just heard on tgc that they will represent golf at international events and lobby for golf becoming an olympic sport. and the vote by the ioc will be next year.

so......wrxtypes, golf/olympics: yes or no? why?

I'm just not seeing it personally. hell we have the ryder cup/presidents cup/ and huge purses on tour. maybe for junior or senior golfers but even then it seems silly frankly.

what you all think?

I think it would be cool to see the players play for their own country.

Plus, Tiger needs a gold medal. God knows he has every other trophy.

I agree that it should be added. The golfers should be given the opporunity to play for their country like most other sports. I would be that at leat 50% of them would say that it was an honor and something they would never forget. Plus it will allow other countries to get some golfing attention.

I'm still not convinced either way.

On the one hand, my perception (which may be wrong, but nevertheless it is my perception) is that the Olympics is now made up of macho athletes on steroids. In sports where there is any type of judging it is crooked as the day is long. The Olympic Committee basically wants a commitment from all the world's best players that they will actually play in the Olympics if golf is included (that's why they had to do that video with Tiger and many other players saying "we support this.")- well that's not part of the Olympic spirit. Have we pre-determined qualifications? Is the Olympics now commercial? It may be, but I don't feel like the Olympic Committee should be making their decision based on which players are going to show up ahead of time.

I don't want golf associated with all that.

On the other hand, why the heck not? 90% of the known planet has golf courses. Alan Shepherd even hit a shot on the moon- not too many other sports can claim that. If curling belongs in the Olympics, why not golf? I don't understand why sports are included then removed... I'm sure it has something to do with economics, but I don't see the economics of curling so I'm confused.

I don't know how to feel about this. I know other than Phelps this past year, I refused to watch the Olympics and I didn't feel like I was missing anything. There was even controversy in the 100M dash- I mean, c'mon. The whole event lasts less than 10 seconds. Controversy?

If the Olympics is a commercial enterprise, it seems everyone is making money at the expense of the athletes. With the exception of a few who then get endorsements (like Phelps), which is fine, I'm sure the big money is in TV contracts.

The Olympics seems full of itself. I don't care.

Someone please convince me I'm wrong. When I was a kid, the Olympics was fun. I even had brief aspirations of qualifying as a sprinter when I was a kid.

Was that just juvenile utopia?

No one is making money at the "expense" of athletes at the olympics. They are making money as a result of athletes but far from it being "at their expense". Many more then phelps get money as a result of the O and they get $ from the USOC for medaling. Not many make it like Phelps does...but without the O no one in mainstream would know Jenny Finch, that Tomato-head snow-boarding kid (sean something---he is on TV every day and has his own video game), Kristi Yamaguchi, or Shawn Johnson/Mary-Lou Retton types from gymnastics. People from those sports know these athletes, but without the O, I would know know any of them thanks to their endorsements.

Golf is an old sport...I don't see why not. I believe it would add to the drama and marketing to get viewers up! It would be very cool to see a kid out of "no-wheres ville" to beat everyone! Plus, I think it's every athletes dream to have an Olympic medal! Golfers included...

In the spirit of the Olympics (youth of the world and so on) it would be best if it would be amateurs participating.
But as the Olympics are one big business nowadays, they have to have players who they can do marketing with and for that they need the pros.

As for golf as an olympic sport..hell, yes. If skeet shooting and airgun are olympic disciplines, golf sure belongs there too.

I'm probably biased because I've played on the only Olympic course in the USA (Glen Echo CC), but even if golf is included in the Olympics, it should be amateur only. Basketball and hockey have been ruined by the addition of professional athletes.

Ahhh...this is an arguement that drives me nuts. What was so amazing about the 1980 hockey team win was that it was our amateurs against THEIR PROfessional. The same goes for basketball...if other countries have professional leagues and they use their own best players for the olympics, we should do the same. The amateur thing worked nice when our amateurs were as good and could compete with the other countrie's best pros...but now, if want any shot at a basketball medal it has to be our best. The same goes for most other sports as well. Olympic hockey was boring until the NHL allowed their players to play for their countries...now it is amazing to watch.

Oprah's got nothing to do with it.......................

BDLz

The other thing to keep in mind(and that is a very good point about the other countrires' professinoals) is how you raise the level of the game.

