Golf at the Olympics

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is. Its the pitch and putt of rugby.
Pitch and putt would have suited the Olympics much better than golf: Mickey Mouse sport, clearly a sport that is inferior and a subset of the full game, played by almost no one, has no serious championship of its own with any renown, history, or viewer following. Rugby doesnt need the Olympics so, it sends its its training version of the game. Golf should have followed that good lead.

I really don't get your obsession with golf in the Olympics and running it down.

Getting a massive platform to show the sport off to countries where golf may not be big can only be a good thing for the sport.

The Olympic tournament may not be the pinnacle of golf but it's still a worthwhile event for all the publicity it can generate for the sport.

Jawgap

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is. Its the pitch and putt of rugby.
Pitch and putt would have suited the Olympics much better than golf: Mickey Mouse sport, clearly a sport that is inferior and a subset of the full game, played by almost no one, has no serious championship of its own with any renown, history, or viewer following. Rugby doesnt need the Olympics so, it sends its its training version of the game. Golf should have followed that good lead.

Sevens is the pitch and putt of rugby?

Seriously? - having played both there is nothing Mickey Mouse about sevens. Aside from the astronomical fitness levels needed to play sevens, it's distinguishable from the 15 and 11-a-side games on many levels relating to skill and tactics.

And if you think it's not serious or followed you've obviously never been to one of the tournaments that makes up the World Series or any of the regional tournaments. It does have it's own world cup, btw, separate to the World Series.

It doesn't register in Ireland because the IRFU made a policy decision not to devote resources to it because of the limited player pool we have here - drawing young players off to play sevens would potentially be a drag on the development of the 15-a-side squads (and it is very definitely a young person's game).

Jawgap

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well sorry - but you are wrong.

Rugby players are about 5 million.

So relative to golf that is a joke.

Golf is at least 12 times that mathematically.

But in reality way more.

Maybe.

But I can tell you from first hand experience that the rugby club I coach at has a junior section (u-12s and down) that runs to over 300 kids - and in the golf club I'm a member of I doubt there's 10% of that number at that age group playing.

Plus rugby is a lot like golf in terms of sporting ethos and the requirement for the player to discipline himself or herself.

In sporting terms - speaking as a ref in both rugby and soccer - it is a far superior sport for young people to be involved in - you don't see a posse of players pursuing a ref around the pitch because they disagree with a decision, there's no diving or simulation, there's a very low tolerance for cheating, there's respect for the game, the ref, the team and the opposition......and there's the Haka!! Plus it's rare enough for a game to end in a turgid 0-0 draw!

And, it's one of only two sports you win by going backwards! (the other is rowing)

......and rugby coaches are the only adults who'll tell a kid that it's ok to run after another kid and drag him to the ground......and show them how to do it safely and properly!

Btw - I've checked the figures - there were 2.82 million registered rugby players in the world in 2014 along with 4.91 million non-registered......Ireland had 172,491 players (incl 96,880 registered players) - involved with clubs. The highest growth is in the female game with girls rugby growing at rates other sports can only envy

The figures for golf are about 4 to 5 times that because in the golf surveys they measure 'participation rate' which "....is based on the estimated number of people ages 6 and over who played golf, on a golf course, at least once during the survey year." In Ireland, there were 197,844 registered golfers (with clubs) in 2014, in 2015 it was 192,507 (2.7% drop).

Golf, while I love it as a sport, is still heavily dominated by older men (68% of registered golfers in Ireland are male) and rugby leaves it in the shade when it comes to diversity.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jawgap wrote: »

Sevens is the pitch and putt of rugby?

Seriously? - having played both there is nothing Mickey Mouse about sevens. Aside from the astronomical fitness levels needed to play sevens, it's distinguishable from the 15 and 11-a-side games on many levels relating to skill and tactics.

And if you think it's not serious or followed you've obviously never been to one of the tournaments that makes up the World Series or any of the regional tournaments. It does have it's own world cup, btw, separate to the World Series.

