Golf at the Olympics

Joe_ Public

Chivito550 wrote: »

Trust me, there are zero amateurs winning Olympic medals. If you are getting grants, sports funding, sponsorship, not to mention prize money in things like Worlds and Europeans and other competitions, then you are NOT an amateur. Katie Taylor is not an amateur.

With respect, I can't trust you on this. Of course, Katie Taylor isn't amateur. But I know there are athletes with full or part time jobs winning medals, especially at winter olympics, it's just they are a tiny minority. But your overall point is sound, no dispute there.

Chivito550

Joe_ Public wrote: »

With respect, I can't trust you on this. Of course, Katie Taylor isn't amateur. But I know there are athletes with full or part time jobs winning medals, especially at winter olympics, it's just they are a tiny minority. But your overall point is sound, no dispute there.

Are they getting no financial backing from their governments? If there’s funding involved then they are semi-professional.

Joe_ Public

Chivito550 wrote: »

Are they getting no financial backing from their governments? If there’s funding involved then they are semi-professional.

I would say some of them, but definitely not all. From what I've read, the likes of USA and even the UK are not all that generous with funding, a lot of their athletes would not be getting anything from the government, though probably would be able to avail of support services from their NGBs.

Darren O'Neill, for example, was a full time teacher up to 2012. I think he was probably getting some sort of funding, as he was a european medalist at the time, and took some time off before the Games, so maybe that's semi-professional, but still proves to me anyway that you can hold down a job and still become an Olympic athlete. Going a step further is another story altogether, granted

Seve OB

Chivito550 wrote: »

Trust me, there are zero amateurs winning Olympic medals. If you are getting grants, sports funding, sponsorship, not to mention prize money in things like Worlds and Europeans and other competitions, then you are NOT an amateur. Katie Taylor is not an amateur.

Chivito550 wrote: »

It's not amateur though. Katie Taylor gets €40,000 off the ISC each year. So does Paddy Barnes and Michael Conlon. How on earth are they amateurs. The term "Amateur Boxing" is more the name for the discipline within boxing these days. The name has stuck, but it is not accurate anymore.

Well then do you know anything about amateur golfers? They are basically like Katie Taylor. The best amateur golfers are not really amateurs at all. We are not talking weekend hacks here who play off scratch. These guys are giving 4 and 5 shots to the course. These guys live, breath eat and drink golf. Possibly much more so than professional golfers. These guys are funded by colleges and golfing clubs and unions and even sponsors. Hell they even play with the pro's week in and week out on the tour. The only difference is they don't collect the prize money on a Sunday night.

Chivito550

Seve OB wrote: »

Well then do you know anything about amateur golfers? They are basically like Katie Taylor. The best amateur golfers are not really amateurs at all. We are not talking weekend hacks here who play off scratch. These guys are giving 4 and 5 shots to the course. These guys live, breath eat and drink golf. Possibly much more so than professional golfers. These guys are funded by colleges and golfing clubs and unions and even sponsors. Hell they even play with the pro's week in and week out on the tour. The only difference is they don't collect the prize money on a Sunday night.

You can't just introduce an amateur event into the Olympics in this day and age. It would not work. The Olympics used to be amateur, and all the sports in it had strict amateur ethos. Over time that has slowly faded away. Boxing is one of the last to hang onto the supposed "amateurism", but that is fading and fading fast. The reason there is strong interest in amateur boxing is because it was always part of the Olympic Games. If a sport has not been part of the Olympics until now, then bringing it in as amateur only will do absolutely nothing for the profile of the sport. If golf wanted an amateur only Olympic competition, then they are 50 years too late I'm afraid.

I follow the Olympics religiously, and have done so with every Summer and Winter Games since Atlanta in 1996. The amateur only days of the Olympics is long long gone. There’s talk that the NHL won’t allow their players go to the Olympic Ice Hockey in 2018 (they’ve been at every Games since 1998) and there is a lot of fear that this will be detrimental to showcasing the sport on the international stage to new audiences. We’re in the 21st century now. Why people still cling to the 1920s idea of the Olympics is beyond me.

Alf Veedersane

Athletes like Mo Farah etc are not amateurs but you could argue that athletes are not amateurs because of the Olympics.

There is a difference between that and professional sports becoming involved in the Olympics.

I don't necessarily agree that the golf should be amateurs only considering they want to grow the game. There was definitely a positive impact on basketball when the US sent their Dream Team in '92.

But there isn't a song and dance in the US because LeBron James or Kevin Love decided they wanted a rest for the summer.

