Should We Expect Shorter Careers from LPGA Players?

However I wonder if it has more to do with a woman’s desire to start a family or persue other business opportunities (as both Annika and Lorena did) than fiscial responsibility.

Then again… I suppose all three could be related?

It’s been real hard for the new moms on tour to make like Juli Inkster. If Mi Hyun Kim (8 LPGA wins) and Hee Won Han (6 wins) are having a hard time even making top 10s as moms, what hope do those with fewer pre-pregnancy wins have?

Since child-rearing responsibilities traditionally fall harder on women, it would make sense that those who struggled to be top 50 players before having children would struggle to keep their cards and that those used to winning would struggle to get back in contention regularly. What makes this different than coming back from a big injury is that the work and time required to get back in competitive shape and form takes you away from a really cute, really demanding little person. Even in the most egalitarian of marriages—even families that change everything to accommodate mom’s career—think of the pressure to perform on the new mom, on top of everything else.

And think how many talented teenage girls there are around the world who are this close to being world-class.

I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m just saying it’ll get harder and harder to do it to the new mom’s level of expectations (whatever they may be—making a living, winning tournaments, fighting for the Hall of Fame….).

Think how motherhood affected the 3-to-6-time winners on the LPGA I discuss in my pre-season assessment of their likelihood of returning to the winner’s circle:

http://mlyhlss.blogspot.com/2010/01/best-on-lpga-3-to-6-time-winners.html

And check my right sidebar for my most current ranking/assessment.

There are not really that many women who have played at the highest level, raised families, and resumed successful careers. I don’t see why this is a sad, or a problem, or in any way restricted to golf. To me it seems pretty good that these ladies have a successful career, get married, raise families, and then turn their hands to a second career which doesn’t involve all the travel/pratice, w/es away from home, etc. That’s probably as close to “having it all” as we can get. They’re probably more rounded people as well. Otherwise, you make the decision to be single-minded & eschew marriage – or at least children, to reach & stay at the top for longer. That’s reality.

that all my WR friends are such staunch supporters of stereotypes.

A woman’s golf career is the same. But having that baby is a big thing, and makes a huge difference. Take tennis. Most of the best players had their babies after they retired, or not at all. Inkster , in golf, is an exception. Men have it easy, in this discussion anyway. BRB, just have to do the dishes :)

I’d say the sample size of Sorenstam and Ochoa is too small to make any definitive statements.

Seems to me that a lot of the shorter careers we’re going to see in the next decade or so are going to be because of deeper competition. A lot of the hangers on will be weeded out, cutting those careers short.

Longer careers among the top players isn’t going to change. Picking a name like Inkster out of the hat is trying to prove a rule by the exception. There will always be top level players who have long careers. It’s the bottom half that is most fluid.

The LPGA isn’t there to be a jobs program – it’s a sports league. Competition is how it works. A lot of these women will choose marriage and family – women have that option. Not many people can do what a small handful of top players do – raising a family and continuing to compete is a tough life.

So yes – the answer is simple on one hand – of course you can expect a lot more shorter competitive careers from women than men.