The IOC have voted to include golf in the next games, and Brazil is already building its Olympic golf course. In 2016, the games will feature 60 men and 60 women, competing in 72-hole strokeplay events.
Some thoughts:
1. Does the Olympic Games "need" golf? Actually, I don't see why not. It's a sport that doesn't demand genetic abnormality or superhuman strength to be successful, unlike some, and also one that doesn't have a history of cheating and drug-taking. Well, not on the course, anyway. Some people will still question golf's accessibility, but I bet more kids can buy a set of second-hand clubs and visit a driving range than go along to their nearest modern pentathlon club. Furthermore, it will certainly tick those modern Olympic ideals, ticketus, sponsorus, televisus.
2. Does golf "need" the Olympic games? This is trickier. For the top professionals like Rory McIlroy and Yani Tseng who will compete, the answer is almost certainly not, in terms of anything other than personal pride in becoming an Olympian and winning a medal - golf, like tennis, already has its Grand Slam events. Actually, though, at the junior level, many countries (including the UK) only distribute state development funds to sports that are in the Olympics. Golf doesn't have access to any such funding at present, from now on it will. Talented junior players in the UK may benefit from lottery funding, for example, rather than needing to follow the Luke Donald route of going to an American college to develop their game.
3. Will the event "matter" to players and fans, as much as say a major? I think it will slightly more in the women's game, only because more people will see who won the women's golf at the Olympics than ever watch the Women's US Open. For the men, whose existing majors get saturation coverage already, the planned event (a 60-man field made up of the world's top 15 plus the leading players from the next [x] countries to make up the number) will be nowhere near as strong as a major, or even a WGC event, but assuming the top 15 all show up, it will still be a decent one. It will be interesting if golfers start talking about needing to do this and that to get into the Olympics (Ernie Els's recent Open win, for example, lifted him into the world's top 15, and if I'm understanding the qualifying rules correctly, would have denied Louis Oosthuizen his Olympic spot as South Africa's rep outside the top 15. Will commentators make something of that in four years?). What I also wonder is whether the timing is off - the Olympic golf is likely to fall the week before the USPGA (unless they push the latter back), and that's an event some of the pros are likely to be thinking more about. All the pros interviewed about it have been hugely enthusiastic, saying it will be as important to them as any of the majors (the same seems to be true for the tennis guys) but I think the proof will only be in the pudding.
4. What about the format? Quite a few people (myself included) thought the opportunity was obvious to move away from the 72-hole strokeplay format and make Olympic golf matchplay, with 64-strong fields. This was apparently considered in some depth, but golf decided against it - two reasons I heard were firstly that matchplay runs the risk of three-quarters of the countries invited having no interest after the first couple of rounds, and also, simply, that "72 holes is golf's 100m. You don't ask Usain Bolt to run his event backwards just because it might make it more 'interesting'". I'm not sure I agree with either of these arguments. Firstly, back in the day, the old Dunhill Cup provided plenty of "OMG" matchplay moments (I remember Scotland losing to Paraguay) which (even if rare) would surely enhance, rather than diminish, the Olympics for those countries whose competitors are likely to be shooting 80s every day; and secondly, matchplay golf is the oldest, most exciting, and purest, form of golf, and one sadly underused. The other 4 majors are all at strokeplay, and yes, strokeplay can lead to 7 or 8 players all tussling for victory on the last day whereas matchplay by definition restricts interest to two, but I still think matchplay could make the Olympics special.
Some thoughts:
1. Does the Olympic Games "need" golf? Actually, I don't see why not. It's a sport that doesn't demand genetic abnormality or superhuman strength to be successful, unlike some, and also one that doesn't have a history of cheating and drug-taking. Well, not on the course, anyway. Some people will still question golf's accessibility, but I bet more kids can buy a set of second-hand clubs and visit a driving range than go along to their nearest modern pentathlon club. Furthermore, it will certainly tick those modern Olympic ideals, ticketus, sponsorus, televisus.
2. Does golf "need" the Olympic games? This is trickier. For the top professionals like Rory McIlroy and Yani Tseng who will compete, the answer is almost certainly not, in terms of anything other than personal pride in becoming an Olympian and winning a medal - golf, like tennis, already has its Grand Slam events. Actually, though, at the junior level, many countries (including the UK) only distribute state development funds to sports that are in the Olympics. Golf doesn't have access to any such funding at present, from now on it will. Talented junior players in the UK may benefit from lottery funding, for example, rather than needing to follow the Luke Donald route of going to an American college to develop their game.
3. Will the event "matter" to players and fans, as much as say a major? I think it will slightly more in the women's game, only because more people will see who won the women's golf at the Olympics than ever watch the Women's US Open. For the men, whose existing majors get saturation coverage already, the planned event (a 60-man field made up of the world's top 15 plus the leading players from the next [x] countries to make up the number) will be nowhere near as strong as a major, or even a WGC event, but assuming the top 15 all show up, it will still be a decent one. It will be interesting if golfers start talking about needing to do this and that to get into the Olympics (Ernie Els's recent Open win, for example, lifted him into the world's top 15, and if I'm understanding the qualifying rules correctly, would have denied Louis Oosthuizen his Olympic spot as South Africa's rep outside the top 15. Will commentators make something of that in four years?). What I also wonder is whether the timing is off - the Olympic golf is likely to fall the week before the USPGA (unless they push the latter back), and that's an event some of the pros are likely to be thinking more about. All the pros interviewed about it have been hugely enthusiastic, saying it will be as important to them as any of the majors (the same seems to be true for the tennis guys) but I think the proof will only be in the pudding.
4. What about the format? Quite a few people (myself included) thought the opportunity was obvious to move away from the 72-hole strokeplay format and make Olympic golf matchplay, with 64-strong fields. This was apparently considered in some depth, but golf decided against it - two reasons I heard were firstly that matchplay runs the risk of three-quarters of the countries invited having no interest after the first couple of rounds, and also, simply, that "72 holes is golf's 100m. You don't ask Usain Bolt to run his event backwards just because it might make it more 'interesting'". I'm not sure I agree with either of these arguments. Firstly, back in the day, the old Dunhill Cup provided plenty of "OMG" matchplay moments (I remember Scotland losing to Paraguay) which (even if rare) would surely enhance, rather than diminish, the Olympics for those countries whose competitors are likely to be shooting 80s every day; and secondly, matchplay golf is the oldest, most exciting, and purest, form of golf, and one sadly underused. The other 4 majors are all at strokeplay, and yes, strokeplay can lead to 7 or 8 players all tussling for victory on the last day whereas matchplay by definition restricts interest to two, but I still think matchplay could make the Olympics special.
Comment