ISSN: 1543-9518|Vol. 24

More than Just the Ryder Cup: An Examination of Relevant Natural Characteristics in Professional Golf

Submitted by: Mark K. Pyles, Ph.D.

Abstract:

The researcher examined the two major professional golf associations, the Professional Golfer’s Association (PGA) and the Ladies Professional Golfer’s Association (LPGA), to determine physical characteristics relevant for success. The researcher found that those players born outside of the U.S. consistently earn more money and have lower average scores in the most recent professional season. These results are consistent across both tours. The researcher attempted to uncover individual statistical categories that influence this finding. He found that players born outside of the U.S. have significantly superior putting averages, while there appears to be no significant difference in other categories, such as driving and hitting greens in regulation. The superior performance of players born outside of the U.S. remains after controlling for these statistical areas.

Introduction:

Many studies have examined the skills necessary to succeed at the game of golf. Among the first were Davidson and Templin (1986), who found hitting greens in regulation and putting to be the most important determinants of success. These results have been consistent in numerous studies, including Jones (1990), Shmanske (1992), Belkin, Gansneder, Pickens, Rotella, and Striegel (1994), Nero (2001), Dorsel and Rotunda (2001), and Engelhardt (2002).

This paper took a different approach. The researcher examined the impact of professional golfers’ physical characteristics on performance, measured by the money earned and the scoring average for the 2006 season. The researcher examined both the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) and the Ladies Professional Golfers Association (LPGA) tours. There has been considerable evidence that talent and skill level in professional golf have been increasing rapidly over the past decade (e.g. Chatterjee, Wiseman, and Perez, 2001). This is likely attributable to the rapid improvement in equipment, but just as much, if not more, is attributable to increased participant abilities. The researcher examined whether natural characteristics such as size influence professional success in both tours.

Further, the researcher examined the effect of the individual’s origin, specifically segmenting those born in the U.S. and those that were not. Following the two most recent Ryder Cups, which the European teams won handily, there has been much discussion on the “advantages” they must have. Those advantages appear to be more than statistical, as the American team fielded the top three players in the world during the most recent Cup and were still unable to threaten the lesser-known European team. It has been suggested this is potentially due to the team camaraderie the international team enjoys and the American team lacks. While this is a question the researcher cannot answer, he attempted to determine whether this “international effect” is evident in settings other than these group competitions.

This work makes numerous contributions to the literature related to this subject. First, to his knowledge, the researcher is among the first to directly examine the individual physical characteristics of professional golfers. The researcher took an opposite approach than most studies do. Characteristics such as putting and driving are explanatory variables, which the researcher used in an attempt to explain the variation found in relation to the physical characteristics.

Second, the researcher contributed to the literature (e.g. Wiseman, Chatterjee, Wiseman, and Chatterjee, 2004) that examines gender differences in professional golf. While the researcher primarily examined both tours separately, he found the results to be consistent for both tours, suggesting an overall effect, rather than a gender-specific anomaly. In addition, the researcher examined the 2006 professional season, which has just recently concluded. Given the increased quality of equipment, as well as the improved performance of the participants, it is important to examine the most recent data.

The researcher found relations to be consistent with those documented in past literature. In addition, the most interesting finding dealt with the nationality variable. The researcher found those individuals born outside the U.S. scored lower and earned more money than those born within, a result consistent across both professional tours. Further, by examining the primary performance-predicting variables, the researcher found players born outside of the U.S. have lower putting averages, while the other performance-predicting variables are statistically equal. Therefore, it appears that putting explains some of the variation between U.S. born and non-U.S. born players. However, the researcher also examined end-performance controlling for the predictive statistics (including putting average) and found the significant relation remains. Therefore, there appears to be undefined influence. The researcher briefly discussed possible reasons for this, for example, prior experience on international tours.

Literature Review:

Davidson and Templin (1986) were among the first to examine the characteristics that are important in golf success. Examining 1983 PGA data, they concluded that relative to driving, skills of finesse, such as putting and hitting greens in regulation (GIR) were more important statistical areas in relation to performance, as measured by money earned and scoring average. The results suggest that golfers who possess proficiency in many shot-making areas have a higher probability of success than those players with proficiency in a few.

Numerous studies have examined the same topic and have concluded the same, that putting and GIR are the most important determinants of success. Among these are Jones (1990), Shmanske (1992), Belkin, Gansneder, Pickens, Rotella, and Striegel (1994), Wiseman, Chatterjee, (1994), Engelhardt (1995,1997), Moy and Liaw (1998), and more recently Nero (2001), Dorsel and Rotunda (2001), and Engelhardt (2002). This finding is not exclusive to professional golf, as Callen and Thomas (2004) found that amateur golfers must possess a wide array of shot-making skills to be successful, particularly putting and hitting GIR.

Several studies have also examined the incremental significance of certain statistical areas for male golfers in comparison to female golfers. For example, Wiseman, Chatterjee, Wiseman, Chatterjee (1994) examined the PGA, LPGA, and SPGA tours and found that males drive the ball farther and hit more GIR. Consistent with the above results, they also found the most important characteristics for LPGA golfers are putting and greens in regulation. Moy and Liaw (1998) found the same, adding that PGA participants perform better in sand saves relative to the LPGA tour. Shmankse (2000) noted that the PGA tour yielded a superior putting average relative to the LPGA.

Further, Nero (2001) estimated golfers earnings based upon driving distance, driving accuracy, putting average, and sand saves. He concluded that professional golfers would benefit by improved putting more than increased driving distance. Callen and Thomas (2006) extended their previous study by examining male and female NCAA amateur golfers. They reached two primary conclusions: (1) males and females possess different levels of shot-making skills, and (2) these disparate skills influence tournament performance differently across genders. These disparate skills are consistent with those found in professional golf.

Moy and Liaw (1998) asserted that men’s larger physical size and superior strength explained the advantage enjoyed by professional male golfers over their female counterparts, as they can drive the ball farther. However, others have argued that successfully driving the ball requires more than just strength. For example, Hume, Keogh, and Reid (2005) analyzed both driving and putting and found that strength is certainly important in both areas, but flexibility and timing are also critical for success. The related hypothesis is that gender-related differences are therefore related to one or more of those physiological areas. Myers, Gebhardt, Crump, and Fleishman (1993) found statistical support for this; male golfers score higher in strength and stamina, while females have superior flexibility.

Data and Methods:

All data in this study are available online. The researcher obtained PGA and LPGA statistics from the official websites, www.pgatour.com and www.lpgatour.com, respectively. For each tour, the researcher obtained end-performance measures and performance-predicting measures. The researcher’s primary measures of end performance were total money earned during the year (Money) and scoring average (Scoring). Money is defined as the sum total earnings due to end tournament placement throughout the entire season.1 Scoring is defined as the average score (i.e. number of strokes) obtained through each round (i.e. 18 holes).

