Danica Patrick/Michelle Wie

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 28, 2005, 9:32 pm

What's going on here?

Robby Gordon accused Danica Patrick of having an unfair advantage in the Indianapolis 500 and said Saturday he will not compete in the race again unless the field is equalized. Gordon, a former open-wheel driver now in NASCAR, contends that Patrick is at an advantage over the rest of the competitors because she only weighs 100 pounds. Because all the cars weigh the same, Patrick's is lighter on

Does Robby Gordon sound like a total whiny bitch or what?

Pro winner Danica Patrick leads race car driver / tv commentator
Tom Kendall through the CART pit area early Sunday morning with a dog leash.
Kendall was second to Patrick in the Toyota Pro Celebrity Race, and this was the bet!
Tom was a man of his word and a good sport!

This is what race car drivers look like these days?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 28, 2005, 9:49 pm

He does sound like a whiny bitch. They don't equal out the weight of male drivers either heh. She is a hell of a driver and quite cute as well!

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 28, 2005, 10:32 pm

actually, when you are speaking of indy cars, weighing less would actually be somewhat of a disadvantage.

The most important aspect of driving these cars, is keeping them on the ground. Weighing less would make this more difficult. Having less total weight would mean you would have to handle maneuvers at slower speeds (albeit a small difference, but in a long race such as this it would add up).

That said, I hope she whoops some ass.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » May 29, 2005, 1:03 am

I have never, until now, wanted to make sweet love to a racecar driver. She is damn hot!

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » May 29, 2005, 8:31 am

miir · Post by **miir** » May 30, 2005, 11:13 am

Truant wrote:actually, when you are speaking of indy cars, weighing less would actually be somewhat of a disadvantage.

The most important aspect of driving these cars, is keeping them on the ground. Weighing less would make this more difficult. Having less total weight would mean you would have to handle maneuvers at slower speeds (albeit a small difference, but in a long race such as this it would add up).

Wow, could you possibly know less about physics?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » May 30, 2005, 11:34 am

Her Advantage- being 100 pounds

Her Disadvantage- it take OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of strength to move those cars and being so small that means she has to be tough as nails

She did damn good and raised the profile of a sport that has been a nothing since the cart/indy split

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 30, 2005, 6:20 pm

miir wrote:
Truant wrote:actually, when you are speaking of indy cars, weighing less would actually be somewhat of a disadvantage.

The most important aspect of driving these cars, is keeping them on the ground. Weighing less would make this more difficult. Having less total weight would mean you would have to handle maneuvers at slower speeds (albeit a small difference, but in a long race such as this it would add up).
Wow, could you possibly know less about physics?

Seriously Miir. Explain why I am wrong.

Sure, she has an advantage when it comes to accelleration (which in a race like the Indy 500, is small). But when it comes to pushing those cars to the limits at high speeds she has less weight to contribute to the downforce trying to keep that car on the pavement.

If this were Nascar, it would be a huge advantage, but Indy cars are a completely different animal. Everything about those cars is designed to produce downforce and keep them on the ground, and they still have trouble from time to time.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » May 30, 2005, 6:43 pm

I admit to knowing nothing about this issue.

But, if having extra weight was an advantage, why wouldn't they just make the cars heavier? It seems that if you are right and lighter drivers are at a disadvantage, folks would just weigh down their cars to negate it.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » May 30, 2005, 8:46 pm

Because they can't just add weight. By the rules the cars can only weigh a certain amount.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 30, 2005, 8:54 pm

All cars, regardless of manufacturer, weigh exactly the same.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » May 30, 2005, 10:38 pm

miir · Post by **miir** » May 31, 2005, 9:49 am

Lighter vehicle/driver...

Pros:
Less tire wear.
Less break wear.
Better acceleration.
Better breaking.
Better gas mileage.

Your percieved disadvantage of 'less downforce' can be compensated by a ratchet and a few turns on the front and rear wing.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 31, 2005, 10:14 am

IRL weight is minimums, so atleast 1525 lbs for speedways (Indianapolis) and 1550 lbs for ovals. (prior to driver and fuel additions)

NASCAR weighs the cars with the driver in the car. Granted, these cars typically weight more than twice an open wheel type car.

