Why I rooted against the Americans

I actually don't have strong American leanings when it comes to international sport (or anything else actually) so rooting for the Europeans last weekend in the Solheim Cup is not necessarily shocking for anyone who knows me.
But frankly I was ticked off after watching the press conference with Christina Kim and Morgan Pressel and Christie Kerr the day before play started. I have a decent admiration for Kim because she has a certain defiant attitude to her; she steps outside of golf's boundaries of genteelness, etc. But she stepped right back into them when she addresses the only slightly subtle question about the Euro vs. American format. The reporter was essentially asking, without directly asking it, what about the Asians? Because some of the press over this Solheim Cup has centered around an allegedly weak European team (they very much held their own until the singles matches). And of course there has been all the coverage over the rise of Asian players.
But Kim said the Solheim Cup should stay the way it is because it's a golf tradition. First of all, it's only been around since the 1990s. It is certainly not as entrenched as the Ryder Cup. And, um, hello Christina Kim--you should have a problem with tradition. Actually all you women should have a problem with golf's traditions. If you want to create an interesting tournament there should be an Asian team.
Kerr suggested there be other tournaments to accomplish this (again, unstated) purpose. Like the men's President Cup. They could have a First Lady's Cup! she exclaimed. [Someone hand me a chisel. It's going to take a long time to chip away at all this cognitive dissonance.]
The Solheim Cup, despite its nascence, holds a certain position in the golf world. And the best golfers should have access to the publicity and prestige it confers.
Maybe if Kim had to sit down face-to-face with Yani Tseng and explain "tradition" to her, she would see the harm and discrimination it continues to perpetuate.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The idea of the Solheim Cup having a shakey connection to the idea of 'tradition' may be authentic in respect of a competition that is less than twenty years old, but from this side of the Atlantic it is very much understood to be part of the tradition that encompases the Ryder, Walker and Curtis Cups. As various commentators here have pointed out there is no reason to change the US v Europe format, indeed this is how it is understood and marketed. See Iain Carter's blog on the BBC sport Website and Derek Lawrenson in the 'Daily Mail'. This European fan would be strongly opposed to any such change. It would be like changing the contestants for the Ashes! Katharine Sinderson
August 25, 2009 9:50 AM
anonymous said…
I watched the Solheim Cup all weekend. I thought it was a great competition, but there was definitely something missing: the South Korean contingent. I wonder if there would be a way to include three teams: a U.S. team, a European team and an Asian team. It could go like this: the Solheim Cup could be held EVERY year. Women's golf needs the attention so having it every two years doesn't make much sense to me anyway. U.S. plays Europe in Year 1. The winner of that plays Asia in Year 2. So, U.S. would play Asia. Suppose Asia wins. Then the U.S. would be out of the pool in Year 3 and Europe would play Asia. Then U.S. plays the winner of that in Year 4. Now, it's conceivable that one continent could hold onto the cup several years in a row and would have to play several years in a row. I think it would be an interesting and -- more importantly -- an inclusive format.
August 25, 2009 5:20 PM
Anonymous said…
The Solheim Cup has already had to move once when the American men refused to play in Europe in the wake of 9/11, thus upsetting the sequence of Walker Cup and Ryder Cup in odd years and Curtis Cup and Solheim Cup in even years. Both the professional events are now played in the 'wrong' year as a result. That sounds like enough disruption to me for a while. KS
August 26, 2009 8:30 AM
anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
August 26, 2009 11:53 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why trans athletes?

In a continuation of my last post in which I crib from GLAD lawyer Jennifer Levi's thoughtful social media posts, I offer here an explanation of why and how trans athletes became the target of the right. First, I keep seeing left of center posts/headlines/discourse that highlight how few trans girls/women are competing in sports. I don't love this framing. The underlying premise of inclusion and access does not have a tipping point.  Perhaps what it is meant to show is how the right is weaponizing this issue. This is both reasonable and true but not really very profound in its assessment. Look at some of the groups and people doing the work of banning trans athletes and you will also see agendas which are racist, and anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic, and anti-LGB as well.  If I have not already recommended Judith Butler's Who's Afraid of Gender? (though I am pretty sure I have), go read it. Some of what Butler says is what Levi echoed in a recent posting contemplating the...
Read more

The trans athlete ban: Part 3a: NCAA hypocrisy

 [this is cross-posted with Title IX Blog where I will also post something about the announcement that NIL is not subject to Title IX] The NCAA's new policy banning transwomen from competing in women's sports arrived (seemingly) minutes after the administration issued its executive order banning transwomen and girls from participating in school-sponsored sports teams.  The NCAA did include verbiage though which is worth looking at.  This is the synopsis at the top of the press release:  Men's category open to all eligible student-athletes, women's category restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth, schools directed to foster welcoming environments on all campuses. But it is not accurate.  The women's category--for competition purposes--is open to people students assigned female at birth who are not taking testosterone. What we see here is a different standard. Testosterone levels matter only for some people. Taking it knocks you out of the women's...
Read more

The trans athlete ban, Part II: Capitulation

 The same day as the president signed the executive order banning transwomen in school-sponsored sports (which WILL have more widespread effects--i.e., recreational sports for youth and adults), the NCAA issued its own change on transwomen in collegiate sports which, for the purpose of "consistency" will also prohibit transwomen from competing in women's NCAA sports.  [I wrote about the effects the EO will have on Title IX compliance which is something that NCAA purports to care about, at Title IX Blog .] I would have been surprised (in a good way), if they had not. They give in to outside pressure regularly (with positive and negatives effects). But this policy is another example of their failure to protect athletes. [Lack of penalties for schools that shield predatory coaches and doctors as well as athletes who commit sexual assault; their exploitation of Black men who help them make their billions every March; their laughable adherence to an ahistorical definition of ...
Read more