Also, the researcher examined four performance-predicting statistics. The first, driving distance (DrivingDist), measured the total length of each participant’s average drive. During each round, two holes were selected to be measured, with special care taken to ensure the holes face in opposite directions to counteract the effects of wind. Drives were measured at the point they come to rest. The researcher also examined driving accuracy (DrivingAcc), which is the percentage of time a player hit the fairway with his/her drive, the first stroke taken on par 4 and par 5 holes. These two variables are included to examine the overall “power game” of each player. Past studies have typically found these variables to be less important than the finesse areas of the game. However, there have been studies (e.g. Engelhardt, 1995) that suggest a reversal in recent seasons, as the game of golf has become a more distance-demanding sport. The researcher attempted to see if this was indeed the case.

The researcher examined each player’s percentage of GIR, defined as having any part of the ball touching the putting surface in two or less strokes than par for each hole. Finally, the researcher examined putting average (PuttAv) for each participant. PuttAv is the average number of putts used only on those greens hit in regulation. Using this measure eliminated biasing the results due to chipping the ball close to the hole and having a relatively short putt. Both of these variables have been found to be significant in relation to performance in almost all studies. Therefore, the researcher attempted to see if this relationship still existed.2

Rather than using the value of each of these performance variables, the researcher chose to use the ranking. In each tour, the participants are ranked based upon each statistical category. In fact, those are the numbers most often quoted when commenting on the various statistics. The researcher chose to use rankings in order to have a consistent relationship between the coefficient signs and each variable. Otherwise, each would have to have its own interpretation. For example, a lower putting average is a positive statistic, while a higher percentage of greens in regulation is a positive. By using the respective rankings, the researcher could consistently say that a higher ranking is a positive signal, regardless of the variable.3

The researcher’ primary contribution was to extend the analysis to control for personal characteristics. Therefore, the researcher also identified several natural physical characteristics. He identified the age (age) of each participant, defined as the number of whole years from the individual’s birth date to the end of the 2006 professional year.4,5 Also, he defined height (height) and weight (weight) to control for the player’s physical structure. Height is measured in inches; weight is measured in pounds. The researcher did not have data on the LPGA player’s weight; therefore, this variable was defined only for the PGA sample. Finally, the researcher identified each individual’s birth place. Using this, the researcher created USA, which is a dummy variable equal to one if an individual was born in any of the 50 states, zero otherwise. As such, the researcher could examine the difference between performance of USA-born players, both in end performance and in performance-predicting variables. All personal characteristics are available online. After excluding those players for which complete data was unavailable, the final sample consisted of 196 PGA professionals and 166 LPGA professionals.

The researcher initially examined summary statistics of both sub-samples. Consistent with Chaterjee, Wiseman, Chaterjee, and Wiseman (1994), the researcher found the unsurprising result that PGA players drive the ball farther than LPGA players. This is consistent with physiological studies, such as Myers, et al. (1993.) However, the researcher found no significant difference between the two tours in relation to greens hit in regulation. He found the putting average on the PGA tour to be significantly lower than on the LPGA tour, consistent with Schmanske (2000). PGA tour players underperformed LPGA players in driving accuracy, also consistent with Myers et al. (1993.) More important to the study, the researcher found PGA players are older, on average. It appears that there is a higher percentage of American born players on the PGA tour relative to the LPGA tour.

Table 1 – Summary Statistics:

The following table represents summary statistics for the sample, segmented by observations from the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) tour and the Ladies Professional Golfers Association (LPGA) tour. For the PGA tour, Age is defined as number of whole years from the individual’s birth date to November 6, 2006, the day after the end of the Tour Championship. For the LPGA tour, Age is defined as the number of whole years from the individual’s birth date to November 15, 2006 the date following the ADT Championships. Height is the individual’s height in inches. Weight is the individual’s weight in pounds. EventNumb is the number of events each individual participated in during the 2006 year. USA is a dummy variable equal to one if the player was born in any of the 50 United States, zero otherwise. Money is the total amount of prize money awarded to each individual during the 2006 tour year in each respective tour. Scoring is the average 18-round score for each individual. DrivingDist is the average number of yards for each drive. During each round, two holes are selected to be measured, with special care taken to ensure the holes face in opposite directions to counteract the effects of wind. Drives are measured at the point they come to rest. DrivingAcc is the percentage of time the player hits the fairway with their drive. GIR is the percentage of the time the player hits the green in regulation (i.e. when the ball is on the green and the number of strokes taken is two or less than par.) PuttAv is the average number of putts used on those greens hit in regulation.

PGA LPGA t-statistic
N 196 166
Personal Characteristics
Age 35.76 30.80 10.82
Height 71.55 66.28 21.76
Weight 180.85 – –
EventNumb 25.78 19.93 11.72
USA .75 .51 4.90
Performance Characteristics
Money 1,188,709.48 252,329.11 10.82
Scoring 71.11 72.89 -16.06
DrivingDist 289.40 250.87 39.47
DrivingAcc 63.41 69.52 -9.66
GIR 65.13 64.58 1.33
PutAv 1.78 1.83 -13.97

Results:

The researcher began by estimating the following regression model via traditional Ordinary Least Squares:

Depi = α + β1EventNumb + β2Height + β3Weight + β4USA + β5Age + εi (1)

where Depi is either Money, Scoring, DrivingDist, DrivingAcc, GIR, or PuttAv. Each variable is the rank of the golfer in the respective tour in each statistical category. Therefore, he could interpret each positive coefficient as a negative effect on end performance, as it indicated a higher value for independent variable will result in a higher ranking value for the performance measure. EventNumb is the number of full-field events the participant entered into during the 2006 season on each tour, and it was used to control for variation that is a result of frequency of play. The results are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 presents the results for the end performance variables, Money and Scoring. By first examining the PGA results, he found that older players make less money. More interesting, American born players score higher and make less money on average than their counterparts. The coefficient indicates that, on average, non-American born players rank 32 and 34 places higher than American born players in money earned and scoring average, respectively.

Table 2 – Multivariate Analyses: Cumulative Performance:

The following table presents results from the following model:

Depi = α + β1EventNumb + β1Height + β2Weight + β3USA + β5Age + β6LPGAdum+ εi

where the dependent variable is either Money (in columns 1, 3, and 5) or Scoring (in columns 2, 4, and 6). For columns 1 through 6, each dependent variable is the rank of the individual observation in each of the pre-mentioned categories, as defined in Table 1. In columns 7 and 8, the dependent variable is an adjusted rank, segmented by quintiles, where the rank is 1 through 5. LPGAdum is dummy variable equal to one if the individual is on the LPGA tour, zero otherwise. All other variables are as defined in Table 1.

