How to fix golf at the Olympics

[muttleee]

The article in the original post explains their idea for an improved team competition, taking the best elements of the Ryder Cup and World Cup (football, obviously). It seems to make a lot of sense...which is why the powers that be won't go near it.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Yeah looking forward to the Olympic golf

There's a lot of dross Olympic sports (by which I mean completely TV unfriendly) that despite the undoubted skill of the competitors, & has no place (10m pistol shooting)

There's also far too many incremental levels for a lot of the current Olympic sport that adds no real value i.e boxing and other combat sports with 48 diff weight divisions in each, swim an extra 10m and its another gold medal opportunity etc

So plenty scope to stick in a few rounds of golf but I would much prefer it to be a team event

Golf on TV, particularly 72 hole stroke play, has all the TV appeal to those outside golf as watching paint dry. Personally I'd rather watch the sports that we don't normally see competed for by people for whom winning could be life changing. Golf, tennis, football etc have no place in the Olympics.

 

[Slab]

Golf on TV, particularly 72 hole stroke play, has all the TV appeal to those outside golf as watching paint dry. Personally I'd rather watch the sports that we don't normally see competed for by people for whom winning could be life changing. Golf, tennis, football etc have no place in the Olympics.

I know what you're saying but there's usually a reason we don't normally see these sports though, they make shocking TV viewing

I know you said 'could be' but fairly typical of many many Olympic sports, winning a medal at 10m air pistol target shooting is not really life changing


No doubt about the required skill in any of these minority sports but that's not what the post is about

As an aside:
If not accepting tennis then why allow other racquet games like badminton
If not accepting golf then why allow ball & stick games like hockey
If not accepting football then why allow other ball games like volleyball

If the argument is the professionalism of these sports outwith Olympics, that's fine but its hardly the 'sports' fault and insufficient reason for exclusion (although a good reason to suggest Ams only competing but that raises a whole other thread about professional/amateur status that would see a great many of Britain's Olympic favorites ousted)

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's possibly life changing for the person that wins the medal

I was fortunate enough to go to a lot of the events at 2012 and regardless of the sport being mainstream or not the crowds and the atmosphere was brilliant - including thr dancing horses

The Olympics is all about showing off all sports and not just your every day mainstream

When people dismiss the other sports with such disdain then imagine how you feel when non golfers dismiss golf ?

The sports aren't on telly because of money mainly

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I know what you're saying but there's usually a reason we don't normally see these sports though, they make shocking TV viewing

I know you said 'could be' but fairly typical of many many Olympic sports, winning a medal at 10m air pistol target shooting is not really life changing


No doubt about the required skill in any of these minority sports but that's not what the post is about

As an aside:
If not accepting tennis then why allow other racquet games like badminton
If not accepting golf then why allow ball & stick games like hockey
If not accepting football then why allow other ball games like volleyball

If the argument is the professionalism of these sports outwith Olympics, that's fine but its hardly the 'sports' fault and insufficient reason for exclusion (although a good reason to suggest Ams only competing but that raises a whole other thread about professional/amateur status that would see a great many of Britain's Olympic favorites ousted)

It would be life changing for the person winning. Maybe not so that you or I would notice, but almost certainly to that person.

 

[Slab]

It's possibly life changing for the person that wins the medal When I said it wasn't life changing I was talking about the person winning the medal

I was fortunate enough to go to a lot of the events at 2012 and regardless of the sport being mainstream or not the crowds and the atmosphere was brilliant - including thr dancing horses Glad you enjoyed it

The Olympics is all about showing off all sports and not just your every day mainstream As it should but not to the exclusion of mainstream sports surely?

When people dismiss the other sports with such disdain then imagine how you feel when non golfers dismiss golf ? I have enough passion for golf to temper any disdain they may have

The sports aren't on telly because of money mainly And the reason there's no money in it is because... its crap to watch as a TV sport (regardless of required skill)

Comments in blue above

 

[jp5]

As an aside:
If not accepting tennis then why allow other racquet games like badminton
If not accepting golf then why allow ball & stick games like hockey
If not accepting football then why allow other ball games like volleyball

I'm assuming you can name at least one of the four majors in tennis, let alone any other number of tournaments that get coverage through the year (Queens, Davis Cup etc. etc.).

Can you name *any* badminton tournaments that have received coverage (or just any tournaments at all) of the top of your head?