Robby Gordon is a whiney bitch, BUT he is not the only one. Tony Kanaan and a few others have expressed the exact same concern, but they obviously will still race against her, and everybody else.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 31, 2005, 10:24 am

I just think it's somewhat silly. Is there no disparity between the weights of the men? Perhaps a talented woman driver is more suited to win than a man. What the fuck is wrong with that? Perhaps 10 years from now, IRL will be all jockey-sized men and women and the whiny bitches will either have to go away, or change the rules to protect their ride.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 31, 2005, 11:24 am

Miir, you're correct in listing all those pro's.

However in adjusting the front and rear wing, you're going to affect some of those things. Accelleration and gas mileage would be affected by a sharper angle being put on the wings. Not to mention that accelleration and breaking are so very minute points in an oval track like the Indy 500. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it an unfair advantage? No. It's horseshit crying.

Kluden, the best part is that Robby Gordon is most vocal about it...but he doesn't even focus on IRL anymore and focuses almost exclusively on NASCAR. So wtf is he bitching for?

And noel, some of the drivers cried the same plea about Castroneves (sp) He's a smaller guy than the 200lb porkers that are crying.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 31, 2005, 11:28 am

nobody complained about the one male driver (forget his name) who only weighs 125 pounds as opposed to a more average 175.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 31, 2005, 11:29 am

All these things could be said about a smaller driver. If one was to look at the weight of drivers over the past 20 years, I'm certain you will find a couple men not too far from Danica's weight. This isn't about weight, this is about a couple assholes being unable to handle the fact that a woman beat 90% of the field.

Post by **Sylvus** » May 31, 2005, 11:37 am

Fuck Women!

miir · Post by **miir** » May 31, 2005, 11:50 am

Truant wrote:Miir, you're correct in listing all those pro's.

However in adjusting the front and rear wing, you're going to affect some of those things. Accelleration and gas mileage would be affected by a sharper angle being put on the wings. Not to mention that accelleration and breaking are so very minute points in an oval track like the Indy 500. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it an unfair advantage? No. It's horseshit crying.

I don't have access to indy car telemetry so I can't give you exact figures, but if you think breaking, acceleration, brake wear, tire wear and gas mileage are 'very minute points', you're mistaken.

Having a car that is 100lbs (roughly 7%) lighter is a very tangible advantage, regardless of the type of track.

If higher vehicle weight was an advantage, why do these manufacturers and teams spend so much money, time and effort in making their cars as light as possible? I mean really... punching holes in the accelerator and gas pedals, using advanced composites for frame and engine components.... everything in these cars is made from the lisghtest possible materials. I guarantee you the curb weight of these cars are between 1550-1560 lbs for ovals.
The teams, manufacturers and drivers obviously realise the importance of weight on their cars, I'm confused as to why you fail to grasp that concept.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » May 31, 2005, 3:10 pm

So she's been getting this attention because she's acutally a good driver and not just because she's a female driver?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 31, 2005, 4:28 pm

miir wrote:
Truant wrote:Miir, you're correct in listing all those pro's.

However in adjusting the front and rear wing, you're going to affect some of those things. Accelleration and gas mileage would be affected by a sharper angle being put on the wings. Not to mention that accelleration and breaking are so very minute points in an oval track like the Indy 500. Is there a difference? Yes. Is it an unfair advantage? No. It's horseshit crying.
I don't have access to indy car telemetry so I can't give you exact figures, but if you think breaking, acceleration, brake wear, tire wear and gas mileage are 'very minute points', you're mistaken.

I didn't say all of those were minute. And I didn't say they were minute forever and always. I said at the Indy 500 (a giant fucking oval), that brake wear, and breaking/acceleration are very minute. On a road course it would be a completely different ballgame.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 31, 2005, 4:54 pm

Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention that the reason Robbie Gordon is so vocal about it, is probably due to NASCAR weighing the cars with the driver and fuel included...so what he is saying is: Other sports have equalized this advantage, so should the IRL. Atleast that is his opinion.

