http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/story/99...r-2016-Olympics



BERLIN (AP) - International Olympic leaders are recommending golf and rugby for inclusion in the 2016 Summer Games.

The International Olympic Committee executive board selected the two Thursday from a list of seven proposed sports. Failing to make the cut were baseball, softball, squash, karate and roller sports.

The board will submit golf and rugby for ratification by the full 106-member IOC assembly in Copenhagen in October.

Golf was played at the 1900 Paris Olympics and 1904 St. Louis Games. Tiger Woods and other top players have said they would compete if the sport comes back in 2016. Rugby was last played at the 1924 Olympics in the full 15-a-side format. It proposes to return in the short-format 7-a-side version for both men and women

Who would it even work?

Let's say you have 10 countries that field a team... is it individual play, team play? If it's team play, how?

I really doubt it would be a team competition.

Golf is primarly an individual sport, so it will probably remain like that.2 to 4 rounds and top 3 are in the medals...

But there is another debate : Amateur only or pros allowed????

Maybe something similar to gymnastics where there is a team winner and an individual winner, i.e. lowest combined team score wins the round and the player with the fewest strokes win the individual?? Does anyone know how they did it in 1900 and 1904???

^^^^I like the Idea of team medals and indivual medals. There is also the question of how many golfers per country. My guess would be no more then 4 or imagine the size of the field. Qualifications will be easier in some countries.
I would not be surprise to see, like in many other sports, some folks with double citizenship go and represent a country where the odds are better... Last winter games there was a canadian skier that had no chance to make the canadian ski team, but wanted to live the olympic experience, he ended up being the first man from Madagascar to go to the winter games...

I don't think golf belongs in the Olympics, and the Olympics does not deserve golf.

According to the plan proposed, 60 players would play in ech of the men's and women's events. The top 15 world-ranked players would be eligible for the Olympics, regardless of the number of players from a given country. Beyond the top 15, players would be eligible based on world ranking, with a maximum of two eligible players from each country that does not already have two or more players among the top 15.

Doesn't really interest me. I consider myself a golfer first, then American.

Anyways it will probably turn out like olympic tennis- somewhat meaningful for players to "represent my country" and what not but not really a marquee event. Reason being is that there are already a plethora of international competitions which are considered the pinnacles of their sports. Olympic golf and tennis are sort of redundant.

Stuff like squash and kara-te make more sense because these sports don't get a chance on a big worldwide stage. Kind of like swimming, right? Maybe there is a Michael Phelps of kara-te somewhere who will not get his big chance, meanwhile we get to watch the same golfers we see all the time compete for a medal which, let's face it doesn't have nearly the value of a major championship.

Am I understanding this correctly?? So the top 15 in the world rankings are already in regardless of the country the represent, and then 2 more for each country represented??? Oh unless there are already 2 in the top 15?? What if there are more than 2 from lets say the US in the top 15? Do they take the top 2 and then bump the third off so another country can have its 2? This is confusing LOL

i love the thought of it,but it should only be a thought because as we all know the Olympics are for amature athletes not por's...thats why they had all of the problems with basketball and the dream team lol

What problems are you talking about with b-ball?


Personally, i think the best athletes in the world should be in the olympics. Pro or amateur..doesn't really matter to me.

I think an olympic medal would hold equal value as a major championship. As long as the course is set up like a major.

I think that golf in the olympics would be a good thing but that it should be amateurs only - not professionals.

I don't see how it could possibly be considered as anywhere near a major though - the field would exclude far too many players who could win.

Good news to hear. I've never really heard a reasonable argument of why not.

Gotta love uninformed posts that are posted as statements of fact. Why were there problems once the NBA players came in, when in 1988 all the countries had professionals on their roster, they just didn't play in the NBA? Kind of like European tour was eligible, but not PGA Tour.

Here are the facts: in 1988, the US voted *against* allowing NBA players, but the rest fof the world wanted it. In 1956, US collegians won games by an average of over 50 points. In 1972, even though the outcome was complete highway robbery, the point is the Soviets were competitive, and in 1988 actually won(even though Sean Elliott probably makes a huge difference there). In 1992 NBA players suit up, and they win by over 30 points a game. But by 2002, the US is 5th at World Championships, doesn't win gold in 2004. The NBA is filled with foreign players these days.

There is nothing unsuccessful about NBA players going to the Olympics. It has raised the level of basketball around the world. Having to actually go against the very best forced the other countries to raise their level and they have responded. (Which is what they wanted BTW).

I've always been under the impression that the Olympics were a showcase of the best talent in the world. If the best (professionals) are not allowed, then it is definatley not a field of the best athletes...What is the argument against allowing pros into the Olympic field?

of course i will watch either way, but i think the only way this really works is if the format itself is one-of-a-kind and exciting. it's being reported that a standard 72 hole tournament is being proposed = boring. that will just make it another WGC event. this is a chance for them to try something unique; something other than standard stroke play or match play. but if the Fed Ex Cup system has taught us anything...