Likewise for hockey.
Likewise for volleyball.

The Olympics benefits greatly from giving these more niche sports exposure where they wouldn't otherwise need any.

I agree with the premise that the Olympics should be regarded as the pinnacle of your sport. That goes for badminton, hockey and volleyball. Not so for tennis, golf and football - which is why they shouldn't be in it.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Comments in blue above

Hockey is great to watch on telly , as is badminton , table tennis , and many of the other sports in the Olympics - but that is what is great about them - they cater for everyone and allow other sports to have headlines and showcase their skills and abilities

Football should be for the Under 21's only - same with Tennis

Golf should be for the amateurs or again younger players

Thankfully when it comes to the Olympics the mainstream sports take a back seat and other sporting heroes emerge

 

[Slab]

I'm assuming you can name at least one of the four majors in tennis, let alone any other number of tournaments that get coverage through the year (Queens, Davis Cup etc. etc.).

Can you name *any* badminton tournaments that have received coverage (or just any tournaments at all) of the top of your head?

Likewise for hockey.
Likewise for volleyball.

The Olympics benefits greatly from giving these more niche sports exposure where they wouldn't otherwise need any.

I agree with the premise that the Olympics should be regarded as the pinnacle of your sport. That goes for badminton, hockey and volleyball. Not so for tennis, golf and football - which is why they shouldn't be in it.

But that argument doesn't really stand up though. In effect once a sport reaches a popularity where a medal opportunity once every 4 years is no longer sufficient to satisfy the public/participant demands, then its should cease to be included in the Olympics!

i.e now that cycling has had a million spectators in the recent UK event, multiple Tours with a standing arguably ahead of an Olympic medal and huge participation figures... time to exclude it from Rio is it?

 

[Hacker Khan]

Comments in blue above

I just think that the mainstream sports of football, tennis and to some extent golf (although the way it is going it could become more rich mans niche game, but anyway) have more than enough exposure already. They get hours of TV dedicated to it, and in some cases whole TV channels. I know the Olympics is not a charity for unloved sports, but just once every 4 years I love to see other sports which can be very exciting. Who knew I'd be roaring at the TV when an 18 year old from Wales won a taekwondo gold medal, or I'd be fighting back the tears as Ellie Simmonds overtook another swimmer in the last length of the 400m freestyle. Yes some may say they are crap sports, but when Andy Murray won his Olympic gold I really did not care a jot, and did not have a clue when team GB got knocked out of the football.

Golf, football and tennis all have their own majors/grand slams/world cups which are the ultimate in their field. And they will never in my opinion generate half as much interest or excitement in The Olympics as we get saturation coverage of them all the time anyway. And once you get over the novelty that Rory McIlroy is at the Olympics then I'm not quite sure what it's adding to the whole thing other than being an ego trip for the golfers so they can say they have a gold medal.

It won't change their life in any way whatsoever. So I think that just for 3 weeks they should take a back seat and let other sports and stories emerge. They can then go back to earning millions of pounds after it has finished.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But that argument doesn't really stand up though. In effect once a sport reaches a popularity where a medal opportunity once every 4 years is no longer sufficient to satisfy the public/participant demands, then its should cease to be included in the Olympics!

i.e now that cycling has had a million spectators in the recent UK event, multiple Tours with a standing arguably ahead of an Olympic medal and huge participation figures... time to exclude it from Rio is it?

The problem I have is including sports in the games based on their popularity

Football has been in the games since 1900 so I'm not too concerned about that and it still only allows a certain amount of over U23

Golf and tennis though I'm not too sure aboit though but they could have a place in the Olympics but needs to be aimed at a younger golfers and not the pros imo

 

[Slab]

Hockey is great to watch on telly , as is badminton , table tennis , and many of the other sports in the Olympics - but that is what is great about them - they cater for everyone and allow other sports to have headlines and showcase their skills and abilities

Football should be for the Under 21's only - same with Tennis

Golf should be for the amateurs or again younger players

Thankfully when it comes to the Olympics the mainstream sports take a back seat and other sporting heroes emerge

I'm not the one suggesting that sports like golf be excluded though and I'd quite happily watch Olympic golf if it was amateur players.. but can you tell me was the lifestyle of Tom Lewis really what you imagined an amateur was when he picked up his Open Championship Silver medal?
(well deserved but not an amateur)

Bradley Wiggins, hardly amateur but no one suggesting he or his sport cant compete in Olympics

 

[Hacker Khan]

I think the amateur thing is a red herring to a certain extent as that concept has gone for all but a few sportspeople that make it to the Olympics. The Olympics should have the best in their field at that sport. So in principal if they are going to have tennis, golf and even football then the best players should be there. Which is why I'd much rather not see them there at all than be there but just have amateurs playing.