Tennis didn't exactly have a stellar cast when that was reintroduced in 1988.

Chivito550

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Athletes like Mo Farah etc are not amateurs but you could argue that athletes are not amateurs because of the Olympics.

There is a difference between that and professional sports becoming involved in the Olympics.

I don't necessarily agree that the golf should be amateurs only considering they want to grow the game. There was definitely a positive impact on basketball when the US sent their Dream Team in '92.

But there isn't a song and dance in the US because LeBron James or Kevin Love decided they wanted a rest for the summer.

Tennis didn't exactly have a stellar cast when that was reintroduced in 1988.

People seem to forget that Basketball exists outside the NBA and the USA. Winning Olympic gold is the pinnacle of international competition, just like the World Cup is the pinnacle of international football competition. Why should this be taken away from people because of a few mercenaries in the USA who feel they are above it?

Alf Veedersane

Chivito550 wrote: »

People seem to forget that Basketball exists outside the NBA and the USA. Winning Olympic gold is the pinnacle of international competition, just like the World Cup is the pinnacle of international football competition. Why should this be taken away from people because of a few mercenaries in the USA who feel they are above it?

Not quite sure what your point is there. I'm not suggesting anything should be taken away from people.

I said the NBA stars playing in '92 raised the profile of the game hugely.

I also said there wasn't an outcry is some of the bigger stars didn't play this year. It's not the pinnacle for NBA stars so they're less inclined to play. That's it.

None of that says that anything should be taken away from anyone.

Chivito550

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Not quite sure what your point is there. I'm not suggesting anything should be taken away from people.

I said the NBA stars playing in '92 raised the profile of the game hugely.

I also said there wasn't an outcry is some of the bigger stars didn't play this year. It's not the pinnacle for NBA stars so they're less inclined to play. That's it.

None of that says that anything should be taken away from anyone.

I didn't say you said it, but many others have, and people keep using basketball as a comparison to golf. It is not. A Spanish or Lithuanian player winning Olympic gold is the highest achievement possible when representing their country. These guys grew up dreaming of playing for their country. When people say Basketball shouldn't be in the Olympics they are talking complete hogwash.

This is why I believe Golf should be a team only event in the Olympics. Make it the pinnacle of international team golf, the way the Olympics is the pinnacle of international basketball and ice hockey competition. Was it really that hard for the guys behind golf's Olympic bid to do that. It's an epic fail on their part.

Alf Veedersane

Chivito550 wrote: »

I didn't say you said it, but many others have, and people keep using basketball as a comparison to golf. It is not. A Spanish or Lithuanian player winning Olympic gold is the highest achievement possible when representing their country. When people say Basketball shouldn't be in the Olympics they are talking complete hogwash.

This is why I believe Golf should be a team only event in the Olympics. Make it the pinnacle of international team golf, the way the Olympics is the pinnacle of international basketball and ice hockey competition. Was it really that hard for the guys behind golf's Olympic bid to do that. It's an epic fail on their part.

I agree to a point but golf is essentially an individual sport and I really don't think it will ever be the pinnacle of a top-level golfer's career.

That's not to say it shouldn't be there. If Seamus Power comes home with a gold medal, try telling him a gold medal in golf doesn't matter.

But it doesn't matter to McIlroy and that's fine too.

Jawgap

I don't hold that the Olympics are needed to grow the sport.

We were talking about the Olympics recently while playing a round and one of the guys was suggesting it could help grow the sport. One of the other in the group pointed the example of water polo - he's a keen player of the sport.

He loves when the Olympics come around because it's the only time it gets some coverage, but, as he pointed out, we have loads of swimming pools (infrastructure) capable of being used for the sport but it has zero traction here despite being in the Olympics for over 100 years and it getting good coverage at each games.

It's not just exposure and infrastructure that grows a sport, it's got to be promoted from the ground up. If the powers that be really want to grow gold then they need to invest in or support golf courses in emerging 'markets' and provide coaching, events, player development etc. especially because something like golf does best when it is taken up by kids - and kids rarely watch the Olympics.

Even if they do, and they see a sport they like in golf, then what? Are they going to do a Seve and start with a stick and the head of an old 3 iron - that might create the odd tour player, but it's not going to grow the game unless there are immediate opportunities for people to play.

Joe_ Public

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't hold that the Olympics are needed to grow the sport.

We were talking about the Olympics recently while playing a round and one of the guys was suggesting it could help grow the sport. One of the other in the group pointed the example of water polo - he's a keen player of the sport.

