"There is a simple litmus test to determine whether a sport is of Olympic caliber: Does winning a gold medal trump anything else an athlete can do?"

I feel for Bob Harig tonight, because he's likely to be getting a phone call (go easy on him Ty!) for making the most persuasive case yet against golf in the Olympics...

There is a simple litmus test to determine whether a sport is of Olympic caliber: Does winning a gold medal trump anything else an athlete can do?

In golf, the answer is quite obviously no. You would be hard pressed to get a single player to say he would rather win at the Olympics than capture one of the four major championships. Let's face it; those four tournaments are golf's Olympics. They are for players from all around the world, with numerous countries represented. True, the players do not show up to represent their countries, but these tournaments are the most important events.

There are several logistical hurdles as well. How would you alter the current schedule? If golf were in the Beijing Olympics, would players be expected to head right from the PGA Championship to China? Would they be forced to skip important tournaments on the PGA Tour, including the FedEx Cup playoffs? Would the tour alter its schedule to accommodate?

In the name of growing the game, of course they would!

What about the format? Being discussed is 72 holes of stroke play. If golf is going to be included in the Olympics, at least make the format for the competition one that is not used every week, one that is more fun, perhaps one that is more team oriented. At least in that case, players would be competing for their teams instead of themselves.

Oh yeah, you're definitely getting a phone call. Even if he has to do it from Beijing and through a PGA Tour-logoed smog mask.

Comments

[RM]

How about Olympic long driving? That would pass the litmus test!

[Matty]

Why can't they come up with a two or three man team concept? I agree that watching another stroke play event will be boring.

[sodface]

Harig is completely missing the point. Maybe people have forgotten, what with the Dream Team, or the "Redeem Team", or whatever they're called this year--the Olympics are supposed to glorify AMATEUR competition. I have to say I find it sad that so much of the golf-in-the-Olympics thing seems to revolve around the pros.

Maybe winning an Olympic gold doesn't pass Harig's litmus test for Phil and Vijay...I agree with that. But it might be a nice feather in the cap for a Walker Cupper or, who knows, some caddie from Kenya who plays his heart out for a few days.

[Seitz]

The problem is that the litmus test either doesn't work. Not only that, but it portrays the typical American "whatever we care about is all that's important" attitude.

Examples are numerous. The gold medal isn't the pinnacle in a ton Olympic sports. Basketball, Hockey, Boxing, Alpine Skiing... Most NHLers would rather have a Stanley Cup. Skiing has an entire season during which the Olympics is just another event. Sure, Americans only watch the Olympics, so that's all we care about, but a World Cup title in skiing is more prestigious. Do you think a boxer would rather have a gold medal or a world championship? Soccer has been an Olympic sport for 100 years, but you think there's a player on earth who would value a gold medal more than a World Cup championship? Champions League is probably more prestigious too.

If we limited the Olympics only to sports where a gold medal is the ultimate accomplishment, the event would last about three days, would be televised on Versus, and would get lower ratings than the WNBA.

[Seitz]

To add, I'm not arguing that golf should be an Olympic sport. I don't really care. But I am arguing that Harig's litmus test is either idiotic or xenophobic.

[Geoff]

Seitz,
I would consider the tennis in the Olympics under Harig's litmus test and say that it's a fine example of not passing. It will get attention as a sport this year because of Federer-Nadal, but in the past no one has paid much attention to it because the format is very familiar. Granted, team concepts are really tough in tennis, but in golf there are so many possibilities. The lack of imagination that went into creating the 72-hole format is disappointing, but is consistent with past decisions made by the folks pushing golf in the Olympics.

[Seitz]

I won't argue with that, Geoff. I think they could have put together a format similar to the way the NCAAs used to be, with team stroke play occurring alongside an individual championship, and it would have been great for TV. With 3-5 guys on the course at all times from a given team, the scores really move fast, and there's always someone playing a shot that has an impact on the event.

But my main point was the Harig's litmus test isn't a good argument at all, unless he wants to change it to say "the test for adding new sports...", because there are tons of sports where an Olympic gold medal is the pinnacle. And Americans tend to put a great deal more emphasis on the Olympics than the rest of the world does, so Harig's viewpoint is a little myopic.

[thusgone]

shouldn't be an olympic sport, period. the organizers only want the pros/big names, and it only makes sense to do if limited to actual amateurs.

i also have serious doubts as to whether it will do anything to grow the game. indeed, it could have the opposite effect because it is likely that after the first year or so, interest among the top 4 or 5 in the world will wane as happened with basketball after the first couple of "dream teams." there's no money in it, and the professional golf schedule is already pretty crowded as it is.

finally, i disagree that golfers do not represent their countries in the majors. even though they are not festooned with flags and logos a la ruder cup, they are still strongly associated with national glory -- especially when they win. it seems like one of the indicia cited when debating the merits of various golfing countries is number of majors won recently. how many articles focused on herrington's nationality after he won the open last year and this year?

[thusgone]

i meant "Ryder Cup."

[bs]

I don't agree with Seitz - the Litmus test, or a minor adaptation of it, is a very good one.

There are plenty of sports that have been Olympic Sports for ages where a gold is not the pinnacle of achievement in that sport - I say that the burden of proof is on anyone wanting to remove those sports from the games as they have their place there and everyone's gotten used to it over time. It does not seem right if a sport should be penalised for having developed so well that the outside events compete with or even overshadow the Olympics.

With golf and tennis or any other new sport wanting to join, I say the burden is (or was with tennis) on them and one of the points they ought to prove is that the Olympics will be a truly signficant addition to the existing competitive structure of the sport such that a win puts you at or near the pinnacle of the version that is in the Olympics. It is not and never was with Open Era tennis and it would not be for Professional Golf.

Have amateurs, or a team or matchplay competition, but please not 72 hole strokeplay for individual professionals in what would be a weakened field because the stronger nations would be able to field restricted numbers. Also, in at least half of the Olympics the competition would not be on a decent or proven course, but some awful new tellytubby monstrosity.

It's all about money and sponsorship talking and it stinks.