PGA LPGA Total
(1)
Money		 (2)
Scoring		 (5)
Money		 (6)
Scoring		 (7)
Money		 (8)
Scoring
Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat
Intercept 64.18 .41 51.15 .36 211.52 2.79 182.16 2.13 5.82 2.59 5.58 2.44
EventNumb .06 .07 1.59 1.83 -7.38 -12.85 -5.88 -9.06 -.09 -5.74 -.06 -3.79
Height -1.02 -.43 -1.94 -.91 .25 .22 .26 .20 -.03 -.84 -.03 -.98
Weight .21 .74 .55 2.16
USA 31.79 2.97 33.96 3.51 19.73 3.59 19.06 3.08 .82 5.30 .92 5.89
Age 1.36 2.02 .61 1.00 -.21 -.56 -.28 -.67 .02 1.72 .01 1.16
LPGAdum -.34 -1.44 -.21 -.87
N 196 196 166 166 362 362
Adj. R2 .0640 .1107 .5506 .3820 .1566 .1233

The results for the LPGA were consistent with the results for the PGA tour in that non-American born players outperformed their counterparts in both end performance measures. The average increase in ranking was 20 and 19 places for money earned and scoring, respectively. Neither age nor height had any significant relation to end performance.

Although their primary focus was on the two tours separately, the researcher also combined the two tours in a total sample. The difference in the numbers of golfers would create problematic model estimations if the researcher were to simply use the ranking as the dependent variable. He adjusted the rankings by creating quintiles for each performance measure. Therefore, for the total sample, the dependent variable only had 5 values, 1 through 5, where 1 represented those individuals who ranked in the top quintile in that respective category and 5 represented the bottom quintile. In doing this, the researcher assured the rankings were consistent across the two tours. The researcher included LPGAdum, a dummy variable equal to 1 for those individuals on the LPGA tour, zero otherwise. This variable is designed to control for systematic differences between characteristics on the two tours.

The results for the total sample confirmed those found individually in both tours. Specifically, the positive coefficient on USA indicated that across both tours, American born golfers have higher ranking values in both Money and Scoring, which indicates inferior performance. A negative relationship between age and end performance was found in the PGA rankings, but the significance was only marginal, a product of the insignificant relation in the LPGA tour. However, the highly significant and negative relation between USA and end performance was consistent across the two tours and provided an interesting question. It appeared that, of all the physical characteristics the researcher examined, the most important is nationality. This could be a product of many things, some of which the researcher could not examine. For example, it is well known that many players, particularly on the PGA tour, are successful, established players on tours in their native countries prior to participating in the United States. However, the researcher was unaware of any way to fully capture the increased ability attributable to this prior experience.

Regardless, if non-American born players are outperforming, it could simply be due to superior performance in individual areas, which the researcher called performance-predicting characteristics. It was not the researcher’ intent to examine where these skills are obtained, but rather to determine whether evidence supported the existence of superior skill in each statistical area. Therefore, the researcher examined these variables in an effort to “explain” the results of Table 2. Those results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 – Multivariate Results:

The following table presents results from the following model:

Depi = α + β1EventNumb + β1Height + β2Weight + β3USA + β5Age + β6LPGAdum+ εi

where the dependent variable is either DrivingDist, DrivingAcc, GIR, or PuttAv. For Panels A and B, each dependent variable is the rank of the individual observation in each of the previously-mentioned categories, as defined in Table 1. For Panel C, the dependent variable is an adjusted rank, segmented by quintiles, where the rank is 1 through 5. All other variables are as defined in Tables 1 and 3.

Panel A: PGA (1) (2) (3) (4)
DrivingDist DrivingAcc GIR PuttAv
Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat
Intercept 354.76 2.99 -174.35 -1.23 90.09 .60 149.38 1.01
EventNumb .82 1.12 .12 .13 .88 .94 .40 .43
Height -4.46 -2.48 3.95 1.84 -1.10 -.48 -2.39 -1.06
Weight -.65 -3.04 .39 1.55 .27 1.00 .50 1.89
USA -5.20 -.64 -5.45 -.56 1.22 .12 19.75 1.95
Age 4.60 8.98 -2.17 -3.55 .47 .72 .11 .17
N 195 195 195 195
Adj. R-Sq. .3671 .0998 -.0124 .0209

 

Panel B: LPGA (1) (2) (3) (4)
DrivingDist DrivingAcc GIR PuttAv
Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat
Intercept 436.30 4.15 -472.63 -4.82 179.53 1.83 231.61 2.45
EventNumb -1.02 -1.28 -2.18 -2.94 -4.54 -6.12 -4.27 -5.98
Height -5.48 -3.39 9.33 6.19 -.14 -.09 -1.12 -.77
USA 7.67 1.01 -6.56 -.93 4.22 .60 26.68 3.90
Age .85 1.69 -.52 -1.11 .04 .09 -.22 -.50
N 164 164 164 164
Adj. R-Sq. .0775 .1956 .1906 .2622

 

Panel C: Total (1) (2) (3) (4)
DrivingDist DrivingAcc GIR PuttAv
Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat
Intercept 13.24 5.87 -8.90 -3.85 4.81 1.99 6.86 2.92
EventNumb -.59 -2.52 .69 2.83 -.05 -2.98 -.06 -3.64
Height -.17 -5.68 .19 6.10 -.02 -.50 -.04 -1.29
USA .05 .34 -.03 -1.87 .25 1.54 .74 4.59
Age .06 5.99 -.03 -2.78 .01 1.11 .00 .08
LPGAdum -.59 -2.52 .69 2.83 -.24 -.95 -.36 -1.46
N 360 360 360 360
Adj. R-Sq. .1452 .1037 .0225 .0768

Panel A examines the PGA tour, while Panel B examines the LPGA tour. Panel C examines the combined total sample. The researcher found, unsurprisingly, that younger, heavier, and taller players on the PGA tour hit longer drives. The researcher also found that younger players had less accuracy in their drives, as did taller players (although the significance is marginal.) In column 3, he sought to determine whether or not any of the personal characteristics help explain the percentage of greens hit in regulation. However, the researcher found the natural characteristics have no significance to GIR. In the last column of Panel A, the researcher found non-USA born players have lower (better) putting averages that their U.S. counterparts. Since this is a variable consistently found to be greatly important in golfing success (e.g. Davidson and Templing, 1986), this could explain, at least partially, the variation of USA in end performance.