It doesn't register in Ireland because the IRFU made a policy decision not to devote resources to it because of the limited player pool we have here - drawing young players off to play sevens would potentially be a drag on the development of the 15-a-side squads (and it is very definitely a young person's game).

Well he has a point there.It's a watered down version of the proper sport.

Jawgap

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Well he has a point there.It's a watered down version of the proper sport.

Well that's like saying rugby is a beefed up version of soccer, or American Football is rugby after the health and safety officer arrived, or Gaelic Football is a mongrel version of all ball and team based sports prevailing in the latter part of the 19th Century, or that Aussie Rules is Gaelic Football for non-whingers

It is undoubtedly related to the 15-a-side game, but it's a huge misrepresentation to describe it as 'watered down' - that suggests you could take the skills, fitness levels and tactics prevailing in the 15-a-side game and apply them in Sevens......that being the case how do you think a team consisting of front and second row players would fare against a bunch of Sevens players, after all "forwards win matches (backs by how much)" so they should be fine

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jawgap wrote: »

Well that's like saying rugby is a beefed up version of soccer, or American Football is rugby after the health and safety officer arrived, or Gaelic Football is a mongrel version of all ball and team based sports prevailing in the latter part of the 19th Century, or that Aussie Rules is Gaelic Football for non-whingers

It is undoubtedly related to the 15-a-side game, but it's a huge misrepresentation to describe it as 'watered down' - that suggests you could take the skills, fitness levels and tactics prevailing in the 15-a-side game and apply them in Sevens......that being the case how do you think a team consisting of front and second row players would fare against a bunch of Sevens players, after all "forwards win matches (backs by how much)" so they should be fine

But all those sports are seperate sports of their own and grew up as their own sport, Sevens is just a spin off version of rugby.

Would any sevens player if they were good enough for the 15 a side version choose to play sevens? I doubt it.

The Olympics should be about the best of the best being able to compete.All the great rugby players play the 15 a side version.

Jawgap

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But all those sports are seperate sports of their own and grew up as their own sport, Sevens is just a spin off version of rugby.

Would any sevens player if they were good enough for the 15 a side version choose to play sevens? I doubt it.

The Olympics should be about the best of the best being able to compete.All the great rugby players play the 15 a side version.

Rugby spun off from soccer, American football from rugby, Aussie Rules from Gaelic Football.

And 'good enough for the 15-a-side version' - what does that mean? If a player is 'good enough' to get a development or a professional contract he'll take it because there's no professional Sevens players - some younger players are put there by their clubs to sharpen their fitness and ball handling.

15-a-side rugby isn't at the Olympics because they'd never be able to accommodate a 15-a-side tournament - the intervals required between matches are too long.

.....and sorry to disappoint you, but since LA 1984, the Olympics have been about money as evidenced by the admission of professional sportspeople - and not just in golf - and the incredibly restrictive licensing and sponsorship conditions. Remember the row over Christie's Puma contact lenses, the withdrawal of the French women's football team because they were contractually obliged to wear Nike and would be fined if they swapped to the Olympics official sponsor adidas, etc?

Before that they were about politics (from 1936 to 1984) - but the first few were about sports.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jawgap wrote: »

Rugby spun off from soccer, American football from rugby, Aussie Rules from Gaelic Football.

And 'good enough for the 15-a-side version' - what does that mean? If a player is 'good enough' to get a development or a professional contract he'll take it because there's no professional Sevens players - some younger players are put there by their clubs to sharpen their fitness and ball handling.

15-a-side rugby isn't at the Olympics because they'd never be able to accommodate a 15-a-side tournament - the intervals required between matches are too long.

.....and sorry to disappoint you, but since LA 1984, the Olympics have been about money as evidenced by the admission of professional sportspeople - and not just in golf - and the incredibly restrictive licensing and sponsorship conditions. Remember the row over Christie's Puma contact lenses, the withdrawal of the French women's football team because they were contractually obliged to wear Nike and would be fined if they swapped to the Olympics official sponsor adidas, etc?

