Why 60 - Olympics?

ctmurray · 10-09-2009, 10:58 PM

I had the same thought. Might keep some youngsters in the am ranks that year just a bit longer. Of course only us die hards would watch. I would also run it like the Presidents Cup (or Ryder Cup) where it truely is a team event over several days. I would include alternate shot and fourball.

gxer · 10-09-2009, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by MarinePaul

I can't see a problem with that, actually. As long as the men are competing against the men, what difference does it make? I could understand your concern if the men and women were competing against each other, but I don't think that's going to be the case.

One of these days, or years, MP, you are going to understand where I am coming from.

I know that there is NO intention of direct competition between men and women at the Olympics, BUT having them on the same course at the same time, IMO, turns the event into more of a social tea party than pure competition.

IMO, they need to have men and women either play at different courses or at different times.

Anyway, how about this, let's argue about it when we know what they are doing.

gxer · 10-09-2009, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by DJGOLFER59

here's my take on it. I think only amateurs should be allowed to play in the Olympics. Course it's 7 years away, but imagine the excitement if Alexis Thompson, Amanda Blumenherst, Maria Uribe, were able to compete (I realize Uribe and Blumenherst aren't amateurs anymore) for Olympic gold. For me the Olympics has always been rooting for the underdog, seeing unknowns do remarkable things under pressure. I have a feeling the public would want to see an underdog win a gold medal than Tiger Woods winning his 12,000th victory. And plus, for pro golfers, they have so many 'major' or big events, for amateurs, this would be incomparable.

Come on, it was decided from the get-go that golf in the Olympics was going to be for professional golfers and they sure as hell are not going to change now.

MarinePaul · 10-10-2009, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by gxer

One of these days, or years, MP, you are going to understand where I am coming from.

I know that there is NO intention of direct competition between men and women at the Olympics, BUT having them on the same course at the same time, IMO, turns the event into more of a social tea party than pure competition.

IMO, they need to have men and women either play at different courses or at different times.

Anyway, how about this, let's argue about it when we know what they are doing.

I wasn't arguing. I know you hate the idea of women competing against men, for whatever reasons you have. My point was, if they aren't, it shouldn't matter to you. I agree they should play at different times, or even different days, but what woyuld be the problem with the women playing in the morning and the men in the afternoon, or vice versa?

MarinePaul · 10-10-2009, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by DJGOLFER59

here's my take on it. I think only amateurs should be allowed to play in the Olympics. Course it's 7 years away, but imagine the excitement if Alexis Thompson, Amanda Blumenherst, Maria Uribe, were able to compete (I realize Uribe and Blumenherst aren't amateurs anymore) for Olympic gold. For me the Olympics has always been rooting for the underdog, seeing unknowns do remarkable things under pressure. I have a feeling the public would want to see an underdog win a gold medal than Tiger Woods winning his 12,000th victory. And plus, for pro golfers, they have so many 'major' or big events, for amateurs, this would be incomparable.

I agree, DJ. I'd much rather see the Olympics being for amateurs only. Of course, they've already prostituted the Olympic by allowing professionals in every other sport known to man, so golf won't be any different.

Blue · 10-10-2009, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by DJGOLFER59

here's my take on it. I think only amateurs should be allowed to play in the Olympics. Course it's 7 years away, but imagine the excitement if Alexis Thompson, Amanda Blumenherst, Maria Uribe, were able to compete (I realize Uribe and Blumenherst aren't amateurs anymore) for Olympic gold. For me the Olympics has always been rooting for the underdog, seeing unknowns do remarkable things under pressure. I have a feeling the public would want to see an underdog win a gold medal than Tiger Woods winning his 12,000th victory. And plus, for pro golfers, they have so many 'major' or big events, for amateurs, this would be incomparable.

I may be one of the few people who like the fact that the Olympics has for many years been open to professionals in almost every sport. This makes it the ultimate sports competition with the best athletes from all sports competing.

I'm not a fan of the over-commercialization of the Olympics, but at least the paying of athletes is out in the open now rather than under the table now as it was in the all-amateur era.

And the commercialization would have come to the Olympics whether the athletes were still all amateurs or not, just like we now have sports stadiums named after banks, airlines and razor blade companies.

10-10-2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by MarinePaul

I wasn't arguing. I know you hate the idea of women competing against men, for whatever reasons you have. My point was, if they aren't, it shouldn't matter to you. I agree they should play at different times, or even different days, but what woyuld be the problem with the women playing in the morning and the men in the afternoon, or vice versa?

MP - if the women and men competed at the same place on the same course on the same days at the Olympics - God knows where that may lead to. These women might want to get majors or other tournaments on the tour played at the same place and weekend as the men.

