Olympic Games 2016 qualification criteria

rrpc

I'm trying assiduously not to breach any charter rules, but in light of previous discussions, it's interesting to see how the OG2016 qualification system will work out.

The criteria are that the top 15 in both men's and women's WGR automatically qualify followed by the next 45 representing countries that do not already have two representatives.

I take this to mean that if (as would be pretty certain) more than two US golfers qualify from the top 15 criterion then any US golfer not in the top 15 will not be eligible.

The current top 15 cmprises: 9 USA, 3 ENG, 1 RSA, 1 Nir and 1 AUS.

The next 45 comprises: 15 USA, 1 Nir, 4 ESP, 3 RSA, 3 SWE, 3 ENG, 3 Sco, 1 ITA, 5 AUS, 1 GER, 1 BEL, 2 KOR, 1 DEN, 1 Wal and 1 IRE.

Obviously many of these will not be eligible (based on the two rep rule) so presumably the system trawls down the list until the two representative rule is met and/or the 60 places are filled.

There's no date set (that I can find) for the qualification period to end, but assuming that golf follows other sports, it's likely that the cut off date will be close to 2016 if not some time in early 2016.

I can see a lot of scrambling going on between golfers of the same nationality vying to get themselves above their compatriots in the rankings and earn their place at the Olympics.

It'll add a bit of extra spice to the competitions in 2015 onwards (if not earlier), something akin to the scramble for the FedEx cup spots as the field gets chopped.

slave1

In the interest of keeping this thread alive I'll attempt to get back on topic and within the rules by chipping in that some players may simply not be interested (as mad as it sounds) but it will bear well for smaller countries that only have a few world class golfers else the US would overbear.
It would have been great for amateurs only but sure the TV audience would only be a fraction of it's potential.
I've never seen a golf tournament from Brazil so it should be interesting.

Any idea of the format yet?

rrpc

slave1 wrote: »

In the interest of keeping this thread alive I'll attempt to get back on topic and within the rules by chipping in that some players may simply not be interested (as mad as it sounds) but it will bear well for smaller countries that only have a few world class golfers else the US would overbear.
It would have been great for amateurs only but sure the TV audience would only be a fraction of it's potential.
I've never seen a golf tournament from Brazil so it should be interesting.

Any idea of the format yet?

It's supposed to be a 72 hole tournament with a three hole playoff system in the event of a tie, so very like a normal golf tournament in that respect.

The Rio Games start on 5th August and finish on 21st August. I would imagine that the US PGA will still run at its usual time, but there's room in the calendar after it (with a bit of rejigging) to allow for the Olympics.

The IGF are in charge, so I imagine they've already worked out scheduling.

PARlance

I really think a lot of people are overestimating how important this will be or the impact it will have.
I have pretty much close to zero interest in it, coupled with all the noise about who chooses to play for what country.... It's actually grating on me at this stage.

I don't think it'll work for several reasons. A few below.

Take Tennis at the Olympics as an example.
Barring the unique nature (at the time) of Murray winning top prize, I don't think it really had an impact.
Tennis has 4 Grand Slams and Davis cup as its highlights.
It's calendar has less events per year compared to Golf yet it still failed to capture peoples attention.
I would argue that Golf will be even less relevant in Rio than Tennis was in London.

Important also to remember that it is also falling in a Ryder Cup year, I think preference would be given by most to ensure qualification for the Ryder Cup. Players schedules will be determined by this and a trip down to Brazil...all the attention and fanfare that go around the Olympics mightn't suit preparations.

The qualifying criteria as set out also means that you're not going to have the best golfers on show, it'll be as competitive as an average tour event.

From me, the Olympics should represent competitors that have grown up wanting to compete in their particular events and that see that as the pinnacle of their sporting goals.

Golf at the Olympics will never compare to winning a Major for a young up and coming golfer.
I can't see too many kids rushing to google to find out where the Olympics will be in 12-16years.....searching the various courses that may stage the event in that city....rushing up to their clubs practice green to emulate holing that magical putt on the 18th hole of.........what was that courses name again!

I think I've p*ssed enough on the Olympic Flame at this stage

rrpc

ajcurry123 wrote: »

I don't think it'll work for several reasons. A few below.

