Do you consider Olympic Gold to be as important as a Major?

Olympic gold by far.

Olympic gold in a sport definitely.  Olympic gold in golf, no.

I voted no.  (Full disclosure:  I have no idea what the format for the Olympics is going to be; stroke play tournmament, match play, team play Ryder Cup style??)

 

And I base that on the way we look at Olympic Gold for tennis players, which has a pretty similar setup to golf.  In tennis, when they tout the accomplishments of say, Venus Williams or Rafael Nadal, I don't ever hear them mention the Olympic medals as equal to majors.

 

It might all depend on how seriously the Olympics are taken by the best golfers.  If it has a world-class major quality field, then cetainly it is an accomplishment that means something.  On the other hand, if everybody is skipping it because they are concentrating on something else, then it won't mean a whole lot.

The level/depth of talent at the Olympics in Golf is going to be far less than what is found in a Major I believe.  Thus, I voted no.

Being the first golfer to win a gold medal since 1904 will be a unique honor, and certainly historic.

 

Here's my take - if you were to ask guys who haven't won a major "would you rather", I'm guessing 90%+ would rather win a major. However, if you were to ask guys with 1 or multiple majors the same question, my guess is 50%ish would rather have the gold medal than another major.

I mean, who is going to represent a country like Russia in golf?  What about China?  These are typically dominant countries in the Olympics... But in golf?  Not so much.

That is a very valid point.  I wonder if they will do like they did for the World Baseball Classic where Americans with some heritage from that country will play for them, like most of the Italian team.

 

They got rid of baseball at the Olympics because not enough countries were well represented (and I believe they did the same with softball, and maybe even Women's soccer and/or hockey?)

 

Also just realized that this is a premature topic because they aren't doing it until 2016.  (I was thinking they would be having it this year when I saw the poll.)

Even in other sports, it's not really as big a deal.  Ask an international in soccer if they'd rather win a league championship or an Olympic gold medal and they'll probably not hesitate to say a league championship.  Ask if they'd rather win an Olympic gold medal or a World Cup and they'd probably need a few minutes to compose themselves from hysterics before saying a World Cup.

 

For some sports, the Olympics are the pinnacle of competition.  For others, they aren't even on the radar.  Golf falls in the latter category.

Yes, good point.  All of those sports that don't have professional leagues are the ones where the olympics matter the most; gymnastics, swimming, track and field, etc.

Almost seems like they shouldn't get the same medal Michael Phelps gets.  Maybe get them a big chocolate medal wrapped in gold foil.

You need to add a choice for "None of the above," just in case there are people who think they play golf more than four weeks a year.

Since Olympic golf is four years away, and we have no idea who will play, how can anyone say anything intelligent about the value of the medal? Does anybody even know who won the gold medal in tennis at the last Olympics?

But to try to answer the question: "Say Tiger won four more majors, tying him with Nicklaus, but also won Olympic Gold, would it be enough to be considered the best ever?"

If Tiger wins four more majors, then he will clearly be the best ever, whether or not he has a gold medal, because he will be ahead of Jack in every other stat: more total wins, more Vardons, more money titles, more POYs, etc. Diehard Jack fans will be left mumbling about how many times he finished second.

I think he's the best ever already, because I don't see what tacking on a few majors at the end of your career has to do with how dominant you were in your prime.

Yep, football is an Under 23 tournament with 3 overage players allowed, No Becks for Team GB which is good. It is way down the list of career goals.

 

The golf tournament will be weak if it follows other major sports, there will only be 4(ish) players from each country which will rule out a huge slug of players from the US & Australia. England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland don't have separate Olympics squads so there will be top 50 players from the UK not making it, even allowing for some of the Northern Irish guys turning out for Ireland, which is their choice.

 

The only time anyone has made a big deal of the Olympic Gold in Tennis is when Steffi Graf won it the same year she did the Slam.

 

Not sure I agree with the poll questions. Important to who? The Stanley Cup is great, but ask Mats Sundin if he'd trade his Olympic Gold Medal to have his name on the Cup. Ask Joe Lunchbox on the street in TO and the answer would almost uninmously be the Stanley Cup.

 

Who cares what we the fans think is more important?

This kind of furthers the point I was making.  I started to use Serena Williams as a comparison, then realized I had no idea, and had to google it.

 

That was my reason for voting no as well.

Ditto. A watered down field won't bring the level of drama or competition that even a standard pga tour event has. It will still be interesting to watch. But once the field has been chosen, it should be pretty obvious which players have a chance at the gold. It should be pretty anti-climactic.

This will be like the old Canada Cup, or what ever it's called now. Not a big deal.

 

Think of how it is in tennis. All anybody cares about is winning a grand slam event. That a player won a Olympic gold medal rarely, of ever, gets mentioned. Tennis in the Olympics is an exhibition. It will be in golf too.

 

 

Given the international flavor of the tournament and makeup of the field, I think they should give the gold medal to the player who wins the British Open in an Olympic year.