And look what happened in tennis with that. The next thing that happens - these women demanded equal pay and now all the slams have capitulated and given them equal pay. What a horrible thought if that happened and women ended up with equal pay in golf

Just imagine what gxer would make of that.

bangkokbobby · 10-10-2009, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Blue

I may be one of the few people who like the fact that the Olympics has for many years been open to professionals in almost every sport. This makes it the ultimate sports competition with the best athletes from all sports competing.

I'm not a fan of the over-commercialization of the Olympics, but at least the paying of athletes is out in the open now rather than under the table now as it was in the all-amateur era.

And the commercialization would have come to the Olympics whether the athletes were still all amateurs or not, just like we now have sports stadiums named after banks, airlines and razor blade companies.

I also like that professionals will play...you are absolutely correct...back in the amateur days, there were athletes that were paid under the table...I'm happy the days of shamateurism are over...let the Olympics pit the best athletes in the world against each other...plus I think if golf wants to stay in the Olympics and not be a two or three Olympic trial, it will help if stars support the event and actually go...

...I'm curious...how many non-Americans are there here in this forum who are following this story...the reason I ask is this...tennis is my favorite sport...but probably few tennis fans can name the medal winners from the last couple of Olympics without looking it up (or if they are fans of the players and know their complete records)...like golf, tennis has its Grand Slams that have a long and prestigious history...the Olympics are not up to that level...but, and this is the reason for the non-American question...it did always strike me that non-American players seemed...I dunno...more passionate about Olympic competition than Americans...honestly, Davis Cup, too...I remember when I worked at the USTA...getting the top Americans to commit to Davis Cup was like pulling teeth in some cases (I won't mention names) so, especially in the 90s, you had Davis Cup teams with members who were lower ranked Americans...it use to drive John McEnroe, who was extremely passionate about representing his country, nuts...I'm not saying Americans aren't patriotic...we most certainly are...but it seemed to me like the top tennis players...particularly the men...weren't as interested in events that didn't involve cashing big checks...if Tiger talks a good game about playing...but comes up with a mysterious injury a month before and other top men don't feel the trip is worth it...will having golf in the Olympics matter...

...my curiosity is whether the inclusion of golf in the Olympics is being greeted more enthusiastically by the international golf community than the American golf community...

gxer · 10-10-2009, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by waldorf

MP - if the women and men competed at the same place on the same course on the same days at the Olympics - God knows where that may lead to. These women might want to get majors or other tournaments on the tour played at the same place and weekend as the men. And look what happened in tennis with that. The next thing that happens - these women demanded equal pay and now all the slams have capitulated and given them equal pay. What a horrible thought if that happened and women ended up with equal pay in golf Just imagine what gxer would make of that.

I have always had a simple solution for the equal prize money situation and it fits within my viewpoint of integrity of competition.
I support this idea fully without reservation.

Disband women's golf, have them compete for spots on various professional tours from the same tees as men do and may the best golfers win. When the women's professional bowling tour went belly up the PBA said OK girls you can compete with us and some of the girls have had modest success.

However, people like you and MP want protected tours for women and that's fine, I don't have a problem with women's protected tours but you have to accept a lesser position in the world of golf as a protected tour for women as women's golf simply does not have the popularity that men's golf does. It is a lesser tour but it is a good tour and it is entertaining and I watch women's golf as much or more than you and MP do.

IMO, you have a choice, either be happy with what you have and embrace it or take a chance, compete with men, and lose everything women have worked for to have a viable golf tour.

10-10-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by gxer

I have always had a simple solution for the equal prize money situation and it fits within my viewpoint of integrity of competition.
I support this idea fully without reservation.

Disband women's golf, have them compete for spots on various professional tours from the same tees as men do and may the best golfers win. When the women's professional bowling tour went belly up the PBA said OK girls you can compete with us and some of the girls have had modest success.

However, people like you and MP want protected tours for women and that's fine, I don't have a problem with women's protected tours but you have to accept a lesser position in the world of golf as a protected tour for women as women's golf simply does not have the popularity that men's golf does. It is a lesser tour but it is a good tour and it is entertaining and I watch women's golf as much or more than you and MP do.

IMO, you have a choice, either be happy with what you have and embrace it or take a chance, compete with men, and lose everything women have worked for to have a viable golf tour.

gxer - agree with what I bolded in your post. That's the only thing that is realistic and relevant in your post. But I'm intrigued about this:

How about this idea you thought of in the Olympics but in another tournament with prizemoney where both women and men play at the same time and place on their respective tours (so not against each other) which was your suspicion at these Olympics. The people who come to watch see both the men and women so can be argued they are both as popular as each other in this tournament and then the women demand equal prizemoney at that tournament (not the rest of the tour). Isn't that fair? Or would you see the red mist?