Turning to Panel B, the researcher examined the performance-predicting variables for the LPGA tour. He found that taller, younger players hit longer drives, again consistent with expectations. However, shorter players drive more accurately. Most interesting, he also found a positive relation between U.S. born status and putting average rank, indicating non-American born players putt more efficiently. Again, this could explain some of the variation found in Table 2. In Panel 3, he examined the total sample. As expected, given the results in the first two panels, taller, younger players hit longer drives than their counterparts. However, taller players hit fewer fairways than shorter players. Also, as expected, the total sample results confirmed that non-U.S. born players have superior ranked putting averages than U.S. born players.

It appears some of the variation in performance unexplained by individual statistical categories may be due to physical characteristics. In regards to nationality, it may be that the superior performance is due to superior putting abilities, as he found no relation to other performance-predicting characteristics. However, he needed to examine the influence of natural physical characteristics in congruence with traditional predictors of end performance. In order to do this, the researcher estimated the following OLS model:

Depi = α + β1DrivingDist + β2DrivingAcc + β3GIR + β4PuttAv + β4EventNumb + β5LPGAdum + β6Height + β7Weight + β8 USA + (2)β9age + εI

where Depi is either Money or Scoring. The results are presented in Table 4. Panel A presents the results for Money, while Panel B presents the results for Scoring. To be consistent with previous studies, the researcher first examined only the performance-predicting variables. Those are presented in columns 1, 3, and 5 of each panel. The results were wholly consistent with those found in the majority of previous studies in that the two most important statistical categories are putting average and percentage of greens hit in regulation. In fact, the researcher found no significance at all in relation to the two driving measures on the PGA tour. However, driving (particularly driving accuracy) appears to be predictive of superior performance on the LPGA tour.

More important to this study, the researcher wanted to see if all of the variation in end performance can be determined by these performance-predicting variables. In other words, does the significance identified in the previous analyses disappear when combined with these more established measures? The researcher examined this in columns 2, 4, and 6 of each panel. The researcher found the results for the PGA tour to be consistent even when controlling for these variables. Specifically, USA maintained significance while GIR and PuttAv also remained highly significant. Therefore, successful players must be proficient at putting and hitting greens in regulation. However, there still seems to be an unexplained contribution from the individual’s nationality that comes from some undefined factor, perhaps prior experience (and success) on a tour in their native country.

The LPGA results are consistent in that the two most important variables for LPGA golfers are also putting and greens hit in regulation. However, there also seems to be a significant effect of driving accuracy on end performance. In both the LPGA sample and the total sample, USA maintains significance.

Table 4 – Multivariate Results with Both Physical and Performance Characteristics:

The following table presents results from the following model:

Depi = α + β1DrivingDist + β2DrivingAcc + β3GIR + β4PuttAv + β4LPGAdum + β5EventNumb + β6Height + β7Weight + β8USA + β9Age + εi

where the dependent variable is either Money (in Panel A) or Scoring (in Panel B). For each statistical category, the variable is the rank of the individual observation. In columns 5 and 6, the statistical variables are an adjusted rank, segmented by quintiles where the rank is adjusted to take on a value of 1 through 5. All other variables are as defined in Tables 1 and 3.

Panel A: Money
PGA LPGA Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat
Intercept 9.33 .61 -32.81 -.26 -14.67 -2.36 67.29 1.59 .17 .69 .52 .30
DrivingDist -.02 -.26 -.12 -1.20 .07 1.37 .07 1.95 .03 .61 .02 .34
DrivingAcc -.10 -1.12 -.11 -1.19 .12 2.52 .09 2.30 -.02 -.40 -.02 -.49
GIR .58 7.81 .59 7.94 .51 10.18 .41 10.48 .50 11.38 .48 11.10
PuttAv .48 8.11 .45 7.60 .53 13.17 .38 11.42 .43 11.52 .38 10.07
LPGAdum .01 .05 -.06 -.36
EventNumb -.52 -.70 -3.56 -10.56 -.04 -3.77
Height .59 .32 .17 .25 .01 .21
Weight -.21 -.70
USA 20.96 2.49 8.38 2.91 .41 3.55
Age 1.35 2.15 -.15 -.83 .01 1.25
N 195 195 164 164 361 361
Adj. R2 .4137 .4410 .8028 .8953 .5148 .5495

 

Panel B: Scoring
PGA LPGA Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat Coef. t-stat
Intercept 2.11 .17 -53.35 -.53 -18.29 -4.27 39.85 1.12 -.26 -1.20 .10 .07
DrivingDist -.05 -.69 .08 -.81 .06 1.71 .06 1.94 .04 1.08 .04 .91
DrivingAcc -.07 -.94 -.05 -.72 .14 4.39 .14 4.28 .04 .95 .05 1.14
GIR .61 9.81 .58 9.64 .59 17.18 .56 16.66 .55 14.21 .54 14.12
PuttAv .49 9.85 .44 9.09 .45 16.51 .39 13.75 .45 13.77 .41 12.44
LPGAdum -.00 -.00 .06 .38
EventNumb .97 1.58 -1.27 -4.47 -.01 -.73
Height -.33 -.22 -.34 -.61 -.01 -.35
Weight .14 .79
USA 23.91 3.48 .30 3.00 .48 4.70
Age .47 .92 -.19 -1.22 .00 .63
N 195 195 164 164 361 361
Adj. R2 .5258 .5657 .8995 .9134 .6258 .6466

Conclusions:

The researcher examined natural physical characteristics of professional golfers on the PGA and LPGA tours. He controlled for performance-predicting statistical measures, namely driving distance, driving accuracy, percentage of greens hit in regulation, and putting average. The researcher found the percentage of greens hit in regulation and putting average to be the most important characteristics of end performance (i.e. success) in professional golf. This is consistent with numerous prior studies. Driving, particularly driving accuracy, appears also to be important on the LPGA tour, but not on the PGA tour.

More important to this study, the researcher found a strong relationship between nationality and end performance. Specifically, U.S. born players have inferior end performance relative to their counterparts. One explanation for this is perhaps the superior putting averages enjoyed by the non-U.S. golfers.

The researcher’ results have interesting implications for professional golf. It is obvious that golf is an international game more now than ever before, particularly in the United States, where the professional prizes are higher than any other country. Recent domination in Ryder Cup has led many to comment on the unexplained advantage European golfers seem to enjoy during those events. While this work takes a broader approach by examining all international born golfers (and not just European ones ), it provides a good starting point in investigating whether superior performance is contingent on nationality. The researcher’ primary objective was to identify whether such a relationship exists and not necessarily to describe its origin. Therefore, future research could be designed to examine the cause, for example training methods or coaching practices.