My opinion is that not every racing venue can be exactly the same, or you have exactly the same type of racing. If she starts winning more than 33% of the races in a single season, I would say look into it, make her run a year under the "adjusted weight" rule and see what happens. I say 33%, because that wold be a shitload and a half of wins in a season...showing a distinct advantage. If she can do it (or damn close, say 25%) with the weights being even, then she is just that much better than everyone else

Which I would not mine seeing happen.

Jeff Gordon did it in Nascar one year with 13wins in 36 races, but you don't see double digit wins that often anymore in a season.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 31, 2005, 4:55 pm

I said at the Indy 500 (a giant fucking oval), that brake wear, and breaking/acceleration are very minute.

Um yeah... because they race pedal to the metal around the whole track....

There are numerous advantages from having lower weight in motor racing. While each advantage on it's own might be nearly imperceptible, combined they can make a tremendous difference.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 31, 2005, 5:13 pm

If Robby Gordon would be a man about this, he'd knock Danica up to add some weight to the car. 10-15lbs?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 31, 2005, 6:59 pm

NASCAR should just make her get 50 pound breast implants, so that she can look like the wives of the other drivers

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 31, 2005, 7:41 pm

masteen wrote:NASCAR should just make her get 50 pound breast implants, so that she can look like the wives of the other drivers

Any tits at all would be better than the 2 by 4 she is sporting atm.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » May 31, 2005, 8:50 pm

I think you all are missing the point here. A 100 lb woman, will receive a broken hip or dislocated leg when a man lays down the hammer on her. I mean, seriously 100 pound chick with a training bra is hot?

All seriousness aside. Her photos are some of the most air brushed I've ever seen.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » May 31, 2005, 9:00 pm

Dont get me wrong here. Id make her call me daddy, but she isnt as great as people and air brushes are making her out to be.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 31, 2005, 9:03 pm

Raistin wrote:

Dont get me wrong here. Id make her call me daddy, but she isnt as great as people and air brushes are making her out to be.

I've seen uglier picks of Carmen Diaz and she probably didn't just get out of a racecar after several hours of sweating.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » May 31, 2005, 9:36 pm

That photo was taken pre race at the start of this year I think.

And Carmen Diaz is pretty fucking ugly imo!

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 31, 2005, 9:51 pm

Sylvus wrote:Fuck Women!

gladly!

is it just me or is there a dude with a collar around his neck and a leash that she's holding in that first pic? I'd be like 'bitch you're wearin the fuckin leash, now roll over, that's a good girl'. Then I'd give her a bone. Then I would take a nap.

what were we talkin about again?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 31, 2005, 10:16 pm

Raistin wrote:That photo was taken pre race at the start of this year I think.

And Carmen Diaz is pretty fucking ugly imo!

Give me a famous female's name and I'll find an unflattering picture of them.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » June 1, 2005, 4:55 pm

Melissa Joan Heart! Although Im sure theres a bad pic of her, I was once able to escort her though a local Florida park as part of Security! I'd pick her over Natalie Portman,in my eyes. Thoese are the 2 hottest chicks in the "show" I seem attracted to. Oh yea, also the chick on the food network, Rachael Ray. Yummm

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 1, 2005, 5:16 pm

this is the last thread ever where a bunch of computer nerds say "she's not that hot"

nothing is more absurd. nothing.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 1, 2005, 5:48 pm

No it's not, that happens on every thread where people mention hot women.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 1, 2005, 5:58 pm

Raist, it's not airbrushing.

Proper lighting, makeup and a professional photographer can make all the difference in the world.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 1, 2005, 6:15 pm

HOT OR NOT?!??

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 1, 2005, 9:24 pm

Red X > All

Leaves more to the imagination

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 7, 2005, 9:16 pm

noel wrote:I just think it's somewhat silly. Is there no disparity between the weights of the men? Perhaps a talented woman driver is more suited to win than a man. What the fuck is wrong with that? Perhaps 10 years from now, IRL will be all jockey-sized men and women and the whiny bitches will either have to go away, or change the rules to protect their ride.

Not to get off of the track of mammeries gone wild, but this is THE point.

You've got little squeaky sounding midgets that are almost as bred to ride a horse as the horse itself, and it's perfectly acceptable. Not only that, the freakin jockeys practically starve themselves as racetime approaches.