Not totally confusing. If the top 15 are all good old boys (or gals), they are in.

Next bit is slightly unclear. Eligibility goes on down the world rankings, except after 2 for a country from that portion, you are done. Say you get 1-15 all US, then 16 and 17 in the WR are also US they are in, but the next US guy misses out. That is how I understand it.

Thanks! I get it now.

Personally, I would love to see countries have 3 to 5 man/woman teams with medals for both an individual and team competition over 3 or 4 rounds, no cut line. They could make is like soccer where you can have 1 or 2 pros and then everyone else on the team has to be under 23. That would make it interesting and probably get a group of players who would be hungry to make a name for themselves.

I'll only care if:

1) Amateurs only as defined by the USGA and R&A.

2) How ever many players per country, the US needs to have an open qualifier for that many people. I don't care how other countries do it...I'd like to see it be an open qualifier, but I don't live there so I don't care.

3) Some sort of match play event 36 holes of stroke play for seeding for 64 players to play 36 hole matches.

Anything short of that and I honestly won't care if it's included or not. I'm flexible on the format, but not the am/pro issue or the qualifying process.

-mini

"'Nuff people say, you know they can't believe, Jamaica, we have a golfing team."

Don't really get how baseball and softball got nixed in the first place. Esp. baseball.

I am afraid you are really not going to care much then. The Olympics seem set on having Tiger, as many countries as possible, and 72 holes strokeplay.

I am actually not a huge fan of the idea (of course I'll watch anyways) but personally I like the olympics being about sports that do not receive a ton of attention being cast into the spotlight with athletes being given a chance to shine every four years. If its amateur I will not like it because it will not be the best athletes and if its pros it losses a ton of its appeal because it will be a second class PGA event (IMO it will not stack up to the rider cup, masters, etc.).

I think basketball while a great exhibition of sport diverge from the true spirit of amateurs suffering for an olympic dream. I believe golf will fall into the same category.

Just my two cents I actually understand and confusingly agree with most of the other opinions offered.

Nobody is going to watch a bunch of amateurs in a sport that is dominated by pros.

So they allow in golfers who are paid to golf. So what? The best players should be there, period.

But that is not what the Olympic Sprit (abet a spirit that seems to be dying a death) is about. It is meant to be for amateurs who dedicate their spare time to achieving excellence in their chosen sport. Golf Pros have their tours and have no place in the Olympics. However I accept that this is an old fashioned view and will probably have few supporters which is why the Olympics seems to be moving towards professionalism.

You mean amateurs like Finnish runner Lasse Viren? The cop who never actually walked a beat or anything during his prime because he was training all the time? It was just a way to get him on the government payroll, call him an amateur, and allow him to train full time.

And what about someone like Dillard Pruitt? A guy who won on the PGA Tour, then years later won the Canadian Amateur. According to status rules, he is an amateur, but he hardly spent his "spare time achieving excellence." He got to his level as a pro, then quit.

"Professionalism" is not a bad word. The fact someone earns their living through their chosen sport does not taint them. Amateurism was the way the moneyed classes could keep the lesser people out of their games, because back then you didn't have spare time if you weren't wealthy. Allowing professionals takes away all these games, and puts everything on the table. Who is the best? Let's find out. None of this "well you can compete if you didn't do this, and didn't do that, and f you signed this form here......"

And considernig NBC pays something like $2 billion per games, why shouldn't the athletes be able to cash in at some point like the adminstrators do from the competition the athletes put on?

Couldn't agree with you more. Olympics are for the best athletes in the world. No the best UNPAID athletes....It would be a joke to exclude the likes of Tiger, Mick and all the greats....

No. No I'm not.


That's fine. But I get enough professional golf in my life by watching the PGA Tour events and (mostly just) the majors.


That's not an awful format...but I think match play is more exciting for something like the Olympics. Especially with some of the Chicago courses they could pick from. Like I said, I'm flexible on the format if they can get me excited for it...but not the amateur/professional issue. If it's pros, I probably won't watch...or if I do, I won't go out of my way to watch. To be quite honest, I'd rather see golf not included if they're hell bent on using professionals.

-mini

So you're going to go out of your way to not watch pro's in the olympics? That just doesn't make sense to me. I think it would be great to see different courses at each Olympic site...Imagine the condition they'll be in! Plus it would do a lot for the game...

Oh, did you not hear? It is going to be in the Winter Olympics, not the summer. Snow shoes rather than golf shoes needed.

What does that even mean?

I want 4 guys from each country that want to send a team and then they play 2 rounds of a 4 person team scramble!! At least it would be fun to watch. Especially when the US team has Steve Stricker as their "safe hitter" and then you get Tiger, Phil and Zuback out there trying to hit super shots!