was a 6 way playoff for the remaining 3 spots.

There is also something else to consider and that is IMG. I can almost guarantee you this. If IMG represented Lexi, we would not be having this discussion about Lexi being denied an exemption to final qualifying, she would have received it and in addition, I think there would have been a better than 50% chance that Lexi would have been given an exemption directly to the women's British Open.

Obviously, I have to accept the decision the LGU made but that doesn't mean I have to agree with that decision.

gxer....I'm not going to agree w/ your theory about IMG. I don't know anything about that. It would seem that IF Lexi had signed w/ them and then IF Lexi had been given an extraordinary exemption, then it would have looked like ..... yeah...there was an issue there. I'm not buying that.

First off...Lexi was IN the final qualifying as an Amateur member of the Curtis Cup. OK...fine, but then she turned pro and lost that exemption. What now is the LGU to do? Now she wants to get into the final qualifying based on what? That she turned pro and #1...missed the cut at the first event she played?...#2...played brilliantly at the USWO.... #3...played brilliantly at the Evian? So that's enough to give her an exemption? What about the other players who wanted to get in?

When was the cut off date for all this? The LGU had no reason to know that she was going to play great in the last two events. What if she'd MC in those two events? It was a chance that the Thompsons took. I just don't think the LGU had a choice to give her an exemption at that late date. As I said..hindsight is 20/20. There surely had to be a cut off date for the LGU and it surely had to be before the Evian.

Yes, the LGU made the right decision. What about all the other players who "might" have finished high in the USWO or the Evian and who were not otherwise qualified? Look...I know they have an "out" w/ their Section 6, sub-section whatever. But...how does that go w/ other players who might have been "more" qualified at that point than Lexi?

Most all golf fans would wish that she could compete in the WBO. I know I do! However, she (they) chose to take a big chance that she would get an exemption...and that didn't happen.

Do I think she would have made it in the final qualifying? Yes, I sure do, given her good play of late.

Too bad....she chose her path and will have to live w/ it. It's like Wie...she could never Monday qualify for LPGA events once she turned pro because rules say you have to be a member of the LPGA. Would she have likely Monday qualified? Yeah...I think she would have. But too bad.

Lexi will qualify on her own merits for the WBO next year and in years to come. Er.....we hope.

[gxer]

OK, you think the LGU decision was correct, even given the circumstances.

Well, I have to accept your opinion but I don't have to agree with it anymore than I agree with the LGU's decision.

Have a good day.

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by gxer

OK, you think the LGU decision was correct, even given the circumstances.

Well, I have to accept your opinion but I don't have to agree with it anymore than I agree with the LGU's decision.

Have a good day.

Fair enough, gxer. I do hope for the best for Lexi. I think she has a brilliant future ahead of her. I've seen her "in person" -- following her in an Amateur event in January. I walked w/ Mom Thompson (Judy) for some holes and talked to her quite a bit.

However, Lexi...like Wie did once she turned pro...will have to play by the Rules now that she's started takin' the $$. Most of Wie's controversial exemptions happened while she was an Am.

[gxer]

Hey Lojo,

In talking about qualifications for the WBO, I personally love this one...NOT!

36 holes! Why 36 holes, the Jamie Farr is a 72 hole event.
Oh, I know, it's another LGU quality decision.
Not one of those golfers improved their position from where they were at 36 holes.
----------------------
(l)Leading 5 finishers after 36 holes in the 2010 Jamie Farr Owens Corning Classic
119 Jean Reynolds (36 holes T19 72 holes T56)
120 Lisa Meldrum (36 holes T19 72 holes T45)
121 Misun Cho (36 holes T32 72 holes T32)
122 Allison Hanna (36 holes T32 72 holes T39)
123 Libby Smith (36 holes T32 72 holes T56)

http://www.lgu.org/data/files/2010_R...pen_Exempt.pdf

[LoJo]

There are several qualification status lists that are like...HUH?

Top 3 finishers in the Tenerife Open?

OK...but that's their Rules of qualifying.

It's like the Open Championship. These events are OPEN to the whole world, so you have to have different qualifications than just PGA or LPGA events.

[gxer]

Originally Posted by LoJo

There are several qualification status lists that are like...HUH?

Top 3 finishers in the Tenerife Open?

OK...but that's their Rules of qualifying.

It's like the Open Championship. These events are OPEN to the whole world, so you have to have different qualifications than just PGA or LPGA events.

I don't care that the Jamie Farr is a qualifier but why only use 36 holes?
I don't get it, do you?