Golf in the Olympics? Bring It On - Just Don't Expect Much Excitement
by Mulligan Stu
on Apr 16, 2008 1:19 PM EDT
in News
The push is on to make golf a part of the Summer Olympics beginning in 2016 (there is a 7-year lead time for adding new sports, and a decision on adding golf would come in 2009; therefore, 2016 is the first year golf could be played). PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem threw his office behind the idea yesterday, writing in a blog post on PGATour.com:
I see two very positive developments coming from including golf as an Olympic sport. One would be a significant boost to the popularity and perception of the game all around the world. While golf is a developed sport in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Japan and some other countries, it is only a minor sport in many countries, including some of the larger developing countries, like China and India. If golf were an Olympic sport, the profile and importance of the game would increase, generating additional interest in people playing golf and also generating funding from both national Olympic committees and individual governments for the development of golf and young golfers.
You can read the blog post for the commish's second positive. But the above is the one that I've always focused on. Adding a sport to the Olympics really does encourage growth in that sport. Or at least the growth of that sport in countries that don't currently care about it, but do care about the Olympics. (Americans are an exception - if we're not already playing it, then we don't care about it and never will.)
The Olympics can be the impetus to grow the sport in all corners of the globe.
But I don't think anyone should get too excited about watching an Olympic golf tournament. The commish said:
While golf has many significant events throughout the year, including the major championships, THE PLAYERS Championship and the World Golf Championships, adding golf to the Olympics would provide another dimension to our competitive landscape. I do not believe that Olympic golf would have any effect on the stature or prestige of these other significant events ...
As the ancient Greek historian Herodotus once wrote, no duh.
An Olympic golf tournament won't detract from the existing major events because - after the first one is out of the way - most of the best players will stop caring about the Olympic golf tournament. Maybe Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson will show up for the first one (Phil says he would, although he'll be in his late 40s by then, so he might need to buy a ticket to get in), but after that, I doubt it.
That's the experience in the Olympic tennis tournament. And do fans care about the Olympic tennis tournament? Will they care about the Olympic golf tournament? After the first one, again, I doubt it. The field will look much more like the field in the used-to-be-important-but-isn't-any-longer, used-to-be-a-WGC-event-but-isn't-any-longer World Cup.
Put golf in the Olympics to grow the game, then keep your expectations very low for the quality of the tournaments.
0 recs |
4
comments
EmailComments
Not a team tournament
Everyone knows that Billy Payne (then AOC chairman, now Augusta head-honcho) had gotten the go ahead from the members to have Olympic golf at Augusta National for the 96 games in Atlanta. You don't think the best golfers in the world would show up to compete for a gold medal at Augusta? The Olympics is as much about atmosphere (I have been to 4) as it is about competition and who wouldn't get some extra goosebumps to see the Olympic rings above the Masters leaderboard.
As for how the tournament should be conducted, I agree that national teams (like the World Cup) would be less exciting and less likely to bring out the best players. A stroke play competition would likely allow the cream to rise to the top, but it would look just like any other golf tournament. A strait match play event (like the WGC one) would likely have some pretty bad first, and probably second, round matches (Tiger v. the representative from Trinidad and Tobago would probably not have much attention) I suggest a US Amateur style tournament. Play 2 rounds with a full field. That gives every qualifier a chance to make a showing. Then take the top 16 for match play for the gold medal. The first two days would be doubly interesting to see who wins the top seed and to see who makes it to the match play. Maybe the Trinidad and Tobago guy gets hot and edges Ernie Ells for the last spot. The underdog excitement would be incredible (NBC would fall over themselves to do the human interest story angles.)
As for the level of players that would participate, I disagree that the best would not compete. Look at the competition for spots on the Ryder and Presidents Cup teams. The US fields a team every single year, but the players don't stop caring about it. How much would Mike Weir like to play as a Canadian rather than an "International"? Also the Olympics is only every 4 years, so it is not like players would have to add another tournament to their schedule. That 3 year gap would also insure that there is fresh blood every Olympiad.
To cap of a long and rambling comment, think of this. 2016 Tiger is sitting at 19-20 majors and Maybe a true Grand Slam. He now has the chance to compete for a gold medal to add to his resume and further cement himself as the greatest golfer ever. I have to believe that he would sign up. There is a good chance that the 2016 games will be held in a US city; San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago.... There are a few decent courses around those cities.
by MOlson on Apr 16, 2008 8:52 PM EDT 0 recs
not what I meant
What I mean was that that quality of the field will be like that of the World Cup. Countries will be represented by golfers, with each country getting only (most likely) 2 or 3 golfers into the field. So you might 2-3 American golfers, English golfers, Spanish golfers, but also 2-3 Kenyan golfers, Pakistani golfers, and so on. And good for those countries where golf isn't too big yet -- the point of adding the sport to the Olympics is to grow the game, after all.
But you'll wind up with a very top-heavy field in the first tournament, and a bunch of golfers nobody outside their home country has ever heard of. And then, in following years, the big countries' best players will (I'm just guessing here) probably stop playing. Or at least play less frequently. So instead of the U.S. sending Tiger, Phil and Furyk, it sends Brett Wetterich, Jerry Kelly and Hunter Mahan. Which is the same thing that's happened with the World Cup.
That's what I mean with the World Cup comparison.
by Mulligan Stu on
Apr 17, 2008 12:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
and now for something completely different...
The traditional glass breaking game may have to be left out for fear of starting an international incident - can't have Israel breaking a Muslim country's glass or vice versa...
(we will require further bikini appearances by Courtney Erdman !!) :-)
by courtgolf on
Apr 17, 2008 12:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
don't get your hopes up...
Many of these arguments also go against the basketball competition.
The same holds true for golf. The best in the world play every week and everybody knows who they are.
The Olympics are not supposed to be for professionals to hold a regular tournament - they are supposed to be for "amateur" athletes doing something they don't get to do on a world stage week in and week out.
Tiger Woods and the other pros would not live in the Olympic Village since the Olympics have become a terrorist target.
Face it - with the present condition of The Olympics, there is nothing to be gained by adding another professional tournament to the agenda.
by courtgolf on Apr 17, 2008 9:08 AM EDT 0 recs
New FanPost