Endnotes:

1 During the 2006 season, the PGA tour had a total of 48 tournaments, while the LPGA had only 33.

2 In unreported results, the researcher examined numerous statistics, such as sand saves. However, the researcher found no significance in relation to those variables. In order to remain consistent with the previous literature, the researcher chose to examine only the variables that have been consistently used in similar studies.
The obvious assumption is that the incremental difference between each ranking category carries the same weight. In other words, the difference between rankings 1 and 2 is the same as the difference between 2 and 3.

3 While this is a restriction, there is no reason to believe it would bias the result as the pertinent question in an individual sport is performance relative to other competitors. In order to be absolutely sure, the researcher conducted all statistical analyses using the actual number rather than the ranking. All results were qualitatively identical. Results are available upon request.

4 For the PGA tour, the last event concluded on November 6, 2006 while the last event for the LPGA tour concluded on November 19, 2006. There are events on both tours that are not full-field events, meaning that not all players had the opportunity to participate. While there is no reason to believe this would bias the results, for completeness, the researcher eliminated tournaments in unreported results. The final conclusions are unchanged.

5 The researcher also identified a variable labeled experience, defined as the number of years the player has been a professional golfer. However, the variables age and experience were highly correlated (p = .94), therefore the researcher chose to examine only age. However, in unreported results he repeated all analyses replacing age with experience and find the results qualitatively unchanged.

References:

Belkin, D.S., Gansneder, B., Pickens, M., Rotella, R.J., and Striegel, D. Predictability and stability of Professional Golf Association Tour statistics, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1994, 78, 1275-1280.

Callen, S.J., and Thomas, J.M. Determinants of success among amateur golfers: An examination of NCAA Division I male golfers, The Sport Journal, 2004.

Callen, S.J., and Thomas, J.M. Gender, skill, and performance in amateur golf, The Sports Journal, 2006.

Chatterjee, S., Wiseman, F., and Perez, R. Studying improved performance in golf, Journal of Applied Statistics, 2002, 29, 1219-1227.

Davidson, J.D. and Templin, T.J. Determinants of success in Professional Golf Association Tour statistics, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1986, 57, 60-67.

Dorsel, T.N. and Rotunda, R.J. Low scores, Top 10 finishes, and big money: An analysis of Professional Golf Association Tour statistics and how these relate to overall performance, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2001, 92, 575-585.

Engelhardt, G.M. It’s not how you drive, it’s how you arrive: the myth, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1995, 80, 1135-1138.

Engelhardt, G.M. Differences in shot-making skills among high and low money winners on the PGA Tour, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1997, 84, 1314.

Engelhardt, G.M. Driving distance and driving accuracy equals total driving: Reply to Dorsel and Rotunda, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2002, 95, 164-180.

Hume, P.A., Keogh, J., and Reid, D. The role of biomechanics in maximizing distance and accuracy of golf shots, Sports Medicine, 35, 429-449.

Jones, R.E. A correlation analysis of the Professional Golf Assocation (PGA) statistical ranking for 1988, In A.J. Cochran (Ed.) Science and Golf: Proceedings of the First World Scientific Conference of Golf. London: E &FN Spon. 165-167.

Myers, D.C., Gebhardt, D.L., Crump, C.E., and Fleishman, E.A. The dimensions of human physical performance: Factor analysis of strength, stamina, flexibility, and body composition measures, Human Performance, 6, 309-344.

Moy, R.L. and Liaw, T. Determinants of professional golf earnings, The American Economist, 1998, 42, 65-70.

Nero, P. Relative salary efficiency of PGA Tour golfers, The American Economist, 2001, 45, 51-56.

Shmankse, S. Human capital formation in professional sports: Evidence from the PGA Tour, Atlantic Economic Journal, 1992, 20, 66-80.

Shmankse, S. Gender, skill, and earnings in professional golf, Journal of Sports Economics, 2000, 1, 385-400.

Wiseman, F., Chatterjee, S., Wiseman, D., and Chatterjee, N. An analysis of 1992 performance statistics for players on the U.S. PGA, Senior PGA, and LPGA Tours, In A.J. Cochran and M.R. Farrally (Eds.), Science and Golf: II. Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf. London: E & FN Spon., 1994, 199-204.

2016-10-12T14:52:28-05:00March 14th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on More than Just the Ryder Cup: An Examination of Relevant Natural Characteristics in Professional Golf
Read More

Book Review: Take A Good Look Around

Reviewed by: Jeffrey Chamberlin

Take A Good Look Around is a compilation of stories and poems surrounding the experiences of the author, James C. Wofford. The book humorously chronicles unique aspects of Wofford’s life as a horse trainer, Olympic coach, and avid outdoorsman. It exhibits his talents as a poet; he writes in verse about the conscience of caring for the environment, the disappearance of a loved-one, and the joy and hope brought about by children and animals. In pure Wofford style, he qualifies his text by stating, “I have always been aware that we might not see something, or experience something for a second time, hence the title.”

Take A Good Look Around is a “sort-of-diary” compiled by Wofford over the course of his “unusual” lifetime. It is easy reading, filled with quick wit and clever quips. The author dedicates 10 chapters to his hunting and fishing expeditions, appropriately entitled, “Hooks and Bullets.” In one chapter, Wofford explains how he cheats death for the second time during a trout fishing expedition in Canada. From there, he incorporates his experiences as an Olympic-level equestrian coach and national television commentator in a section entitled “Mostly Horses.” He discusses “Horsegate” at the 2004 Olympics in Athens and the drawn-out saga of determining a winner. Wofford even writes in verse about his feeling on nature, pets, and hope in a series of poems that spans three chapters called “Verse.” He explores the Midland-Piedmont Foxhound Trial and references the legend of the “two-brushed fox,” the conscience of the sporting community who must serve as the caretaker of nature.

Take A Good Look Around depicts the life of a truly unique individual – equestrian, outdoorsman, and humanitarian. From the author’s run-in with a wild boar during a hunting expedition in Texas to the disappearance of his beloved Labrador companion, Sage, these stories are must reads for those who crave good-old, rustic Americana at its best.

Take A Good Look Around
Author: James C. Wofford
Published in 2007 by Hamilton Books
(212 pages, ISBN: 0-7618-3657-8).