Take Tennis at the Olympics as an example.
Barring the unique nature (at the time) of Murray winning top prize, I don't think it really had an impact.
Tennis has 4 Grand Slams and Davis cup as its highlights.
It's calendar has less events per year compared to Golf yet it still failed to capture peoples attention.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. AFAIK, all the tennis matches were sold out and they were all televised. I watched some of them myself even though I have hardly watched a tennis match in the last three years.

I would argue that Golf will be even less relevant in Rio than Tennis was in London.

Relevance needs to be defined before it can be judged

Important also to remember that it is also falling in a Ryder Cup year, I think preference would be given by most to ensure qualification for the Ryder Cup. Players schedules will be determined by this and a trip down to Brazil...all the attention and fanfare that go around the Olympics mightn't suit preparations.

Since Ryder Cup participation is dependant on money list and therefore aproximately the same criteria as Olympic qualification, it'll be complementary to that process and not competing with it. Add to that the fact that the Ryder Cup is limited to a much smaller subset of nationalities than the Olympics, it may not have any bearing at all.

The qualifying criteria as set out also means that you're not going to have the best golfers on show, it'll be as competitive as an average tour event.

Except for the fact that Olympic medals will be awarded for it

From me, the Olympics should represent competitors that have grown up wanting to compete in their particular events and that see that as the pinnacle of their sporting goals.

That's really for the players to embrace or not as the case may be. Other sports such as Tennis, Soccer, Basketball, Cycling, Sailing (to name a few) have other prerogatives aside from the Olympics, yet they always engender enormous effort from the competitors and attract spectators by the thousands.

Rory McIlroy famously dismissed the Ryder Cup as 'hype' until he took part in it.

Tox56

I seem to remember Tiger saying something to the effect of he can't wait to play in the Olympics, and tennis players certainly care about the Olympics, it's as close to a fifth major as you're going to get.

PARlance

ajcurry123 wrote: »

The qualifying criteria as set out also means that you're not going to have the best golfers on show, it'll be as competitive as an average tour event.

rrpc wrote: »

Except for the fact that Olympic medals will be awarded for it

We've both got different personal opinions on this so there's no point going over and back on them. I may get more excited about this....say in about 1200 days time or so, certainly not now

The main point I'd like to make, and it's not personal opinion, is that, the qualification criteria/rules will determine that there will be a weaker field in the Olympics than the majors, fedex cup and some other tour events.

rrpc wrote: »

Rory McIlroy famously dismissed the Ryder Cup as 'hype' until he took part in it.

And there, the similarities between Rory and I end

My feelings are the same re Soccer, Basketball and to a lesser extent cycling.

rrpc

ajcurry123 wrote: »

We've both got different personal opinions on this so there's no point going over and back on them. I may get more excited about this....say in about 1200 days time or so, certainly not now

Agreed

The main point I'd like to make, and it's not personal opinion, is that, the qualification criteria/rules will determine that there will be a weaker field in the Olympics than the majors, fedex cup and some other tour events.

This is relatively similar across sports where dominant countries have multiple competitive participants (like the USA in swimming for example). It will be very like the final playoff round of the FedEx cup in that regard with the addition of about 30 competitors from mid to bottom table of the WGR.

PARlance

Tox56 wrote: »

I seem to remember Tiger saying something to the effect of he can't wait to play in the Olympics, and tennis players certainly care about the Olympics, it's as close to a fifth major as you're going to get.

I may be overly cynical but if Nike didn't happen to be the USA kit sponsors, I don't think Tiger would have said that.

It's unlikely to happen, but if USA changed to say Reebok as kit sponsor, would Tiger even be allowed play in the Olympics after Nike pumping so much money into making Tiger, Mr. Nike Golf.
That type of conflict will certainly be an issue for some players.

Golf has it's "fifth major" as it stands, TPC Sawgrass.

I "can't wait" for my round of golf tomorrow evening, but if push comes to shove, I could do without

PARlance

rrpc wrote: »

Agreed

This is relatively similar across sports where dominant countries have multiple competitive participants (like the USA in swimming for example)

Fair point re other sports & participants, but a lot of those sports have heats to ensure that the final/showcase is pretty close to getting the best 8 swimmers/runners etc in the world competing.