He loves when the Olympics come around because it's the only time it gets some coverage, but, as he pointed out, we have loads of swimming pools (infrastructure) capable of being used for the sport but it has zero traction here despite being in the Olympics for over 100 years and it getting good coverage at each games.

It's just exposure and infrastructure that grows a sport, it's got to be promoted from the ground up. If the powers that be really want to grow gold then they need to invest in or support golf courses in emerging 'markets' and provide coaching, events, player development etc. especially because something like golf does best when it is taken up by kids - and kids rarely watch the Olympics.

Even if they do, and they see a sport they like in golf, then what? Are they going to do a Seve and start with a stick and the head of an old 3 iron - that might create the odd tour player, but it's not going to grow the game unless there are immediate opportunities for people to play.

I agree with every word there. And if we're all about giving the unvarnished truth now, why don't we just drop all this pretend "growing the sport" nonsense when we know the whole point is getting more mega millionaires into the Olympics and thus enhancing the marketability and value of the product, making the IOC even more grotesquely wealthy than it already is.

valoren

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Olympic Reach 3.6 Billion.
Total viewers of Ryder Cup - 6 million.

This. The olympic tournament is not a major. We understand that it will never have the prestige of a green jacket or a claret jug. The tournament is an exhibition. A showcase to the world for the game.

I play badminton every so often. Why? London 2012. I would never seek it out to watch it normally on TV. I watched some of the matches then and thought "I'd like a go at that". I love it, it's brilliant. Watching the cycling time trial got me into cycling big time. I thought it was cool

That's the reason for it's inclusion in the olympic programme. The game is very wealthy as it is. It doesn't need the olympics to grow financially, it needs to grow in terms of participation. It's inclusion is a hedge for the future of the game. The Olympics will always be there, Golf inclusion is important. To not have lobbied for it's inclusion would be to do the game a disservice. Participation levels are dropping, the Olympics and it's global reach might very well slow down the slide.

Sure some will try it, hate it , and not bother again while some might actually take to it like me and the badminton. I'm ****e at it but I enjoy it.

I can imagine back in 2009 when the sport was inducted into the programme that people thought Tiger would be there to play. That was pre-scandal. He was seen as being the man to bring the game to the masses and generate interest, like the NBA players at the 92 Olympics. The narrative has changed now, where we are seeing the top ranked players falling out by the day.

As for the debate of amateur v professional. As it's a showcase event then we as viewers want to see the best players. As sponsors and organisers, I'm sure the IOC wish to maximise their revenues also with the inclusion of the game's elite and most marketable players.

The Rape of Lucretia

Chivito550 wrote: »

No idea what batton twirling is!!

Exactly. No one does. But they give Olympic medals for it. Its girls playing with a ribbon on the end of a stick making spirals with it.

The Rape of Lucretia

Seve OB wrote: »

Really? I'll give you a clue. It's a "European" team. Players are European. Europe is made up of many countries, and if you are from one of them, then you can play on the team. If you are not from one of them countries, well then you can't! Simple really.

As for the team being "cobbled together". Is it any more "cobbled together" than the US team. I think you are being very disingenuous to the European Ryder Cup team here.

What is "European" though ? That is certainly not clear.

They use the flag of the Council of Europe so is it those members that can play for this Europe ? So Kazakstanis can play but Poland neighbours Belarus cannot ?

Or is the European union countries?

Or is it the Eurovision criteria, so countries like Israel (and Australia ?) are eligible ?

Or is the countries that the European tour operates in ?

Or the European Economic Area ? Or the European Free Trade Area ?

Or geographically ? Russians from this side of the Urals are European but those from the Eastern side are Asian and so cannot ?

Where do you draw the boundary down the Caspian sea - Georgia in, Armenia out seems a bit arbitrary ?



So cobbled together is pretty accurate, whatever criteria they use, which at best is debatable. I love the RC though by the way, so I am not denigrating it. It has entertaining novelty value every second year and invariably provides top quality golf.

Seve OB

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

What is "European" though ? That is certainly not clear.

They use the flag of the Council of Europe so is it those members that can play for this Europe ? So Kazakstanis can play but Poland neighbours Belarus cannot ?

Or is the European union countries?

Or is it the Eurovision criteria, so countries like Israel (and Australia ?) are eligible ?

Or is the countries that the European tour operates in ?

Or the European Economic Area ? Or the European Free Trade Area ?

Or geographically ? Russians from this side of the Urals are European but those from the Eastern side are Asian and so cannot ?

