Golf IS going to be in the Olympics

Personally I think it's a dumb idea. All these sports being added - why?
I'm a huge golf and rugby fan, but I just don't see the need to add more and more sports. If you're going to do that, let every sport in. Bring in darts, cricket, starjumps. When will it end!

As someone on Twitter put it: "If there is a higher achievement than Olympic gold then the sport should be left out."
I agree totally.
 
Olympics should be for amateur sports, that's how it was. How they justify the inclusion of pro golfers I don't know.

Who is Olympic tennis champion or Olympic football champions? Don't know, neither do I as we dont care!

I think the Olympics in general is overblown overhyped crap costing the earth and bankrupting cities for years. Montreal hasn't paid of 1976 yet!

Olympics is for sports no-one is interested in generally, equestrianism, rowing, weightlifinting, diving etc etc. That's fine once every 4 years but golf has it's titles, it doesn't need any more.

Rant over. Phew!
 
The Olympics should be the pinnacle of your sport, ie athletics, amateur boxing etc. For the likes of golf and tennis, the olympics will be an after thought. Give Tiger or Federer the option of Olympic gold or a major / slam event and there's only one winner.

Stupid decision imho, golf should not be anywhere near the Olympics
 
I agree with Kevin. As much as I love the game, it isnt an Olympic sport. I think the Olympics is starting to lose its shape enough as it is. Darts, pleeeease no, the thought of Jocky on the hocky in lycra :eek:
 
Couldn't agree more with Birdieman.

London 2012 will end up costing the whole country billions, I don't live in London so why should I pay for it.

I am all in favour of the football World Cup bid however, a sport with the biggest following in the world being played all over the country in stadiums that, for the most part, already exist. Makes much more sense to me.
 
Correction, Birdieman, Montreal finished paying for their 1976 Olympics a long, long time ago - 2006. OK, so not that long! It is and shall remain an overhyped, overpriced and under-viewed event - I wonder if that's why they keep insisting on bringing in new sports. How about underwater hockey?
 
if he doesnt know the sport how will he know when the open is on and if he doesnt know about it why would he want to watch it everyone watches the olympics (nearly)
 
Its an interesting call. Should it be an amateur event in which case team GB will have a great chance with the talented amateurs in its ranks irrespective of whether it is stroke or matchplay. If its a professional event how do you pick your representatives. In tennis its easy for GB (it was Henman/Murray and now Murray) but there are so many good pros (Fisher, Wilson, Casey, Poulter, and they are the first off my head. The list is much longer and stronger) from most nations.

I think if it is an amateur event then yes it probably does deserve its place but if not then its is a nice to have thing but not many players will lose any sleep if they don't win gold. I presume this is for 2012 and if so any idea where it is being held
 
Bad idea. It has so much against it, not least

- competition for limited TV viewing times, dilution of the already poor showing for 'minority' sports.

- same lot of players as we see week in and week out. much as I like to watch the pro's <u>not</u> in the Olympics (which I why I neither know nor care about Olypmic tennis/basketball/etc)

The only possible credibility would be as amateur WGC-style matchplay format - something that does not already exist.

imo, the Olypmics lost its shape long ago. it should be looking to shed sports (eg formation drowning, rythmic gymnastics) not add more. test everything against the longest/fastest/highest/strongest format - if you can't measure the event it doesn't belong.
 
I WISH it would be an amateur event - that would be really interesting and something for amateurs to aspire to... but there's no way they're going to all this effort to get the sport in, if they're not aiming for Tiger (and some other professionals) to be playing. Will a golf medal be the peak of Tiger's career? Or Poulter's, or Monty's. Put it this way, if Sergio never wins a major but he wins a gold medal, imagine how history will remember him.
 
The debate has been going on for ages...I don't see the problem. If you don't like the idea, you don't have to watch it. I think it's worth a trial again, although the track and field will always have centre stage and that's the main thing. Golf doesn't need it but it could be fun to watch if it's some kind of matchplay.
 
if he doesnt know the sport how will he know when the open is on and if he doesnt know about it why would he want to watch it everyone watches the olympics (nearly)

Do you really watch the Olympics? I though most people watched the opening ceremony then the odd highlights show for the showpiece events like the 100 metres in athletics.

For me the Olympics is athletics and not much else. Dont mind some of the rowing and cycling but only cos the UK do well at those, not because I like those sports. If Steve Redgrave had been French no-one here would have watched rowing but we'd all have watched Usain Bolt regardless of his nationality. Bolt was Bejing 2008, don't remember much else except the American swimmer whose name escapes me.
Air rifle shooting, archery, synchronised swimming etc is pants basically.

Anyway double standards - boxing at Olympics is strictly amateur, why would pro golfers be allowed to compete. I could just about tolerate golf in the Olympics if it was strictly for amateurs only.

How could any aspiring golf kid not see The Open when it's on, it's on tv about 10 hours a day for 4 days??
 
Lets face it the Olympics are a money driven farce anyway with the winners human freeks at the extremes of human physiology who do nothing to encourage "sport for all". :mad:
Golf could teach the olympics something -a handicap system
 
Top