I'm always curious at how basketball has been "ruined". If you go to 1956, the collegians killed everyone by something like 56 points a game. Move ahead to 1972, and while the result is very controversial, the fact is the Soviets were actually in the game with the US by that point. The rest of the world had caught up to the collegians(with their pros).

Move forward to 1992, when the NBA players were allowed to compete(done so in a vote that the US voted *against* allowing them btw). Again, we're back to huge blowouts. BUt an interesting thing started to happen. The NBA started to see more and more international players. by 2002 the US was not winning the world championship(finishing 5th actually), did not win the Gold medal in 2004, and look at what they needed to do to win this year: get a 3 year commitment from players, and have Kobe Bryant and LeBron James carry a heavy load. The rest of the world is playing basketball at a higher level than ever before, because of the NBA involvement. When you can play against the best, you can learn what you need to do to become the best.

How is basketball ruined?

How the Olympics would be better with Finland's "cops" who aren't really cops running(Lasse Viren, multiple gold medalist in distance events), or Army "members" who aren't(Soviet hockey team) instead of what we have now is beyond my comprehension. Particularly the last 50 years or so they never were amateurs. Amateur is a term used by the rich people from the 1800s to keep out the people who were too poor to have any leisure time. Wanting "amateurs" back in the Olympics would result in reverting to that same scenario. After all, who can afford to train enough to become an Olympic caliber athlete and still pay for food and shelter?

Whether or not certain teams "cheated" is irrelevant in my mind, the Olympics should be about amateur competition. I don't know about other sports, but it was always very special seeing local college and high school players go to the Olympics and compete - that is what made the hockey golf medals in 19800 so very special.

(By the way, our "collegians" had many of the same advantages as their "pros" - outstanding training facilities, meals provided, trainers, physicians etc.)

At this point, I could care less what sports are in the Olympics. I refuse to watch. I know I am in the minority, and I know that far more people disagree than agree, but you asked for our opinions, so there you are...

Wasn't that the big complaint many years ago? The Soviet gov't allowed these "amateur" athletes to eat, sleep, drink, and practice their sport 24x7 all paid for by the gov't. Many of them were sequestered from their families for years. They were bigger, stronger, and faster than our collegiate athletes and were physically equivalent to our professional athletes (although not as talented).

Allowing our pros to play in the Olympics leveled the playing field and it showed- we stuck it to them in basketball.

The thing to me is that pro golf is already an international sport. It's going to be the same cast of characters that we have now. They just get to play for their country instead of for themselves.

I guess the big benefit is that there are many people who watch the Olympics and they will theoretically be exposed to golf. On a normal day, they wouldn't give golf a look.

I guess it can help to grow the game in places where it is mostly unknown.

Except that they had all these advantages in their mid to late 20s, so they had physical maturity on their side as well. Don't remember too many 27 year old collegians.

Still irrelevant. The Olympics are nothing more than all star games for professional athletes now. Nothing special.

So when the US sends amateur athletes to compete against other countries' professionals, all is well with the world(because the US and canada were the only ones), but once *their* professionals compete, *then* it's a bad thing?

Like the Olympics or don't like them, that's fine. Lord knows I can come up with a million reasons to avoid them. But "amateurism" is a complete and total sham that does nothing but put control into the hands of bureaucrats, and shifts the money into the hands of everyone other than those who are putting on the show that people come to see. I'm glad you would rather that an American athlete need to work at a bar or on food staps in order to trian properly to compete, rather than get a payment for participating in an event that people have paid money to wacth him compete in.

Athletics are no more or less ignoble a profession than any other. Amateurism is simply communism, athletics-style. In other words, BS.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that, nor did I imply it.

Cheating is always bad.

Athletes do not have to be on food stamps or work at a bar (unless that is where they would be working anyway) to train properly. Amateurs do have to make sacrifices for the love of the game - that is exactly the point, and the one that is lost when professionals replace amateurs.

The inequity in money is another issue altogether, and one that is not limited to the Olympics - in fact I'd say it is actually much less of a problem in the Olympics than other sporting events (like college football). Oh, and the players still do not see any revenue from the Olympics anyway, so the "solution" doesn't spread the wealth, nor does it address sports like swimming where there is no professional counterpart.

I'd also be the first to admit I don't know what the solution is. That doesn't mean I think the one that has been chosen is suitable by any stretch.


That is one opinion. Fairly stated. I just don't agree with it.