2017-08-07T11:48:28-05:00March 14th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues|Comments Off on Book Review: Take A Good Look Around
Read More

Book Review: The College Athlete’s Guide to Academic Success: Tips from Peers and Profs

Reviewed by: Jeffrey Chamberlin

The College Athlete’s Guide to Academic Success: Tips from Peers and Profs assists the student-athlete in making a successful academic transition from high school to college. Bob Nathanson and Arthur Kimmel, present a guide that focuses on essential issues for high school seniors and in-coming college freshmen who are trying to be successful in the classroom. The authors’ work is attributed to their direct observations during a combined 56 years of teaching intercollegiate athletes, as well as from input they received from 35 highly-successful, recently-graduated student-athletes from 16 colleges around the country.

The College Athlete’s Guide to Academic Success: Tips from Peers and Profs focuses on the actual transition from high school and athletics to college and athletics by identifying useful resources to make the transition easier, developing strategies to manage time and to schedule classes more wisely, and providing strategies by which to select a college major appropriate for a career. The guide includes direction on maintaining positive relationships with students and faculty, keys to living a healthy lifestyle, and tips for making a smooth transition to life after college and athletics. Each chapter offers helpful hints from peers and professors, provides quotes from recently-graduated student-athletes, and lists questions regarding the many challenges of college.

This is a concise and easy-to-read manual for any college-bound, student-athlete who needs a quick primer on successfully shuffling athletics with academics. However, it is just a guide; it is therefore limited in scope and lacks depth. This is something the reader should be mindful of, considering the expansiveness of the subject matter.

Authors: Bob Nathanson and Arthur Kimmel; Foreword by Myles Brandt, NCCA President.
Published in 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
(ISBN: 0-13-237947-3).

2013-11-26T15:05:35-06:00March 14th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Book Review: The College Athlete’s Guide to Academic Success: Tips from Peers and Profs
Read More

Book Review: Athletics in the Ancient World

Reviewed by: Glaucio Scremin

In Athletics in the Ancient World, author Zahra Newby portrays athletics as integral to ancient culture, primarily ancient Greek culture. She describes how athletics influenced facets of ancient social life, including education and warfare. The book is divided into 16 short chapters that present issues ranging from the rise of professionalism in athletics to the role of women in ancient sport.

Filled with pictures, drawings, and schematics of ancient Greek athletic facilities, the book suggests the importance of athletics by providing the reader with a clear understanding of how ancient athletic activities were carried out. For further clarification, it provides geographical references.

With all of these guides, Athletics in the Ancient World is certainly well referenced. It is a pleasant and informative read for those interested in obtaining a historical perspective of ancient athletics. The book may serve as supplementary reading material for college courses in sports history.

Athletics in the Ancient World
Author: Zahra Newby
Published in 2006 by Bristol Classic Press: London, UK.
(108 pages, ISBN 1-85399-688-2).

2013-11-26T15:17:02-06:00March 14th, 2008|Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Book Review: Athletics in the Ancient World
Read More

A History of Women in Sport Prior to Title IX

Submitted by: Richard C. Bell, Ed.D., J.D.

Abstract:

Women’s opportunities for competitive physical activity were limited in America until Federal Legislation, commonly referred to as Title IX, became law. It required American society to recognize a woman’s right to participate in sports on a plane equal to that of men. Prior to 1870, activities for women were recreational rather than sport-specific in nature. They were noncompetitive, informal, rule-less; they emphasized physical activity rather than competition. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, women began to form clubs that were athletic in nature. Efforts to limit women’s sport activity continued as they became more involved in competitive sports. This paper will present a history of women’s involvement in sport prior to the federal legislation enacted to eliminate sexual discrimination in education and sport.

Early Women’s Sports

Certainly, women engaged in sport three millennia ago. Homer, c 800 B.C., relates the story of Princess Nausicaa playing ball with her handmaidens next to a riverbank on the island of Scheria. “When she and her handmaids were satisfied with their delightful food, each set aside the veil she wore: the young girls now played ball; and as they tossed the ball…” (Homer, lines 98-102). Odysseus was awakened by the shouts of the girls engaged in their sport. Thousands of years later, the shouts of girls playing ball finally awoke the United States to the need for sport-specific opportunities for women.

Prior to 1870, sports for women existed in the form of play activities that were recreational rather than competitive and, being informal and without rules, emphasized physical activity (Gerber, Felshin, Berlin, & Wyrick, 1974). A dominant belief in the 1800s was that each human had a fixed amount of energy. If this energy were used for physical and intellectual tasks at the same time, it could be hazardous (Park & Hult, 1993). Horseback riding for pleasure, showboating, and swimming became fashionable, but women were not encouraged to exert themselves. Such physical activity for a woman was thought to be especially hazardous because during menstruation she was “periodically weakened” (Clarke, 1874, p. 100). In 1874, as women were beginning to gain access to higher education, Dr. Edward Clarke published Sex in Education; or, A Fair Chance for Girls, which sparked a tenacious and acrimonious debate about the capacity of women for physical activity. He stated that, “both muscular and brain labor must be reduced at the onset of menstruation” ( p. 102). Manipulating science to reinforce established dogma prevailed for many years in spite of repeated examples of women who were perfectly capable of performing physical feats and intellectual tasks. Many early opportunities for women to engage in physical activity were thwarted as a result of this dogma (Park & Hult).

As more women sought to become involved in physical activity, they became more competitive. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, women began to form informal athletic clubs. Tennis, croquet, bowling, and archery were popular in clubs from New York to New Orleans. Many men’s clubs allowed women to become associates and to participate in separate activities, though without according them full status. Parallel clubs in colleges began to appear during this time, but a major difference between the social metropolitan clubs and the college clubs was that the latter frequently sponsored coed competition as occasions for social gatherings (Gerber, et al., 1974).

College Sports for Women Prior to Title IX

Early college sports for women have been largely unrecognized by historians because competition was within college between students (intramural) rather than between the institutions (extramural). Competitions included intramural, club, and sorority matches, in addition to ‘play days’. These were special dates when women competed in sports and activities against students and teams from their schools. By 1936, 70% of colleges surveyed used this as a predominant form of sport participation for women (Hult, 1994).

Women’s physical educators were aware of the problems and criticism surrounding men’s intercollegiate athletics. They were determined to keep athletics in an educational environment for women. In the early 1900s, the Committee on Women’s Athletics (CWA) and the American Physical Education Association (APEA) endorsed programs of broad participation for women (Park & Hult, 1993). This occurred just as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching produced its 1929 report, American College Athletics, reporting that amateurism was being eliminated or modified from athletics at the college level as colleges turned athletics into big business. The report argued that there should be a way to give “athletics back to the boys” (Thelin, 1994). These views were uppermost in the minds of many women’s physical educators as they met to organize a governing organization for women’s sports. In the 1920s, the Women’s Division-National Amateur Athletic Federation (NAAF) was formed to organize intercollegiate competition among women (Park & Hult).