10-09-2009, 11:37 PM	#12
gxer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,050	Originally Posted by MarinePaul I can't see a problem with that, actually. As long as the men are competing against the men, what difference does it make? I could understand your concern if the men and women were competing against each other, but I don't think that's going to be the case. One of these days, or years, MP, you are going to understand where I am coming from. I know that there is NO intention of direct competition between men and women at the Olympics, BUT having them on the same course at the same time, IMO, turns the event into more of a social tea party than pure competition. IMO, they need to have men and women either play at different courses or at different times. Anyway, how about this, let's argue about it when we know what they are doing. __________________ *My "dream" girl: LPGA seasonal tour stats <=65.50 & >=270*

10-09-2009, 11:41 PM	#13
gxer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,050	Originally Posted by DJGOLFER59 here's my take on it. I think only amateurs should be allowed to play in the Olympics. Course it's 7 years away, but imagine the excitement if Alexis Thompson, Amanda Blumenherst, Maria Uribe, were able to compete (I realize Uribe and Blumenherst aren't amateurs anymore) for Olympic gold. For me the Olympics has always been rooting for the underdog, seeing unknowns do remarkable things under pressure. I have a feeling the public would want to see an underdog win a gold medal than Tiger Woods winning his 12,000th victory. And plus, for pro golfers, they have so many 'major' or big events, for amateurs, this would be incomparable. Come on, it was decided from the get-go that golf in the Olympics was going to be for professional golfers and they sure as hell are not going to change now. __________________ *My "dream" girl: LPGA seasonal tour stats <=65.50 & >=270*

10-10-2009, 07:12 AM	#14
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,002	Originally Posted by gxer One of these days, or years, MP, you are going to understand where I am coming from. I know that there is NO intention of direct competition between men and women at the Olympics, BUT having them on the same course at the same time, IMO, turns the event into more of a social tea party than pure competition. IMO, they need to have men and women either play at different courses or at different times. Anyway, how about this, let's argue about it when we know what they are doing. I wasn't arguing. I know you hate the idea of women competing against men, for whatever reasons you have. My point was, if they aren't, it shouldn't matter to you. I agree they should play at different times, or even different days, but what woyuld be the problem with the women playing in the morning and the men in the afternoon, or vice versa? __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

10-10-2009, 07:15 AM	#15
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,002	Originally Posted by DJGOLFER59 here's my take on it. I think only amateurs should be allowed to play in the Olympics. Course it's 7 years away, but imagine the excitement if Alexis Thompson, Amanda Blumenherst, Maria Uribe, were able to compete (I realize Uribe and Blumenherst aren't amateurs anymore) for Olympic gold. For me the Olympics has always been rooting for the underdog, seeing unknowns do remarkable things under pressure. I have a feeling the public would want to see an underdog win a gold medal than Tiger Woods winning his 12,000th victory. And plus, for pro golfers, they have so many 'major' or big events, for amateurs, this would be incomparable. I agree, DJ. I'd much rather see the Olympics being for amateurs only. Of course, they've already prostituted the Olympic by allowing professionals in every other sport known to man, so golf won't be any different. __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

10-10-2009, 07:38 AM	#16
Blue Forum Moderator Contests: Joint 3rd place overall winner 2009. Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,650 Images: 6	Originally Posted by DJGOLFER59 here's my take on it. I think only amateurs should be allowed to play in the Olympics. Course it's 7 years away, but imagine the excitement if Alexis Thompson, Amanda Blumenherst, Maria Uribe, were able to compete (I realize Uribe and Blumenherst aren't amateurs anymore) for Olympic gold. For me the Olympics has always been rooting for the underdog, seeing unknowns do remarkable things under pressure. I have a feeling the public would want to see an underdog win a gold medal than Tiger Woods winning his 12,000th victory. And plus, for pro golfers, they have so many 'major' or big events, for amateurs, this would be incomparable. I may be one of the few people who like the fact that the Olympics has for many years been open to professionals in almost every sport. This makes it the ultimate sports competition with the best athletes from all sports competing. I'm not a fan of the over-commercialization of the Olympics, but at least the paying of athletes is out in the open now rather than under the table now as it was in the all-amateur era. And the commercialization would have come to the Olympics whether the athletes were still all amateurs or not, just like we now have sports stadiums named after banks, airlines and razor blade companies.

10-09-2009, 10:58 PM	#11
ctmurray Donating Member Contests: Joint 3rd place overall winner 2010. Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,176	I had the same thought. Might keep some youngsters in the am ranks that year just a bit longer. Of course only us die hards would watch. I would also run it like the Presidents Cup (or Ryder Cup) where it truely is a team event over several days. I would include alternate shot and fourball.

