I guess without Title IX, she wouldn't have taken up golf at all.

Cant' you just see it? Her dad sitting her down at 10 years old, saying "Honey, play golf! There's Title IX now, so you can play when you get to college!!"

More "identity politics" but in sports. Ochoa isn't allowed to savor her victories as a person, it has to be a "victory for all women"!!

If you want to apply Title 9 to a specific women's sports success, you would be looking at things like the US Women's National Soccer Team, or the explosion of women's college sports & the rising profile of both examples I just provided.

Women's golf has been around for a long time, & Lorena Ochoa is the just latest player to assend to the top of the heap, nothing more, nothing less. She is the same as Annika Sorenstam, except for the fact that Ochoa is Mexican & Sorenstam is Swedish, they both have busted their butts to get where they are today. At some point, some younger woman is gonna come around & knock Ochoa off the top, it may be Paula Creamer, Suzanne Petersen, or someone yet to hit the LPGA.

Cindy Brunson went waaaay over the top with her story for no reason other then to pump up a story that really does'nt need to be pumped. Ochoa's performance speaks for itself, & so should the records she is chasing or breaking. No need to overstate the story Cindy, you are usually good at what you do, don't try to overdo it.

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

...that gave us Keith Olbermann continues to annoy

Ochoa is a dominating player and winning 4 in a row in 4 weeks is a remarkable achievemnet but the whole story is a bit of a stretch to start with. Just 3 years ago in 2005 Annika Sorenstam won 5 consecutive tournaments.

Honestly, I'm sort of glad to see college athletics eating itself.  Too many self-righteous college administrators, with the enthusiastic encouragement of the even more self-righteous sports media, have engaged in breast beating and politically correct social engineering to preserve the bogus ideals of "amateur athletics" and "student athletes".  The only reason full scholarships are given to college athletes is that athletics programs generate recognition and revenue to the universities through the labors of the athletes.  Essentially, college athletes are employees of the university development departments...but because the NCAA can only preserve its existence on the false notion of "amateur student athletes", college athletes are not to be paid directly for their efforts.  Rather, they are given free tuition and possibly room and board.  The "student athletes" are then not permitted to earn or receive other income whether they need to or not.  And then people wonder why so many young athletes bolt college early or skip it entirely to give the pros a try. 

And what Title IX has done is to completely pervert the system.  The only real revenue-generating sports at most universities are football and men's basketball.  The football and men's basketball players generate a disproportionate amount of revenue to the schools, especially when you consider that scholarship athletes in the non-revenue generating sports are given equal remuneration to the athletes in revenue-generating sports.  The bottom line is that spectator sports are entertainment.  The athletes are entertainers and they should be rewarded relative to the spectator interest (and subsequent revenue) they generate as entertainers...giving the public what it wants.  But the NCAA has fostered this myth that college athletics are about the athletes...especially the poster children like the softball players with 4.0 GPAs.  But is the public particularly interested in college softball, gymnastics, swimming, volleyball, golf, lacrosse, etc.?  Largely, no.  This means that scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports are effectively parasites...living off the abilities and labors of others.  The sooner this social welfare "ideal" is broken, the better.

And, by the way, this brings up a philosophical question.  If Lorena Ochoa won a golf tournament in a forest and no one was there to hear it, does she make a sound?