Before that they were about politics (from 1936 to 1984) - but the first few were about sports.

It means if the guys playing Sevens were good enough to earn a professional contract in the 15 a side version and pay it full time they would not be playing Sevens.

No rugby player who is good enough to play the 15 a side verison would choose sevens above it.

The olympics is supposed to be about the best of the best competing.

Jawgap

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It means if the guys playing Sevens were good enough to earn a professional contract in the 15 a side version and pay it full time they would not be playing Sevens.

No rugby player who is good enough to play the 15 a side verison would choose sevens above it.

Well, from personal experience you're wrong on that point - I know a couple of lads I helped coach now at uni in the UK playing sevens. Will they end up playing 15-a-side rugby? Eventually - the fitness levels involved in Sevens mean it's difficult for players to remain competitive beyond their late 20s (yes, I know there are examples of players who play into their early 30s, but they are not typical).

No player who is offered a pro contract is going to turn it down to remain an amateur (unless there are reasons unrelated to sport) - that's why Moran and Quinn took the boat - why play an amateur sport when you can play a professional one?

If your idea is right - that Sevens is a watered down version of 15-a-side Rugby - then good Sevens players should make good 15-a-side players, and good (young) 15-a-side players should make good Sevens players - that is emphatically not the case.

In fact one of the reasons the Kiwis have been so so successful at Sevens is because they maintain it as a separate development stream - there is some crossover but both games are littered with players who tried to make the jump between them and failed spectacularly - just as there were and are many who try to make the jump from Union to League (or vice versa) and fail spectacularly (or worse end up injured).

There are even a few who try to jump from rugby to American Football......and fail spectacularly!

15-a-side rugby is a collision sport, Sevens is a contact sport - typically, for example, there are between 3 and 4 tackles attempted or made in an average minute an elite 15-a-side rugby game and a ruck every 45 seconds. In World Series Sevens it's half that - plus 70% of tries do not involve a ruck or maul and the ball is actively in play for over 50% of the time (compared to less than 30% for 15-a-side rugby).

If Sevens had professional teams then your comparison would be valid but at the moment it's like saying no one good enough to play golf professionally would stick at Pitch 'n' Putt - your comparator is a non-professional sport that offers zero opportunity to get paid for playing.

Birdie Num Num

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well sorry - but you are wrong.

Rugby players are about 5 million.

So relative to golf that is a joke.

Golf is at least 12 times that mathematically.

But in reality way more.

I have never played Rugby so I guess that means I am not one of the 5 million. I have however played the odd game of golf. Does that make me one of the way more than at least 60 million? We're talking about competitive sport here. I have an appreciation of almost all sports and a fan of most, particularly when there is an Irish interest. I'll support Irish golfers as much as I will support Irish rugby players. Your position of bias is preventing you from a reality check.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, from personal experience you're wrong on that point - I know a couple of lads I helped coach now at uni in the UK playing sevens. Will they end up playing 15-a-side rugby? Eventually - the fitness levels involved in Sevens mean it's difficult for players to remain competitive beyond their late 20s (yes, I know there are examples of players who play into their early 30s, but they are not typical).

No player who is offered a pro contract is going to turn it down to remain an amateur (unless there are reasons unrelated to sport) - that's why Moran and Quinn took the boat - why play an amateur sport when you can play a professional one?

If your idea is right - that Sevens is a watered down version of 15-a-side Rugby - then good Sevens players should make good 15-a-side players, and good (young) 15-a-side players should make good Sevens players - that is emphatically not the case.

In fact one of the reasons the Kiwis have been so so successful at Sevens is because they maintain it as a separate development stream - there is some crossover but both games are littered with players who tried to make the jump between them and failed spectacularly - just as there were and are many who try to make the jump from Union to League (or vice versa) and fail spectacularly (or worse end up injured).

There are even a few who try to jump from rugby to American Football......and fail spectacularly!

