I’ve speculated that The Masters would be the first tournament to go to a standardized ball, but it seems that the Ohio Golf Association will beat them to the punch.

GolfWeek is reporting that the Ohio Golf Association will use a standardized ball in the Ohio Champions Tournament this August. Golfweek reports that

Although OGA executive director Jim Popa is quick to point out that the tournament ball “is not a short ball, but rather a uniform ball,” it doesn’t take much imagination to understand what the OGA is doing.

Alan Fadel, a former PGA Tour player who has been a reinstated amateur for almost 20 years, is chairman of the OGA ball committee.

“We haven’t chosen the exact ball yet,” Fadel said, “but we are leaning to one that optimizes (distance efficiency off the tee) between 100 and 105 miles per hour (driver swing speed). The ball is not going to benefit somebody at 120 (mph) the way the current ball does. We are trying to achieve a little more equality, that’s all. The guy who swings 120 will still hit it farther than most of the other players, but not quite so far.

I have to say that I’m conflicted over this standardized ball thing. On the one hand, it does seem that the ability to fine tune the ball has given an oversized advantage to the big hitters. But on the other, I wonder if they should be penalized just because they’re good enough to take advantage of that technology.

It still seems to me that the thing to do is to narrow the fairways or let the rough grow deeper. I’ve read that four inch rough will just about force every player to try to get the ball in the fairway. The lie, otherwise, is too risky.

But this thing with the ball bears watching.

At a press conference for the upcoming Lexus Cup (an international team v asian team event), Annika Sorenstam said it’s unlikely the Men’s and Women’s Opens will offer equal prize money anytime soon.

The prize for the 2005 USGA’s Men’s Open was $6.25 million, while the Women’s Open was just over $3 million.

Tennis, on the other hand, does offer roughly equal prizes at the US and Australian Opens. The US Open, for example, offers a $1.1 million payout to both the male and female winners.

Annika’s statement got me to wondering about how the USGA gets away it. The USGA certainly a public organization, and subject to US anti-discrimination laws.

I’m not clear as to the USGA’s tax status. It’s listed on the IRS site as a charitable organization, but there is no associated tax code. But if does receive tax breaks—either from the US government, or from the state of New Jersey, where it’s headquarters is—then it is absolutely subject to laws against discrimination.

I’m sure I smell a civil rights lawsuit in the making. Perhaps a lawyer out there can clarify this for me.

Now, I’m not a radical feminist—far from it. (I’m a card carrying member of the Conservative Movement.) And I’m not a big fan of lawsuits. So perhaps the best plan would be for the members of the USGA to put pressure on the board. I don’t know what percentage of the USGA’s membership is female, but if you include them, plus every man who has a golf playing wife or daughter, it’s probably a big number.

So in the interest of kicking off a campaign, I’m calling on the USGA to work (if I may borrow a phrase) with all deliberate speed to equalize the payments. Certainly not next year, or even the next after that, but they ought to show some progress.

I just finished watchign the US Women’s Open (TIVO is a wonderful thing), and it could not have come to a more exciting finish: Birdie Kim birdied 18 from a bunker to beat teenage amateurs Brittany Lang and Moran Pressel by 2 shots. Natalie Gulbis finished three back.

Heralded Michelle Wie shot +11 to finish tied for 23rd.

Missing her chance for a Sorenslam, Annika finished tied with Wie.

You could see the future of women’s golf here: Along with amateurs Pressel and Lang, 19-year-old Paula Creamer finished tied for 19. Wie had a bad day, but no doubt will be a major star when she turns pro.

It was an enjoyable match to watch, but I think there still are some deficiencies in the women’s game that have to ba addressed. And distance is not one of them.

The thing that the PGA guys seem to do so much better has to do with the short game. There were just far too many wedge shots left short; offline chips and poor putts. If I were an agent for one of these young LPGA stars, I’d insist that they spend six weeks every year with one of the top short game coaches.

The Denver Post has an article on the course conditions at Cherry Hill at the US Women’s Open.

There won’t be a grand slam in men’s golf again this year. But in the women’s game, Annika Sorenstam can win the third leg of the slam ths week at the US Women’s Open.

Sorenstam right now is having a better year than Tiger ever had, having won six of eight starts. Heck, that’s moving into Byron Nelson territory.

Unlike many others, I don’t view the women’s golf game as an inferior product—just different. Its like NASCAR vs Formula One—ok. bad example. At least NASCAR can get more than six cars going in any particular race.

But back to my point. Women’s golf is just as good—but in a different way. The same is true of women’s basketball. Or of any women’s sports.

I’ll be watching this weekend.