The fact that it'll be "very like the final playoff round of the FedEx cup in that regard with the addition of about 30 competitors from mid to bottom table of the WGR." sums it up for me.
I'll be far more excited about watching the Fedex Cup which would have 30 better players in it.

Anyway this thing is happening in 2016 isn't it... It's a long long time away and I just can't understand the hype around it already. I'll admit I'm being overly critical in some areas, but can we not come back to this in 3 years time
I'll do my bit and stop talking about it anymore from now on

finbarrk

ajcurry123 wrote: »

I really think a lot of people are overestimating how important this will be or the impact it will have.
I have pretty much close to zero interest in it, coupled with all the noise about who chooses to play for what country.... It's actually grating on me at this stage.

I don't think it'll work for several reasons. A few below.

Take Tennis at the Olympics as an example.
Barring the unique nature (at the time) of Murray winning top prize, I don't think it really had an impact.
Tennis has 4 Grand Slams and Davis cup as its highlights.
It's calendar has less events per year compared to Golf yet it still failed to capture peoples attention.
I would argue that Golf will be even less relevant in Rio than Tennis was in London.

Important also to remember that it is also falling in a Ryder Cup year, I think preference would be given by most to ensure qualification for the Ryder Cup. Players schedules will be determined by this and a trip down to Brazil...all the attention and fanfare that go around the Olympics mightn't suit preparations.

The qualifying criteria as set out also means that you're not going to have the best golfers on show, it'll be as competitive as an average tour event.

From me, the Olympics should represent competitors that have grown up wanting to compete in their particular events and that see that as the pinnacle of their sporting goals.

Golf at the Olympics will never compare to winning a Major for a young up and coming golfer.
I can't see too many kids rushing to google to find out where the Olympics will be in 12-16years.....searching the various courses that may stage the event in that city....rushing up to their clubs practice green to emulate holing that magical putt on the 18th hole of.........what was that courses name again!

I think I've p*ssed enough on the Olympic Flame at this stage

The Tennis at the Olympics was one of the hardest tickets to get. There was huge intrest in it over there. You have underestimated the Olympics I think. The golf will be big in 4 years.

A New earth

rrpc wrote: »

I'm trying assiduously not to breach any charter rules, but in light of previous discussions, it's interesting to see how the OG2016 qualification system will work out.

The criteria are that the top 15 in both men's and women's WGR automatically qualify followed by the next 45 representing countries that do not already have two representatives.

I take this to mean that if (as would be pretty certain) more than two US golfers qualify from the top 15 criterion then any US golfer not in the top 15 will not be eligible.

The current top 15 cmprises: 9 USA, 3 ENG, 1 RSA, 1 Nir and 1 AUS.

The next 45 comprises: 15 USA, 1 Nir, 4 ESP, 3 RSA, 3 SWE, 3 ENG, 3 Sco, 1 ITA, 5 AUS, 1 GER, 1 BEL, 2 KOR, 1 DEN, 1 Wal and 1 IRE.

Obviously many of these will not be eligible (based on the two rep rule) so presumably the system trawls down the list until the two representative rule is met and/or the 60 places are filled.

There's no date set (that I can find) for the qualification period to end, but assuming that golf follows other sports, it's likely that the cut off date will be close to 2016 if not some time in early 2016.

I can see a lot of scrambling going on between golfers of the same nationality vying to get themselves above their compatriots in the rankings and earn their place at the Olympics.

It'll add a bit of extra spice to the competitions in 2015 onwards (if not earlier), something akin to the scramble for the FedEx cup spots as the field gets chopped.

My understanding of qualification is:-

A field of 60 players for each of the men's and women's competitions, utilizing the Official World Golf Rankings as a method of determining eligibility. The top 15 world-ranked players would be eligible, regardless of the number of players from a given country. Beyond the top 15, players would be eligible based on world ranking, with a maximum of two eligible players from each country that does not already have two or more players among the top 15.

i.e there would be 9 USA if this week's ranking was used and either 3 or 4 from the UK depending on Rory's decision.