15-a-side rugby is a collision sport, Sevens is a contact sport - typically, for example, there are between 3 and 4 tackles attempted or made in an average minute an elite 15-a-side rugby game and a ruck every 45 seconds. In World Series Sevens it's half that - plus 70% of tries do not involve a ruck or maul and the ball is actively in play for over 50% of the time (compared to less than 30% for 15-a-side rugby).

If Sevens had professional teams then your comparison would be valid but at the moment it's like saying no one good enough to play golf professionally would stick at Pitch 'n' Putt - your comparator is a non-professional sport that offers zero opportunity to get paid for playing.

But thats my point regaing why it should not be in the Olympics.

We know the best of the best are not going to stick wth sevens so your left with guys who aren't up to playing 15 a side professionally playing sevens.

Jawgap

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But thats my point regaing why it should not be in the Olympics.

We know the best of the best are not going to stick wth sevens so your left with guys who aren't up to playing 15 a side professionally playing sevens.

Again that's based on the faulty premise that Sevens doesn't have it's own sporting identity - it does. There are lots of sports that look similar but aren't - boxing (ain't no one going 12 rounds in the Olympics), cycling (BMX'ers completing a 250km road race? Road Racers competing in the velodrome? Track racers in the MTB race?) - are they watered down versions of the sports they grew out from?

And the Olympics aren't about who is best - it's about who has qualified and who wants to go. The golf won't be contested by the best.....the basketball will be missing LeBron James, Federer has opted out to allow him to rest and rehabilitate, then you have wr holders like Merritt who, on the basis of a single race, won't be there (he missed out by 1/100th of a second!).

People seem to think the Olympics are about the best sportspeople competing - they're not. Not all sports are Olympic sports, not all sports need the Olympics and not all sports are suited to the Olympics.

Seve OB

Jawgap wrote: »

And, it's one of only two sports you win by going backwards! (the other is rowing)

Whoa there horsey. I have to PULL you on that one. Don't forget tug-o-war

LuckyGent88

So is the golf going to be fully shown on TV or are we just going to get snippets of it in highlights or what???

Who is the commentary going to come from??

Seve OB

In all fairness though Jawgap, you speak a lot of sense. I don't know thought that it is worth the hassle. IMO, these people are narrow minded or trolling. I for one just hope as golfers, they never only play 9 holes and or when it came to football, I hope they never played indoor, 5-a-side, three and in, world cup, tennis football, kerbs..etc.etc...... :rolleyes: and

Jawgap wrote: »

There are lots of sports that look similar but aren't - boxing (ain't no one going 12 rounds in the Olympics), cycling (BMX'ers completing a 250km road race? Road Racers competing in the velodrome? Track racers in the MTB race?) - are they watered down versions of the sports they grew out from?

I was actually going to post something like this. Nearly every sport has a watered down version of it. And sure the Olympics is full of it these days. Look at the wimps next week who will run 1500m, 5k, 10k etc. If they were real runners, they would just go out and do the marathon instead of having a little jog. :rolleyes:

Birdie Num Num

Seve OB wrote: »

Whoa there horsey. I have to PULL you on that one. Don't forget tug-o-war

Nor the backstroke!

abff

Now I'm confused. How do you win in rugby by going backwards?

spacecoyote

abff wrote: »

Now I'm confused. How do you win in rugby by going backwards?

You can only pass the ball backwards

RikkFlair

Early start for Harrington, fitting to have a Brazilian hitting first shot. Not sure what the "bib" stuff is all about.

RikkFlair

RikkFlair wrote: »

Early start for Harrington, fitting to have a Brazilian hitting first shot. Not sure what the "bib" stuff is all about.

The bib would be the colour bib the caddy wears so the players can be identified easily in each group by those watching.

slingerz

Golf deserves to be in the Olympics as much as rugby 7s and table tennis. The approach of the top stars shows that it's about money for them at the end of the day.

