Should Only Amateurs Compete in Olympic Golf?

[Spitfisher]

although I think it is a valid point, one only has to look back at other relatively new sports that have been offered to the Olympics- you will soon realize that sports such as Beach volleyball, snowboarding, etc

New additions were performed by either professionals or extremely well funded individuals by equipment manufactures or corporations..

[ghalfaire]

I would agree the Olympics are about National Prestige and countries spend big money to ensure that prestige which in turn requires big bucks sponsors.  Having said that to the competitors it is about the competition and being able to compare your skills with others.  As to the question of whether or not it should be confined to "track and field" evens or not I'd say the interest level would make it not economically feasible to televise and no one would see it if such a restriction existed.  Ever go to the local college Track and Field meets?  I thought so.

[ditchparrot19]

As to the question of whether or not it should be confined to "track and field" evens or not I'd say the interest level would make it not economically feasible to televise and no one would see it if such a restriction existed.  Ever go to the local college Track and Field meets?  I thought so.

The whole TV issue is a matter that's separate from competitive integrity, but the above statement is not relevant to any of it. Millions upon millions of people who don't give a rat's a$$ about the sport of track and field except for 1 week out of every 4 years are tuned in nightly. I'm a member of that demographic.

The only way I'd ever go to a local track meet at any level is if I had a very close relative participating.

[Spitfisher]

The Olympics is now a business. A very lucrative business at that. As with some of today's big businesses, there seems to be some  (alleged) corruption going on. It's about money first, then competition for the promoters of the events. I also believe that since it has become a money first, competition last, scenario it is becoming less and less important.

Do I think the games should go back to amateur status only?  I suppose if I had to make an unqualified decision, I would say "yes", that only amateurs should compete. In reality I know that will never happen again in some of the events.

As for pro golfers in the Olympics, I don't care one way or another. To me it will just be another WGC event. Come to think of it just another Ryder/Presidents cup event with countries competing against each other for medals won. I also think that just playing for a medal, and not millions of dollars will not be of much interest to some pro golfers. I think at some point, someone might even come up with the idea of making it a "Super Major" as a selling point. Maybe even a World Golf Tour for that Olympic year will become a topic of discussion.

What I would like to know is if any of the pro golfers will be paid for their time, after their normal expenses for being there have been paid. Like other contestants in other sports, they will receive travel, room, and board for earning the right to be there. For example, would Tiger Woods be paid  fee for his time?  Would his handlers expect such a fee to be paid? They have done this in the past. The Olympic folks are making money off the athlete's that attend these games......so?

This reply to your post was brought to you by ATT, NBC and Pepsi.......Tiger Woods as well any other athletes would have to qualify, No fee will be paid for his appearance, no prize money- just a medal.I very much doubt that Tiger woods would stay in the Olympic village dorms/housing or walk thru a buffet line.....I'm thinking helicopter in for the 1-2 preliminary rounds, then the medal rounds.. He may be there for opening ceremonies, but I wouldn't be surprised if he forgoes the opening ceremonies for his own security reasons. I think you will see him periodically as a spectator in standsoccasionally

appearance money, you say they have done this before, can you elaborate??

wrong: The Olympics folks make money well before the games even open, the athletic events are just a side show, Tickets sales are nothing,  fewer and fewer events are being attended especially for the out going areas where the events are held. The money is made through corporate sponsorships and underwriting and of course advertising and TV rights.

Regarding the TV broadcasts I would think the gold medal golf match might be seen on tape delay, very late at night or in one the "pay" Olympic viewing channels or on the web- where as beach volleyball will still be prime time due to match length, excitement and interest.

[Gunther]

I doubt Tiger or Phil qualify. 4 per country, yes? Probably Bubba, Spieth, Fowler, Reed. Horschel may sneak in if he can find that Fed Ex form again.

[Ernest Jones]

As much as I love watching Pros from the Big Three tear it up on Olympic ice I agree with @David in FL , should be amateurs.

[turtleback]

Which simply comes back to the "it's too hard" argument. Too hard to set guidelines, too hard to monitor, and too hard to enforce.

But unless I am mistaken, each sports' governing body makes the determination for that sort and we already have a very well defined body of material clearly delineating who is an amateur and who is not, in golf.  So while it might be "too hard" to make one set of rules for the whole Olympics, that is really a bit of a red herring because there is no reason there should be one rule for the whole Olympics.

Allowing each sport to set the parameters, amateur/not, definition of amateur, etc., eliminates the problem.

[Shindig]

AFAIK, boxing and wrestling are the only two Summer Games sports that require competitors to hold amateur status. If an athlete's chosen sport isn't lucrative enough for them to earn a living from it, that's another issue entirely.

Wouldn't it be awesome to see professional wrestling in the Olympics? There's precedent: events like gymnastics are pre-scripted by the participants, who are then judged based on difficulty (athleticism required, etc) and execution.