Big deal, a woman wins. Holy shit, she might actually be better. The real test to all of this nonsense is to find a single peice of car real estate that isn't covered by some mini ad for chicklets/viagra/cigarettes/eyeglasses/motor oil/beer/fillintheblank

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 8, 2005, 7:24 pm

Danica and now Michelle Wie? Woman really are taking over!
All men have to be proud of lately is waterless urinals!

She's on a faster track than Tiger was on.

Posted: Wednesday July 6, 2005 2:34PM; Updated: Wednesday July 6, 2005 4:23PM

Wie's age is turning the golf world upside down.
Doug Pensinger/Getty Images

Michelle Wie is 15 years old. Michelle Wie is 15 years old.

Excuse me if I keep repeating it, but to me this fact is almost incomprehensible.

It's so unreal that the young Hawaiian's gender -- Michelle Wie is a girl -- takes a seat so far back in the minivan that it's almost behind the rear bumper.

Tiger Woods didn't play in a PGA Tour event until he was 16. He shot 72-75 at the 1992 Nissan Open, missing the cut by six strokes.

Wie debuted on the PGA Tour 18 months ago at the Sony Open in Hawaii. At the time she was 14. She shot 72-68 (68!), and missed the cut by one stroke.

I have a theory about why people typically ignore the "15-year-old" part of the phrase "15-year-old girl." I think it's a defense mechanism. If players, pundits and fans didn't concentrate on the "girl" portion, they'd be scared out of their wits. Instead of trying to turn Wie's gender into some kind of issue, they'd have to face the fact that she's more likely to get her butt kicked by trigonometry than by a guy higher than 80th on the money list.

It's Freddy Adu, but in a skirt.

For those of you in need of a quick catch-up, let me explain why the gender thing is irrelevant. First, Wie has already proven she can compete with the men (see the bit above about missing the cut by one stroke), and saying she can't is bald-faced sexism.

As for the argument that "she's taking up a spot" from a (male) player who earned it -- you've got to be nuts to think all the added attention for this week's John Deere Classic (not to mention next week's USGA Public Links) isn't a good thing. And I promise you that missing the Deere won't destroy the career of the alternate who ("because I should've gotten that sponsor's exemption!") didn't get in the field this week.

What I love most about her appearance at the Deere is the lack of noise surrounding it. From all the hubbub, you'd think the event's being played on Pluto. For this silence we cannot simply blame the media. Even the players are nonplussed. Last week in Chicago, I did a little trawling for Wie opinions, and came up absolutely empty.

"Hey, what's the buzz on Michelle Wie playing next week?" I asked.

Mostly I got shrugs. The most articulate response was, "You know, there's no buzz at all."

It's amazing how quickly the extraordinary becomes banal. Indeed, sizing up her prospects this week is like sizing up the prospects of any other player going into any other PGA Tour event. Let's see:

•Coming off a tough final round in her last outing, the U.S. Women's Open. (See Ben Curtis, who shot 74 in his final round last week, or Retief Goosen, who shot 81 on Sunday at Pinehurst. Happens to the best of 'em.)

•Ballstriking has been pretty much OK but could be putting better. (Plenty of sympathy here from Chad Campbell and Vijay Singh.)

•Potential off-course concerns: no financial worries, since dad's still coming across with the allowance; no spousal issues, since she has no spouse; and no problems with the kids, since she is the kid.

Other potential age-related considerations -- jitters about playing with men, anxiety about big crowds, and so forth -- are not considerations at all. By now she's done this enough that she's under about as much pressure this week as, say, Frank Lickliter.

Just for the heck of it, let's contrive a worst-case scenario. She hits her first three tee shots out of bounds, lips out half her par putts, and shoots 82 for her first round, then backs that up with a 75 and misses the cut by a baker's dozen.

A career-wrecking tragedy? No way. There's plenty of time to get over it, and plenty of time to get her game back together.

After all, Michelle Wie is 15 years old.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 9, 2005, 12:39 am

Lets get something straight about Michelle Wie. She has not won shit on the women's tour. She has fared decently at the couple of events she played against the men when you look at ehr age.....but she basically played the Sony events on her home course, against the worst the PGA can even field, on some of the most receptive setups she will ever see, and can't make the cut. She had the chance again at the John Deere with the same pathetic field and easy course setup and choked down the stretch.

