Why golf shouldn't be at the Olympics
Published 18/08/2008 16:51:53 in Golf Features
There are movements afoot to make golf an Olympic sport once again after a 104 year hiatus. If lobbyists have their way, we could see the top golfers duking it out in the 2016 games. Many professionals are in favour of its inclusion, no doubt keen to grab a gold medal to go with their millions. I don't agree with them.
Golf is a massive participation sport, one of the few that has a truly global appeal. In the modern era it also has figureheads that are not only excellent proponents of the sport, but also genuine world stars. Tiger Woods is a global icon and a squeaky-clean ambassador to boot.
Pro vs Amateur
Now in order for the golfing Olympic event to be worthwhile, it simply has to include professional players. This much isn't up for debate. A golfing event without Tiger Woods or Padraig Harrington would be seriously devalued. The Olympics isn't supposed to be about big names, granted, it's supposed to be about the best athletes reaching their peak with the world watching.
However the Olympics were always traditionally about amateur athletes. I say traditionally because with sports like football (or soccer if you prefer) and tennis now rife with stars like Ronaldinho and Roger Federer, it's clear the IOC are thinking more about boosting ratings and popularity rather than retaining integrity.
Golf already has four marquee events - the majors, each with a massive purse and all the rewards that go with it. Ask any golfer if he'd rather a Claret Jug or a gold medal - I would hope he'd say the former. Or ask Rafael Nadal would he swap this year's Wimbledon trophy for the golf medal won in Bejjing? I think not.
Pinnacle
This brings us on to my main beef with golf in the Olympics - it simply isn't representative of the pinnacle of the sport. Golf, and even tennis, are tour competitions where consistency over the year is rewarded with a higher place in the rankings. They are characterised by their "majors", be it at Augusta or Roland Garros. So trying to encapsulate this into one event doesn't truly reflect what the sports have become in the modern era.
Do we really need to see Tiger with a gold medal draped across his chest to prove he's number one?
"It would be great to have an Olympic gold medal, but if you asked any player, 'Would you rather have an Olympic gold medal or green jacket or Claret Jug ?' more players would say the majors." - World #1 Tiger Woods
Logistics
The very nature of golf is a long, drawn-out affair. The likelihood is that an Olympic event would be a full four day tournament. Is this too long to hold attention outside of the core golfing crowd? The event that attracts the most attention lasts a mere 9.69 seconds, golf just doesn't get the blood pumping in the same way. Sure, whilst Tiger is around there will be crowds drawn. But what about when he inevitably loses his grip on the game (be it via choice or circumstance)? Will golf be just another event in the roster, a rich pro's playground?
"I think that golf as an Olympic sport is exponentially more important to the game of golf than the majors. And the reason for that is it would bring in 168 different countries and their Olympic foundations and all those revenues would go towards the growth of the game." - World #2 Phil Mickelson
Summary
The Olympics don't need a golfing event, just like they don't need a tennis or football event. There is a definite resentment towards these players who are already multi-millionaires stealing the show from athletes who often struggle for sponsorship. Athletes who train for hours a day at sports like rowing, weightlifting, sailing or cycling - they don't have deals with Nike or Buick to fall back on.
© John Byrne 2008