Women were not active in intercollegiate sport until basketball was introduced at Smith College in 1892 (Gerber, et al., 1974). Basketball quickly spread to other colleges, and students began to clamor for intercollegiate play. Women’s physical educators opposed such competition because they were not ready to lose control over their programs (as they perceived the men had) (Gerber, et al.). The first intercollegiate competition among women was a scheduled tennis tournament between Bryn Mawr and Vassar. It was canceled because the Vassar faculty did not allow their women’s athletes to participate in competition between colleges (Hult, 1994). The honor of being the first teams to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics belongs to the basketball teams of the University of California, Berkeley vs. Stanford and the University of Washington vs. Ellensburg Normal School; they played in 1896 (Gerber, et al.).

Competitive events for college women increased in the early 1900s. The nature of varsity competition was in conflict with the philosophy of women’s physical educators in the 1920s and 1930s, so these events were still uncommon. This philosophical conflict contributed to a lack of support for women’s varsity athletics. The NAAF provided a forum for women’s physical educators and leaders of women’s sports to formalize their beliefs regarding competition for girls and women by issuing a policy statement of the organizations goals for women. The goals were established to “play for play’s sake,” limit awards and travel, protect the participant from exploitation, discourage “sensational” publicity, and place qualified women in immediate charge of athletics and other physical activities (Gerber, et al., 1974). The motto was “every girl in a sport and a sport for every girl.” This position was interpreted by many as negative to competition and, as a consequence, virtually all forms of competitive sport for college women decreased in the early 1900s (Gerber, et al.).

The women’s suffrage movement in the late nineteenth and twentieth century resulted in the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. The right to vote for women renewed emphasis on women’s freedoms. The first feminist movement resulted in modest gains for women in sports and intercollegiate competition, but these gains were negated by the depression in the 1930s. They would remain dormant for almost fifty years (Gelb & Palley, 1987). The depression left millions of Americans out of work, and the resulting campaign to keep women home and out of the work force left the women’s movement for broadened equal rights stagnating. The expectations of society were that a woman’s place was ‘in the home,’ which pushed aside the idea that there were psychological and physiological benefits to be gained from involvement in sport. This view remained largely unchanged until the events of the 1940s (Lucas & Smith, 1982).

The 1940s brought war to the United States and millions of men entered the military. Many women joined the military service or left their positions as homemakers to fill the void left in the work force, earning the moniker, “Rosie the Riveter.” They demonstrated that they were equal to the task. The self-esteem and self-confidence gained by women during these critical times propelled the movement for women’s equal rights. Many women believed that if they could compete successfully in the work force, then they could certainly compete on the athletic fields (Chafe, 1972). World War II also saw the advent of the first woman’s professional athletic team. The All-American Girls Baseball League was started in 1943 as an attempt to replace Major League Baseball, which had been canceled due to the war. When World War II ended, organizations for women in sport began to increase as sport became more competitive and intercollegiate and interscholastic competition spread (Gerber, et al., 1974).

In the 1950s and 1960s, the social conscience of America was changing. The push for Civil Rights, which culminated in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helped increase the status of women and minorities. A wave of feminist activism was born (Gelb & Palley, 1996). Feminist activism propelled the movement for women’s rights forward. The United States became embroiled in the debate for an Equal Rights Amendment. This debate raised the consciousness of those involved in women’s sport. Collegiate women seeking greater athletic opportunities moved closer to their goals in 1957, when the long-entrenched official position statement of the Division for Girls and Women in Sport (DGWS) was amended to state that intercollegiate programs “may” exist. In 1963, the DGWS view of women in sport evolved further to state that it was “desirable” that intercollegiate programs for women exist (Gerber, et al., 1974).

In 1966, the DGWS appointed a Commission on Intercollegiate Sports for Women (CISW) to assist in conducting intercollegiate competitions. In 1967, it was renamed the Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (CIAW). The women’s movement in sport was rapidly moving toward a status more in line with men’s athletics. In 1969, a schedule of national championships for women’s sports was announced that included gymnastics and track and field. Swimming, badminton, and volleyball followed in 1970 and in 1972, basketball was added. Women wanted an institutional membership organization similar to the NCAA. The CIAW was replaced by the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) in 1971. This set the stage for the struggle to control women’s athletics in the 1970s between the AIAW and the NCAA (Gerber, et al., 1974).

The increasingly positive attitude toward women in sport carried over into the 1970s (Hult, 1994). The AIAW began the 1971-1972 academic year with 278 charter institutions. By 1981, their membership exceeded 800. Their mission was to “lead and conduct” programs at the collegiate level that were competitive for women (Hulstrand, 1993). The AIWA focused on the female student-athlete’s education, not on athletic performance, and thus rejected the ‘win or die’ attitude of the NCAA. Instead, the AIAW emphasized participation in sport as the most important aspect and de-emphasized winning (Sperber, 1990).

The Evolution of Title IX

The new wave of feminism within the larger social reforms sought by the Civil Rights movement moved women closer to legislative action for greater equal treatment in athletics. The concept that federal legislation was to eliminate sexual discrimination was the main focus of women’s groups in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At their first national conference in 1967, the National Organization for Women (NOW) adopted a platform that read in part “…the right of women to be educated to their full potential equally with men be secured by Federal and State legislation” (Boles, 1989, p.643).

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was paid little attention in the early legislative efforts to codify these rights. Court-ordered busing in the other Titles of the Omnibus Education Amendments took the spotlight (Palley & Preston, 1978). It was only after Title IX was passed, when the question surrounding implementation arose, that opposition to Title IX took place (Gelb & Palley, 1987). After the passage of Title IX, Congress built in a six-year period for secondary and post-secondary schools to achieve compliance. The date for compliance by colleges and universities was 1978. Interpretation and enforcement were vested in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Carpenter, 1993).

The critical element lacking after the passage of Title IX was the implementation legislation that would specify how it was to be applied and to whom. Passage of the implementation legislation was not easy; many self-interest groups sought to erode the legislation. In 1974, approximately sixty women’s and feminist groups formed a coalition called the Education Task Force (which would later becme the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education) (Gelb & Palley). It was largely as a result of their persistent and dedicated efforts through lobbying that Title IX was successful.