This is not the second coming of Tiger. This girl had better learn to actually start winning instead of trying to play against the men. Even if she turns pro tomorrow and begins playing on the men's tour, she will not make any money since you have ot make the cut to get paid. Who cares if she does make 1 or 2 cuts over a year's time when she would lose her card and be finished and have to go through qualifying school? She has not even won the public amateur title yet.

She is a good female golfer and as soon as she realizes that and gears herself to competing against women, then she *MIGHT* have a chance at beating Annika. As it stands right now, I would take Annika over her every single day of the week because Annika knows how to win. Everyone is all ga-ga over her "incredible length off the tee". Newsflash here...but Annika is longer than Wie. They would both be very average compared to the men.....so any advantage her incredible length has is pretty damn moot. The real cream of the PGA men will still be blowing it 50 yards past her. Can the media just put her ot rest until she actually accomplishes something?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 11, 2005, 1:44 pm

Drive for show, putt for dough. Until she stops choking on horse cock around the green and approaches, she won't do shit.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 11, 2005, 6:15 pm

She will be a great woman player. She will be great on the LPGA.

Really getting tired of people trying to compare woman sports and their athletes to male sports and their athletes.

It's a neat little sideshow when a woman plays in a PGA event, but that is all it is.

Danica however, belongs in the driving circuit because there is no seperate league for just women drivers. There is less interest in that than the highly sucessful, BWAHAHA, WNBA. I love how they black out 3/4 of the arenas they play in so you can't tell how baron they are for their games.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 11, 2005, 6:35 pm

Wieeeee!

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 13, 2005, 10:51 am

I don't care if she plays on the PGA tour, as long as she's good enough to make it and let it not be a gimmick to boost ratings.

To Mid, why can't a woman play on the PGA? Its not the MPGA. The PGA is for the best of the best and if a woman fits this criteria, then so be it, don't exclude her because she is of the opposite gender.

However, in this case, I don't think she deserves to go. She didn't really win anything.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » July 13, 2005, 2:18 pm

Lynks wrote:I don't care if she plays on the PGA tour, as long as she's good enough to make it and let it not be a gimmick to boost ratings.

To Mid, why can't a woman play on the PGA? Its not the MPGA. The PGA is for the best of the best and if a woman fits this criteria, then so be it, don't exclude her because she is of the opposite gender.

However, in this case, I don't think she deserves to go. She didn't really win anything.

Most exemptions don't deserve to go either, that's why they are exemptions... in both her exemptions, she placed higher then any one else with an exemption... so apparently she deserved it more then any of those other guys

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 13, 2005, 2:20 pm

My bad. I originally was gonna post that she might in fact be better than some of the other players in the PGA. I guess I should of.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 13, 2005, 5:08 pm

No doubt she is better than some of the PGA guys. But, there is an entire fucking tour just for women. When a woman plays on the mens tour, it is nothing but a freak show...media circus.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 13, 2005, 5:22 pm

The reason that golf has separate mens and womens leagues is simple.

Male and female golfers certainly could be competitive together. However, male golfers tend to be better than female for the same reason male basketball players and football players and tennis players and figure skaters tend to be better than their female counterparts: Males are naturally more gifted in the physical skills that most sports require.

Golf requires relatively few of those skills. You don't need to be a physical monster to play golf. However, innate physical abilities like strength do play a role in the quality of a golf game, and thus male golfers are somewhat better than female golfers (although Annika Sorenstam would be much more competitive with Tiger Woods than Diana Taurasi would be with Tracy McGrady). If the PGA tour was coed, men would almost always win. I'm sure that there would be good female players, and occasional female champions, but the tour would remain male dominated. It wouldn't be as bad as other sports that are more reliant on physical skills (the Seattle Storm would lose a seven-game series to the New Orleans Hornets 100 times out of 100), but it would still be bad, and pointless, and boring, although the sports media would treat us to unceasing "no woman has won at <insert golf course here> in the last seven years..." stories.

Now my real question: Are there sports where a coed professional competition would be realistic and sensible? Why, for instance, are men and women segregated in billiards?