Leading amateurs should be the types that compete in this competition in the Olympics so that it becomes a tournament of value to them

Anyone else think that all the withdrawls have ended up promoting the game more than would have without them. What I mean is Ive heard lots of people talking about the golf and Rory that would never mention it normally. Not sure if it will make them watch it mind.

Webbs

Heard a report on the BBC and then read the article below and had completely forgotten how Tennis was in pretty much exactly the same place back in 1988 as golf is now, with multiple withdrawals and top players saying that Tennis didnt rank highly in their list of tournaments to win. A view most of them came to regret in later years.
"Agassi, Connors and McEnroe “all said they were not interested in participating in the Olympics,” according to The New York Times. McEnroe later said he regretted not playing. Agassi later won gold at Atlanta 1996"

http://olympics.nbcsports.com/2016/05/09/golf-skipping-rio-olympics-tennis/

The Rape of Lucretia

slingerz wrote: »

Golf deserves to be in the Olympics as much as rugby 7s and table tennis. The approach of the top stars shows that it's about money for them at the end of the day.

Leading amateurs should be the types that compete in this competition in the Olympics so that it becomes a tournament of value to them

No it doesnt. Most of the top golfers have more money than they can spend. Those who are there are there because they retain some regard for the Olympics as a sporting event, or are very patriotic and wish to represent their country. Both valid motivations.
But many would regard the Olympics, let alone golf in it, as a corrupt, drug addled, joke, and/or, have no time for nationalist flag waving and jingoism. So have stayed away.
I would say the money is the last thing influencing them.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No it doesnt. Most of the top golfers have more money than they can spend. Those who are there are there because they retain some regard for the Olympics as a sporting event, or are very patriotic and wish to represent their country. Both valid motivations.
But many would regard the Olympics, let alone golf in it, as a corrupt, drug addled, joke, and/or, have no time for nationalist flag waving and jingoism. So have stayed away.
I would say the money is the last thing influencing them.

Not one golfer is choosing not to participate in the event for those reasons just because your keep saying it doesn't mean it is true.

FixdePitchmark

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No it doesnt. Most of the top golfers have more money than they can spend. Those who are there are there because they retain some regard for the Olympics as a sporting event, or are very patriotic and wish to represent their country. Both valid motivations.
But many would regard the Olympics, let alone golf in it, as a corrupt, drug addled, joke, and/or, have no time for nationalist flag waving and jingoism. So have stayed away.
I would say the money is the last thing influencing them.

You'd find if the first prize was 2,000,000 euro these so called regards would disappear very quick - along with the other red herring Zika.

I'd also like to add that sport changes - what is popular changes.

This idea that Golf doesn't need the Olympics or the Olympics will never mean anything is daft. Tell that to this man - as was mentioned above the same arguments were made about Tennis.

Hoof Hearted2

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

You'd find if the first prize was 2,000,000 euro these so called regards would disappear very quick - along with the other red herring Zika.

I'd also like to add that sport changes - what is popular changes.

This idea that Golf doesn't need the Olympics or the Olympics will never mean anything is daft. Tell that to this man - as was mentioned above the same arguments were made about Tennis.

Fix you're a gas man, Zika is real and is now also in the USA, while it fits the agenda of the begrudgers and haters, it's a real issue and a legitimate get out clause.
Regarding golf and what is popular, the youngest of the four golfing majors is roughly 70 years old, over those intervening years there have been numerous attempts to introduce a "fifth" major and they have all failed miserably.
Golf is an established sport word wide and while the amateur side of it has stagnated over the last 20 odd years the pro game is flourishing, the problem IMO isn't at professional level but amateur level. Introducing another event for the pros every 4 years will do little to encourage new participation, on the other hand an amateur event that could grow into been the pinnacle of amateur golf could and would IMO.
An opportunity missed but hardly surprising given the RANDA have already sold the soul of the game by moving the Open to pay per view.

vienne86

So is there any golf from Rio on TV?

FixdePitchmark

vienne86 wrote: »

So is there any golf from Rio on TV?

Haven't a clue and the way thing have gone we could be very disappointed with coverage ?