Where do you draw the boundary down the Caspian see - Georgia in, Armenia out seems a bit arbitrary ?



So cobbled together is pretty accurate, whatever criteria they use, which at best is debatable. I love the RC though by the way, so I am not denigrating it. It has entertaining novelty value every second year and invariably provides top quality golf.

It was changed from GB & I to include continental Europe. So any country within Europe. There is no mention of European Union, Eurovision, where the tour goes, the EEC, the EEA, the EFTA, Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Brexit or whatever is next...

Open to any European who is a member of the European tour. Quite simple really.

So in fairness Europe is as much cobbled together as the USA is with their 50 states including Hawaii and Alaska. Still don't buy that I'm afraid.

It's great I love it

Joe_ Public

Seve OB wrote: »

It was changed from GB & I to include continental Europe. So any country within Europe. There is no mention of European Union, Eurovision, where the tour goes, the EEC, the EEA, the EFTA, Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Brexit or whatever is next...

Open to any European who is a member of the European tour. Quite simple really.

So in fairness Europe is as much cobbled together as the USA is with their 50 states including Hawaii and Alaska. Still don't buy that I'm afraid.

It's great I love it

It should really be the GB, Ireland & Continental Europe team but I don't suppose that would look great on the merchandise!

CMOTDibbler

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

What is "European" though ? That is certainly not clear.

They use the flag of the Council of Europe so is it those members that can play for this Europe ? So Kazakstanis can play but Poland neighbours Belarus cannot ?

Or is the European union countries?

Or is it the Eurovision criteria, so countries like Israel (and Australia ?) are eligible ?

Or is the countries that the European tour operates in ?

Or the European Economic Area ? Or the European Free Trade Area ?

Or geographically ? Russians from this side of the Urals are European but those from the Eastern side are Asian and so cannot ?

Where do you draw the boundary down the Caspian sea - Georgia in, Armenia out seems a bit arbitrary ?



So cobbled together is pretty accurate, whatever criteria they use, which at best is debatable. I love the RC though by the way, so I am not denigrating it. It has entertaining novelty value every second year and invariably provides top quality golf.

All made clear by the European Tour after Brexit:

“The criteria for being European in Ryder Cup terms is a geographical one (ie from countries who make up the continent of Europe) not a political or economic one (ie countries who make up the EU).”

"Cobbled together" is not really an accurate description. That means hastily and carelessly assembled which is far from the way the European team is picked. There are very clear rules and very clear criteria.

valoren

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Exactly. No one does. But they give Olympic medals for it. Its girls playing with a ribbon on the end of a stick making spirals with it.

And Golf? Essentially,people using different sticks to hit a ball around a field into holes in the ground and the one who actually plays the least wins a gold medal.

Chivito550

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Exactly. No one does. But they give Olympic medals for it. Its girls playing with a ribbon on the end of a stick making spirals with it.

You mean Rhythmic Gymnastics?

There's far more to it than that. Quite a condescending and belittling comment.

Seve OB

Chivito550 wrote: »

You mean Rhythmic Gymnastics?

There's far more to it than that. Quite a condescending and belittling comment.

sure golf is about girls and guys using sticks to hit a little white ball into a hole 400 or so yards away.

football is 11 guys trying to get the ball into the opposing net.

rugby is about 15 guys trying to get the ball over the end line.

Of course there is a lot more to each of them, but that's what they do on the tin

Joe_ Public

Baton twirling is not rhythmic gymnastics I don't think, although there may be similarities. I know nothing really about baton twirling other than it would always be in the list of sports bodies funding every year.

CMOTDibbler

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Baton twirling is not rhythmic gymnastics I don't think, although there may be similarities. I know nothing really about baton twirling other than it would always be in the list of sports bodies funding every year.

Yeah, it's a completely different sport and is not an Olympic sport either. There's a vague similarity but only as much as there's a vague similarity between volleyball and tennis.

Jawgap

Chivito550 wrote: »

You mean Rhythmic Gymnastics?

There's far more to it than that. Quite a condescending and belittling comment.

Seriously?

Rhythmic Gymnastics is a joke - as are gymnastics and dressage - anything that requires subjective judgment to be applied to allow scores to be awarded is not a sport and immediately fails the 'test' of "citius, altius, fortius."

I'm not saying participants are not impressively athletic (they most certainly are), but when aesthetics as opposed to time, scores and points are your metric you're talking about the arts, not sport.

Joe_ Public

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously?

