Is Golf an Olympic Sport

slave1

A few threads have been taken Off Topic with this worthy debate so now it has a home....

I don't really get the amateurs only logic. The Olympics is full of professionals these days.

slave1

I agree with you, but it's just a poll option as Golf is a sport where you can readily identify an amateur

fullstop

Yes.

Daft question. Did you miss the 2016 Olympics?

yaboya1

Yes, golf is an Olympic sport.
Should it be? Probably not.

callaway92

yaboya1 wrote: »

Yes, golf is an Olympic sport.
Should it be? Probably not.

What'd be your opinion on Soccer and Tennis?

On Soccer; I don't think it should be in the Olympics, but at least the criteria is different.

I genuinely don't understand why Tennis is there (same as Golf)

AndyBoBandy

callaway92 wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand why Tennis is there (same as Golf)

Because there’s money to be made. People want to watch the best compete against each other, something non professionals just cannot provide.

Roger_007

I've always had an idealistic view of the Olympic Games in that it should be only sports where individual competitors compete against each other.
Team sports should have no place in the games because virtually all team sports have their own world championships which are far more prestigious than tagging them on as a sideshow in the Olympics.
On that basis golf is perfectly ok with me as an Olympic sport, provided that players compete as individuals and there are no team events, (like fourballs or foursomes). However, I don't think that most professional golfers would regard an Olympic medal as more desirable, than a major win. Also there is no prize money.
As to the question of whether it should only amateur players that are permitted to play in the Olympics, (like as in boxing), I think that is an idea worth experimenting with. It would certainly mean much more to an amateur player to win an Olympic medal than it would mean to a professional.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I think putting in a medal for golf, soccer or tennis adds to the whole spectacle. Especially as you get global superstars to compete in these sports. That's mainly why I like it.

I mean in comparison to indoor cycling, which has to be the dullest sport ever envisaged, where they hand out 10 medals for the different types of indoor cycling. Same goes for a rake of different swimming medals that are on offer.

Or when they got rid of wrestling as an Olympic sport for a time even though it is super legit. Nearly all MMA fighters would put wrestling in their top 2 or 3 of skills that are needed in order to fight and compete.

I'd keep golf, and basically try have as many different sports at the Olympics as possible. But have a look at having less categories and medals within the same sport.

callaway92

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Because there’s money to be made. People want to watch the best compete against each other, something non professionals just cannot provide.

ah come on... I know that and that's pretty much spoken for.

It's other factors.

I think the main point of it is; even with Track & Field now with their Diamond Leagues; all sports are now at such a high level that we can expect more-and-more in the Olympics.

salmocab

Sports should only be in the olympics if winning an Olympic gold is the pinnacle of the sport. That’s how I see it. If winning a major in golf or tennis is bigger then they shouldn’t be there.

PhuckHugh22

There is only 1 correct answer to this question.