Got a sense during the week what it must be like for say big fans/ family members of sailing / swimming / rowing - not actaully getting to see their event at all.

I know RTE were criticised, but the whole Olympics are a nightmare to cover and what you get to show is not fully in your control.

I'd imagine they will show final round live ?

Tockman

The've live Tv coverage on the bbc starting at 11.20 for each round.

vienne86

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Haven't a clue and the way thing have gone we could be very disappointed with coverage ?

Got a sense during the week what it must be like for say big fans/ family members of sailing / swimming / rowing - not actaully getting to see their event at all.

I know RTE were criticised, but the whole Olympics are a nightmare to cover and what you get to show is not fully in your control.

I'd imagine they will show final round live ?

I hope we get the final round live. Meanwhile we'll have to make do with live scoring.

Mr.Prodston

Tockman wrote: »

The've live Tv coverage on the bbc starting at 11.20 for each round.

As of now it seems like BBC Olympic 7 (through Sky) has it. That could change though so don't blame the messenger please.

I wonder do they have Peter and Ken down there?

FixdePitchmark

Tockman wrote: »

The've live Tv coverage on the bbc starting at 11.20 for each round.

BBC what ?

Red

martinkop

Live on rte.ie, no commentary though

http://www.rte.ie/sport/olympics/live/

FixdePitchmark

martinkop wrote: »

Live on rte.ie, no commentary though

http://www.rte.ie/sport/olympics/live/

Great stuff - but a very strange experience with no sound.

Do my own commentary. :P

abff

Mr.Prodston wrote: »

As of now it seems like BBC Olympic 7 (through Sky) has it. That could change though so don't blame the messenger please.

I wonder do they have Peter and Ken down there?

I have Sky, but can't find BBC Olympic 7 or any live Olymipcs coverage. Do I need to tune it in under Other Channels and, if so, what are the settings?

martinkop

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Great stuff - but a very strange experience with no sound.

Do my own commentary. :P

You might find a career in it!!! Someone has to replace Peter Alliss!!:D

Mr.Prodston

abff wrote: »

I have Sky, but can't find BBC Olympic 7 or any live Olymipcs coverage. Do I need to tune it in under Other Channels and, if so, what are the settings?

Yeah you have to tune it in through "Other channels"

List of them here:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/reception/pdfs/satellitefrequencies.pdf

Not the regular commentators anyway so far

FixdePitchmark

Watching it is hilarious.

It is obvious it is just a feed from a non golfing crowd.

With just background sound it is exactly like a computer game.

We need to power up Paddy and Seamus's putting.

Weepsie

Its on rte news now with commentary. Sky Channel 578

Mr.Prodston

Big happy head on Paddy

FixdePitchmark

Paddy on the tee in green.

At first sight - this looks a bit too easy/wide rough etc .

Early yet.

But hopefully it is not a very low scoring course for Paddy.

we will know by the turn.

maximum12

Mr.Prodston wrote: »

Big happy head on Paddy

Yeah, I'm glad he's representing us. He's up for it.

First drive looks down the middle, short of the bunkers. Camera work not the best.

FixdePitchmark

Well done on rte news . Class stuff

FixdePitchmark

Jaysus it is being held in balymun

HighLine

https://twitter.com/mcginleygolf/status/763687164546809856

abff

Mr.Prodston wrote: »

Yeah you have to tune it in through "Other channels"

List of them here:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/reception/pdfs/satellitefrequencies.pdf

Not the regular commentators anyway so far

Thanks. Watching it now.

FixdePitchmark

Ballymun in the sun..

charlieIRL

Its interesting to hear what the players are saying.

True gentleman Padraig Harrington, one one to say to everyone have a good day before his tee shot and his chat on the way down the fairway - he seems genuinely delighted to be there "We're now Olympians" was his comment, not many people can say that!!!

maximum12

Second shot in some sort of scrub/rough but doesn't look too bad. Should be able to get on in 3. (Par 5)