( another in the long a** series of posts )
We haven’t been watching much golf here lately. We have been watching a lot of Olympics. Which of course brings up the golf-in-the-Olympics discussion. Only it’s not much of a discussion since here in The Household we think it’s a pretty silly idea.
The stated purpose of the Olympics is to determine the best in the world. And perhaps for some sports it does. Those sports where the participants aren’t considered ‘professionals’. But for those sports where professionals play, winning a gold medal does not make you the best in the world.
Cuba won the baseball gold, but they played against single and double AA players from the US. Do you really think they would have beaten the Bosox? Or heck, even the Seattle Mariners? And the basketball ‘redeem team’. Unlike the baseball team it consists of first stringers. But even then, they may win gold, but could they beat the Boston Celtics? They are playing for fun, and for free. Making the mortgage payment on the million dollar mansion depends on how they play during the NBA season, not winning the gold. Even the most stand out player on the Olympic team is out of a job next June if he doesn’t perform during the regular season, gold medal winner or not. Rafael Nadal won the tennis gold. Which is fine. We all know he’s # 1. But let’s say Nadal was tired, and ate some bad Peking Duck, and some no-name Swedish player took the gold. Would the world really see him as World #1? I don’t think so. ( and while we’re on the subject, can I just point out this particular picture of Mr. Nadal? Mmmmmmmm. Okay. Back to the point I am making.). And as for golf. If John Daly or Michelle Wie won the gold, would the golf world suddenly say ‘Oh, well then. Obviously he/she’s World #1? ‘. Uh…no.
So here’s the thing. When you can earn a living playing your sport, and I mean earn, not be supported by donations and government grants given to Olympic training centers who can then give you a stipend, and I mean playing, not coaching, best in the world is determined by the number of times you win, and the money you make. Not by winning a gold medal.
At which point you say ‘Well then, only amateurs can play.’ Two things. First, do you think any one would tune in to watch amateurs play? They would have to let professionals play for the same reasons they had to let professionals play tennis and basket ball. Because no matter how good the amateurs were, the whole world would know the pros were better, hence no one would watch. Second, there are already many famous amateur tournaments, and the top amateurs in those tournaments get slots to play in several professional tournaments, including The Masters. Playing in the Olympics every 4 years would no more pick out the top amateur than it would pick out the top professional. And the top amateurs each year play their way onto the tour. They aren’t going to hang around the amateur ranks another 4 years to try again. So golf in the Olympics only makes sense if the professionals are allowed to play.
Then there is the whole ‘representing your country’ thing. Ha. Do you listen to where most of the top athletes live and train? The US. If they are representing their country, shouldn’t they actually live and train in that country? Shouldn’t it be about the level of athlete that country can produce, not the level of athlete the US can produce for them? That Serbian swimmer who came in second to Michael Phelps? Born in Anaheim and raised in the US. High school and college in California. And have you heard about Becky Hammon? A US basketball player who is played for Russia. And the Brazilian beach volley ball players who were given Georgian citizenship? Lets say, hypothetically, that the US decided that any one with the last name of Phelps was not allowed to wear that nifty new swimsuit in competition. And then Australia came along and offered Michael the new suit, and citizenship along with it. Do you really think for one minute he wouldn’t take them up on it? That he would take the chance on competing against swimmers in the nifty new suit, and perhaps missing out on the gold, just so he could represent the USA? That whole ‘represent the country’ thing sounds good, and at some level I’m sure it matters to the athletes, particularly if they win gold and are standing on the top podium and the Star Spangled Banner is playing. But seriously. After you have devoted your whole life to training for and competing in a sport, do you really think you would let a little thing like which country you competed for stand in your way? In the end it is about the individual athlete, not the country.
So to get back to golf here. Professional golfers come from all over the world. Each event on the tour is an international event. And there is a European Tour. And an Asian tour. Professional golfers, men and women, have the chance to ‘represent their country’ every time they step up to the first tee. But when Annika wins they don’t say ‘Sweden wins the tournament’. Because Annika isn’t there for Sweden. Annika is there for Annika. And just like Becky Hammon, or the hypothetically swim suit banned Mr. Phelps, if Sweden wouldn’t have her Annika would play for whoever will.
For professional golfers to participate in the Olympics, every 4 years they would have to give up 4 weeks or so of tournament play ( read – give up earning money). And for what? To play against the same players they would have in a tournament, but do it for free? And winning would be nice, but it wouldn’t mean you were any higher in the rankings than before you played.
There is no motivation for any professional golfer to play in the Olympics for the chance to win the gold. There is no money, and very little glory, in winning the gold.
This fact has been noted by the luke warm ( and that’s putting it diplomatically ) response to the idea by the players themselves, and by numerous golf commentators over the years. Just recently see here and here.
So why do ‘they’ keep floating the golf-in-the-Olympics idea? Supposedly it is to help golf become a global sport. Make the world aware of the game. Help spur the development of courses and a teaching infrastructure world wide. Un huh. Where exactly DON’T they play golf? The British got around, and where ever they went, they took golf. Golf is already a global game. Just look at the countries the current crop of professionals, men and women, come from. And as for those countries that don’t have golf, ask yourself, would having golf in the Olympics really result in courses being built in Mongolia, or Yeman? Golf is an expensive sport. It requires large tracts of land, expensive equipment, and lots of leisure time. The places where those things exist already have golf. The places where those things don’t exist aren’t going to suddenly decide they need to spend scarce resources on golf just because they saw it in the Olympics.
I like the Olympics. We watched a lot of sports ( see here. Replace ice skating with rhythmic gymnastics or synchronized swimming, and keep reading. ) and a few competitions. Well really only gymnastics. And actually only Offspring #2 watched that. And it was tivo’d so she could watch it when the rest of us weren’t around. The bias is showing here I know, but anything that can have ‘exhibitions’ after the competition is over isn’t a sport, and quite frankly the rest of us have little interest in it. Anyway. I like the Olympics. And for many sports the Olympics truly are ‘it’. Winning the gold really does mean you are the best in the world.
But golf in the Olympics just doesn’t make much sense. Although Scott Michaux has an idea that just might work. If he could get anyone to listen. Which, chances of that are…….
So the golf-in-the-Olympics discussion around here usually consists of:
‘Lets hope they never manage to add golf to the Olympics’.
‘Yeah’.
Comments