 

[Slab]

I just think that the mainstream sports of football, tennis and to some extent golf (although the way it is going it could become more rich mans niche game, but anyway) have more than enough exposure already. They get hours of TV dedicated to it, and in some cases whole TV channels. I know the Olympics is not a charity for unloved sports, but just once every 4 years I love to see other sports which can be very exciting. Who knew I'd be roaring at the TV when an 18 year old from Wales won a taekwondo gold medal, or I'd be fighting back the tears as Ellie Simmonds overtook another swimmer in the last length of the 400m freestyle. Yes some may say they are crap sports, but when Andy Murray won his Olympic gold I really did not care a jot, and did not have a clue when team GB got knocked out of the football.

Golf, football and tennis all have their own majors/grand slams/world cups which are the ultimate in their field. And they will never in my opinion generate half as much interest or excitement in The Olympics as we get saturation coverage of them all the time anyway. And once you get over the fact that Rory McIlroy is at the Olympics then I'm not quite sure what it's adding to the whole thing other than being an ego trip for the golfers so they can say they have a gold medal. It won't change their life in any way whatsoever. So I think that just for 3 weeks they should take a back seat and let other sports and stories emerge. They can then go back to earning millions of pounds after it has finished.

As per my other post I'll get on board with this theory/viewpoint as soon as we know when are we banning cycling as an Olympic sport

 

[Slab]

The problem I have is including sports in the games based on their popularity

Football has been in the games since 1900 so I'm not too concerned about that and it still only allows a certain amount of over U23

Golf and tennis though I'm not too sure aboit though but they could have a place in the Olympics but needs to be aimed at a younger golfers and not the pros imo

I agree with you I really don't believe that basketball should be represented at Olympics by multimillionaires (but I'd have no idea what value of personal wealth should be applied as the exclusion cut off point)

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Why ban cycling ?

The Olympics is the pinnacle for the track cyclists and time trial ?

 

[Slab]

Why ban cycling ?

The Olympics is the pinnacle for the track cyclists and time trial ?

Because cycling is comparable to golf in terms of the Olympics not being the pinnacle event but no ones calling for an exclusion, maybe because we get medals in it (introducing formats of cycling to the discussion isn't really valid for me because we could just do the same for tennis or golf etc)

Maybe we should look to exclude boxing then, surely its not the pinnacle of the sport and with 10 weight divisions its probably over represented when compared to Volleyball or Badminton

 

[jp5]

Because cycling is comparable to golf in terms of the Olympics not being the pinnacle event but no ones calling for an exclusion, maybe because we get medals in it (introducing formats of cycling to the discussion isn't really valid for me because we could just do the same for tennis or golf etc)

Maybe we should look to exclude boxing then, surely its not the pinnacle of the sport and with 10 weight divisions its probably over represented when compared to Volleyball or Badminton

Many would argue that the Olympics is indeed the pinnacle of the sport for many of the cycling disciplines. All of the track events, the BMX and the mountain biking for certain. Probably also the time trial.

Regarding boxing, Olympic gold is surely the highest achievement of the amateur game.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Badminton has just gone more mainstream and there is a premier league now getting coverage monthly on Sky. It is still one of the biggest participation sports in the country

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Because cycling is comparable to golf in terms of the Olympics not being the pinnacle event but no ones calling for an exclusion, maybe because we get medals in it (introducing formats of cycling to the discussion isn't really valid for me because we could just do the same for tennis or golf etc)

Maybe we should look to exclude boxing then, surely its not the pinnacle of the sport and with 10 weight divisions its probably over represented when compared to Volleyball or Badminton

Why isn't the Olympics the pinnacle?

The only argument to exclude cycling would be to exclude the long road race, where potential the world championships are bigger, but even that doesn't hold up.

The TdF and other big road stage races are completely different to the cycling at the Olympics. For the cycling at the Olympics, the gold medal there is the pinnacle, hence many of them on 4 year cycles for each Olympics.