[David in FL]

Allowing each sport to set the parameters, amateur/not, definition of amateur, etc., eliminates the problem.

Not at all. In fact, in the context of this discussion, allowing each sport to do so causes the problem. There needs to be consistency. If the IOC established specific parameters, then it just becomes a matter of monitoring and enforcement. Not easy, I admit.

[Pretzel]

Not easy, but still easier than the "But HE/SHE is an amateur, so why am I not one?" that can happen if all of the sports determined their own amateur eligibility.

I think that golf has some pretty good rules regarding amateurism, ones that could be adapted without a large amount of effort by the IOC if they were interested in doing such a thing (though I doubt they are).

[ghalfaire]

The whole TV issue is a matter that's separate from competitive integrity, but the above statement is not relevant to any of it. Millions upon millions of people who don't give a rat's a$$ about the sport of track and field except for 1 week out of every 4 years are tuned in nightly. I'm a member of that demographic.

The only way I'd ever go to a local track meet at any level is if I had a very close relative participating.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  But I believe a Summer Olympic Games without aquatics, cycling, basketball, football, tennis, volleyball, archery, badminton, boxing, judo, rowing, shooting, table tennis, and some other events would suffer in the number of viewers (TV ratings) that it would eventually just go away and end up on an alternate ESPN cable channel.   Even if you believe some of these are "track and field" most certainly are not.

I do enjoy watching the Olympics and would not want to see it restricted to Track and Field events nor would I want to see it restricted to amateur competitors.  This latter comment because the definition of "amateur" varies with each country and so isn't really meaningful.

[ditchparrot19]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  But I believe a Summer Olympic Games without aquatics, cycling, basketball, football, tennis, volleyball, archery, badminton, boxing, judo, rowing, shooting, table tennis, and some other events would suffer in the number of viewers (TV ratings) that it would eventually just go away and end up on an alternate ESPN cable channel.   Even if you believe some of these are "track and field" most certainly are not.

I do enjoy watching the Olympics and would not want to see it restricted to Track and Field events nor would I want to see it restricted to amateur competitors.  This latter comment because the definition of "amateur" varies with each country and so isn't really meaningful.

Well, I'm not agreeing to anything because I never suggested eliminating sports such as swimming, diving, cycling, volleyball, archery, badminton, judo, rowing, shooting, table tennis or many others. Even boxing is fine because the Olympic version bears scant resemblance to the pro game.  And I'll never refer to soccer as "football," even though the name makes a lot more sense for that game than it does for the one I call football.

I'm only in favor of canning the ones that stage a regular event that carries greater significance than the Olympics. I don't believe that's the case for any of the above-mentioned sports, nor a lot of others. It is the case for basketball, soccer, tennis and golf.

[ghalfaire]

As to the question of whether or not it should be confined to "track and field" evens or not I'd say the interest level would make it not economically feasible to televise and no one would see it if such a restriction existed.

Here is what I initially said and you seemed to take issue with it.  E.G. what I said was if the Olympics was limited to "Track and Field" events it would soon be unsustainable at it's present scale because not many are interested enough in Track and Field to watch.  I took it from your initial response you disagreed with that.

[WUTiger]

Olympic golf would be much more interesting if only amateurs played. The world's pros have plenty of venues for exposure, and I don't know how interesting it would be to see Rory and Tiger play in Brazil.

I volunteered at the Curtis Cup this summer (Women Amateurs: USA vs. Britain/Ireland). I really found it interesting to see the amateurs play, and hear their different life stories. If we are serious about growing the game, let's get the amateurs into the spotlight: this might help the game more than an extra week with Rory and Tiger, or Paula Creamer and and Inbee Park.

The pros are risking overexposure. In 1996, golfdom formed the International Federation of PGA Tours . Main organizations involved were:

• PGA Tour (USA)
• European Tour
• Japan Golf Tour
• PGA Australasia
• Sunshine Tour (southern Africa)

The federation eventually created the four annual tournaments of the World Golf Championships (WGC).

With the world's different regional tours, the WGC, and the Ryder Cup and President's Cup, I don't see the pro golfers as lacking exposure. Let's give the playing slots and TV time to the amateurs.

[ditchparrot19]

Here is what I initially said and you seemed to take issue with it.  E.G. what I said was if the Olympics was limited to "Track and Field" events it would soon be unsustainable at it's present scale because not many are interested enough in Track and Field to watch.  I took it from your initial response you disagreed with that.

Hmmm ... there was a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

Track will likely always share the spotlight with women's gymnastics as the premier event of the Summer Games, but I agree that limiting the entire thing to track would kill it, for sure.

[No Mulligans]

I think it should be open to pros just like all the other sports.  Having olympic events be restricted to amatures creates a lack of parity when comparing to communist countries where in the past all the atheletes where "amatures".

I wonder how important the Olympics will be to golf.  We already have our majors and they are open to the best in the world.  What does the Olympic event add to that?