The NCAA became concerned by what it perceived to be the potential weakening of its position as the dominant and controlling body of intercollegiate athletics. If Title IX was to apply to intercollegiate sports at all levels and women were to be elevated to a status equal to the men, its financial assets and political power were threatened. The first approach of the NCAA, when faced with the threat of equality in intercollegiate athletics, was to attempt to limit Title IX’s application. The NCAA tried to offer its interpretation of Title IX (Acosta & Carpenter, 1985). It encouraged a narrow interpretation of the law, excluding athletic departments from the scope of Title IX. The NCAA argued that because athletic departments did not receive federal funds, they should be excluded from compliance. Nonetheless, when the NCAA sought to limit the application of Title IX, it began to address the issue of control of women’s athletics in earnest.

The NCAA observed the growth of women’s athletics and looked to the increased financial base and political power to be gained from exerting control over women’s intercollegiate athletics. It set out to force the AIAW out of control (Hult, 1994). The strategy was to absorb the AIAW into its current structure while offering women’s championships outside the AIAW to effectively link schools to the NCAA. Because there was no alternative mechanism for determining college-level champions, this strategy could have been successful (Stern, 1979). The NCAA decided to form its own NCAA Women’s Committee and exclude the AIAW (Carpenter, 1993). The NCAA had never shown an interest in women’s athletics before Title IX because there was nothing that required female participation at a national level. Thus, it chose not to pursue women’s athletics. “The formation of this committee was politically significant because prior to this time the NCAA had demonstrated no interest whatever in taking responsibility for women’s sports” (Carpenter, 1993, p. 83).

In the fall of 1974, the NCAA agreed to a meeting with the AIAW. The NCAA wanted the AIAW to affiliate itself with the NCAA; the AIAW hoped to form a joint committee to draw up rules. The NCAA did not consider the AIAW its equal and it would not agree to a 50-50 joint union and equal representation at all policy-making levels (Festle, 1996).

At its 1973 convention, the NCAA waived the regulation barring women from men’s events, thinking that the compromise of allowing a token female to compete in the NCAA championships would help avoid charges of sex discrimination and help avoid offending the AIAW while avoiding any real commitment to women’s athletics (Festle, 1996). The NCAA continued to be concerned about the loss of power and control over intercollegiate athletics as it began to sense that the idea of equal opportunity for women in intercollegiate athletics was the direct aim of the Federal Government. The NCAA needed to implement an acceptable policy without delay (Festle).

The NCAA was a powerful adversary for the AIAW because of its wealth, political influence, and long history. The NCAA decided to introduce women’s championships for intercollegiate sports by offering the institutions sponsoring women’s sports a proposition that ultimately led to the demise of the AIAW. The NCAA offered to: (a) pay all expenses for teams competing in a national championship, (b) charge no additional membership fees for schools to add women’s programs, (c) create financial aid, recruitment, and eligibility rules that were the same for women as for men, and finally, (d) guarantee women more television coverage. The NCAA had earmarked three million dollars to support women’s championships. The AIAW could not compete with the NCAA inducements and the loss of membership, income, championship sponsorship, and media rights forced the AIAW to cease operations on June 30, 1982 (Festle, 1996). The AIAW sued the NCAA for allegedly violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but was unsuccessful when the courts ruled that the market for women’s athletics was open for competition, therefore no anti-trust laws had been violated (Schubert, Schubert, & Schubert-Madsen, 1991).

Subsequent to Title IX, women and girls have become much more involved in sports. College women’s athletic participation has increased from 15% in 1972 to 43% in 2001. High school girl’s athletic participation increased from 295,000 in 1971 to 2.8 million in 2002-2003, an increase of over 840%. In 2004, the average number of teams offered for females per college/university was 8.32, up from 2.50 per school in 1972 (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). In 1981-82, women’s championships became a part of the NCAA program. Today, the NCAA sponsors forty women’s championships, thirty-eight men’s championships, and three combined championships in all three of its divisions (NCAA, 2005).

It can be seen that women’s involvement in sport was slow to develop. Opportunities for participation and recognition were almost non-existent for centuries. It was not until the advent of the equal rights movements and Title IX that women truly found a place as participants in the world of sport and in the public arena.

References

Acosta, R.V. & Carpenter, L.J. (1985). Women in sport. In Donald Chu, Jeffrey O. Segrave & Beverly J. Becker (Eds.), Sport and Higher Education (pp.313-325). Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics.

Boles, J.K. (1989). A policy of our own: Local feminist networks and social services for women and children. Policy Studies Review, 8(3), 638-647.

Carpenter, L.J. (1993). Letters home: My life with Title IX. In G.L. Cohen (Ed). Women in Sport: Issues and Controversies. (pp 133-155), Newberry Park, CA.: Sage Publishing.

Carpenter, L.J. & Acosta, R.V. (2005). Title IX. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Chafe, W.H. (1972). The American woman: Her changing social, economic and political roles, 1920-1970. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clarke, E. H. (1874). Sex in education; or, a fair chance for girls. Boston: James R. Osgood and Company.

Festle, M.J. (1996). Playing nice: Politics and apologies in women’s sports. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gelb, J., & Palley, M.L. (1996). Title IX: The politics of sex discrimination. Women and Public Policies: reassessing gender politics. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Gerber, E.W., Felshin, J., Berlin, P., & Wyrick, W. (Eds.). (1974). The American woman in sport. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Homer, The Odyssey of Homer (Allen Mandelbaum, trans.) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (1990).

Hult, J.S. (1994). The story of women’s athletics: Manipulating a dream 1890-1985. In D.M. Costa & S.R. Guthrie (Eds.), Women and sport: Interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 83-107), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hultstrand, B.J. (1993). The growth of collegiate women’s sports: The 1960s. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 64(3), 41-43.

Lucas, J.A., & Smith, R.A. (1982). Women’s sport: A trial of equality. In R. Howell (Ed.), Her Story in Sport: A Historical Anthology of Women in Sports (pp. 239-265). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

NCAA Championships (2005).http://www.ncaa.org/about/champs.html

Palley, M.L., & Preston, M.B. (1978). Symposium on race, sex and policy studies. Policy Studies Journal, 7, 188.

Park, R.J., & Hult, J.S. (1993). Women as leaders in physical education and school-based sports, 1865 to the 1930s. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(3), 35-40.

Schubert, A.F., Schubert, G.W., & Schubert-Madsen, D.L. (1991). Changes influenced by litigation in women’s intercollegiate athletics. Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law, 1, 237-268.

Sperber, M. (1990). College sports inc.: The athletic department vs. the university. New York, John Hopkins Press.

Stern, R.N. (1979, June). The development of an inter-organizational control network: the case of intercollegiate athletics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 242-266.

Thelin, J. (1994). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

2016-10-12T14:50:53-05:00March 14th, 2008|Sports Management, Women and Sports|Comments Off on A History of Women in Sport Prior to Title IX
Read More
Go to Top