Rhythmic Gymnastics is a joke - as are gymnastics and dressage - anything that requires subjective judgment to be applied to allow scores to be awarded is not a sport and immediately fails the 'test' of "citius, altius, fortius."

I'm not saying participants are not impressively athletic (they most certainly are), but when aesthetics as opposed to time, scores and points are your metric you're talking about the arts, not sport.

Half the olympic sports would be gone at that rate, though - boxing, judo, wrestling etc
I dont have a problem with any sports in the olympics bar one - modern pentathlon where they ride their rival competitors horses which I believe is not safe for the animals and should be disbarred. Other than that it's live and let live.

Jawgap

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Half the olympic sports would be gone at that rate, though - boxing, judo, wrestling etc
I dont have a problem with any sports in the olympics bar one - modern pentathlon where they ride their rival competitors horses which I believe is not safe for the animals and should be disbarred. Other than that it's live and let live.

No, boxing is points - plus you can always rewind the tape to see if someone did land a punch to score.

Judo and wrestling are all about falls and/or submissions - it's a matter of fact if you've pinned or flipped someone.

I like the modern Pentathlon - the idea of a discipline based on the skills required of king's messenger is appealing! I didn't realise that about the horses, though, it doesn't sound great alright.

Joe_ Public

Jawgap wrote: »

No, boxing is points - plus you can always rewind the tape to see if someone did land a punch to score.

Judo and wrestling are all about falls and/or submissions - it's a matter of fact if you've pinned or flipped someone.

I like the modern Pentathlon - the idea of a discipline based on the skills required of king's messenger is appealing! I didn't realise that about the horses, though, it doesn't sound great alright.

Boxing is officiated by 5 judges, 3 of whose score is counted, and they often have wildly different interpretations of fights (and inevitably there are always controversies). They score each round 10 to winner and a sliding scale from 9 down to 6 for the loser. Even the former point per punch system was fairly subjective. And they don't have the benefit of instant replays to guide them either.

There is a degree of subjectivity in all those combat sports. They have rules, sure, but there is always a referee and a judge to interpret them. Some winter sports like ski jumping require subjective judging too.

Chivito550

Jawgap wrote: »

No, boxing is points - plus you can always rewind the tape to see if someone did land a punch to score.

Judo and wrestling are all about falls and/or submissions - it's a matter of fact if you've pinned or flipped someone.

I like the modern Pentathlon - the idea of a discipline based on the skills required of king's messenger is appealing! I didn't realise that about the horses, though, it doesn't sound great alright.

Boxing is a judged based event. If the judge doesn’t believe somebody landed a punch then it doesn’t count. A different judge might view it differently. Boxing is probably the sport with the most controversy when it comes to judging actually. You can’t have it both ways. Either you want all sports which rely on somebody’s interpretation gone (that includes football) or none of them gone.

And they NEVER rewind the tape.

Raisins

It's nothing to do with being honest to a fault and its got everything to do with McIroy's selfishness. He's selfish for one thing because he sees no added value in using his talent to bring home a huge achievement for the country as a whole. People criticise Ronaldo and some of his emotion was undoubtedly a reflection of the personal credit he would get for winning an international tournament but even the biggest cynic couldn't say that he wasn't clearly ecstatic by the fact that he used his talent to win the first international tournament for Portugal in their history. McIroy knows how few gold medals we have ever won in our history and he couldn't even be bothered to turn up.

Not only that but he's even more selfish and unbelievably arrogant in that he goes a step further and says that if someone like Seamus Power goes and braves the Zika he'd prefer to watch the diving - a sport we're not even competing in - because it doesn't matter.

That's a very mean spirited comment.

Chivito550

Raisins wrote: »

It's nothing to do with being honest to a fault and its got everything to do with McIroy's selfishness. He's selfish for one thing because he sees no added value in using his talent to bring home a huge achievement for the country as a whole. People criticise Ronaldo and some of his emotion was undoubtedly a reflection of the personal credit he would get for winning an international tournament but even the biggest cynic couldn't say that he wasn't clearly ecstatic by the fact that he used his talent to win the first international tournament for Portugal in their history. McIroy knows how few gold medals we have ever won in our history and he couldn't even be bothered to turn up.

Not only that but he's even more selfish and unbelievably arrogant in that he goes a step further and says that if someone like Seamus Power goes and braves the Zika he'd prefer to watch the diving - a sport we're not even competing in - because it doesn't matter.

That's a very mean spirited comment.

We have actually qualified a diver for Rio. Oliver Dingley in the 3m springboard. But your post is valid.