10-10-2009, 02:03 PM	#17
waldorf Guest Posts: n/a	Originally Posted by MarinePaul I wasn't arguing. I know you hate the idea of women competing against men, for whatever reasons you have. My point was, if they aren't, it shouldn't matter to you. I agree they should play at different times, or even different days, but what woyuld be the problem with the women playing in the morning and the men in the afternoon, or vice versa? MP - if the women and men competed at the same place on the same course on the same days at the Olympics - God knows where that may lead to. These women might want to get majors or other tournaments on the tour played at the same place and weekend as the men. And look what happened in tennis with that. The next thing that happens - these women demanded equal pay and now all the slams have capitulated and given them equal pay. What a horrible thought if that happened and women ended up with equal pay in golf Just imagine what gxer would make of that.

10-10-2009, 03:47 PM	#18
bangkokbobby Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 2,894	Originally Posted by Blue I may be one of the few people who like the fact that the Olympics has for many years been open to professionals in almost every sport. This makes it the ultimate sports competition with the best athletes from all sports competing. I'm not a fan of the over-commercialization of the Olympics, but at least the paying of athletes is out in the open now rather than under the table now as it was in the all-amateur era. And the commercialization would have come to the Olympics whether the athletes were still all amateurs or not, just like we now have sports stadiums named after banks, airlines and razor blade companies. I also like that professionals will play...you are absolutely correct...back in the amateur days, there were athletes that were paid under the table...I'm happy the days of shamateurism are over...let the Olympics pit the best athletes in the world against each other...plus I think if golf wants to stay in the Olympics and not be a two or three Olympic trial, it will help if stars support the event and actually go... ...I'm curious...how many non-Americans are there here in this forum who are following this story...the reason I ask is this...tennis is my favorite sport...but probably few tennis fans can name the medal winners from the last couple of Olympics without looking it up (or if they are fans of the players and know their complete records)...like golf, tennis has its Grand Slams that have a long and prestigious history...the Olympics are not up to that level...but, and this is the reason for the non-American question...it did always strike me that non-American players seemed...I dunno...more passionate about Olympic competition than Americans...honestly, Davis Cup, too...I remember when I worked at the USTA...getting the top Americans to commit to Davis Cup was like pulling teeth in some cases (I won't mention names) so, especially in the 90s, you had Davis Cup teams with members who were lower ranked Americans...it use to drive John McEnroe, who was extremely passionate about representing his country, nuts...I'm not saying Americans aren't patriotic...we most certainly are...but it seemed to me like the top tennis players...particularly the men...weren't as interested in events that didn't involve cashing big checks...if Tiger talks a good game about playing...but comes up with a mysterious injury a month before and other top men don't feel the trip is worth it...will having golf in the Olympics matter... ...my curiosity is whether the inclusion of golf in the Olympics is being greeted more enthusiastically by the international golf community than the American golf community... __________________ Don't fear failure. — Not failure, but low aim, is the crime. In great attempts it is glorious even to fail. ---Bruce Lee http://bangkokbobbysports.wordpress.com/

10-10-2009, 03:57 PM	#19
gxer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,050	Originally Posted by waldorf MP - if the women and men competed at the same place on the same course on the same days at the Olympics - God knows where that may lead to. These women might want to get majors or other tournaments on the tour played at the same place and weekend as the men. And look what happened in tennis with that. The next thing that happens - these women demanded equal pay and now all the slams have capitulated and given them equal pay. What a horrible thought if that happened and women ended up with equal pay in golf Just imagine what gxer would make of that. I have always had a simple solution for the equal prize money situation and it fits within my viewpoint of integrity of competition. I support this idea fully without reservation. Disband women's golf, have them compete for spots on various professional tours from the same tees as men do and may the best golfers win. When the women's professional bowling tour went belly up the PBA said OK girls you can compete with us and some of the girls have had modest success. However, people like you and MP want protected tours for women and that's fine, I don't have a problem with women's protected tours but you have to accept a lesser position in the world of golf as a protected tour for women as women's golf simply does not have the popularity that men's golf does. It is a lesser tour but it is a good tour and it is entertaining and I watch women's golf as much or more than you and MP do. IMO, you have a choice, either be happy with what you have and embrace it or take a chance, compete with men, and lose everything women have worked for to have a viable golf tour. __________________ *My "dream" girl: LPGA seasonal tour stats <=65.50 & >=270*

10-10-2009, 04:51 PM	#20
waldorf Guest Posts: n/a	Originally Posted by gxer I have always had a simple solution for the equal prize money situation and it fits within my viewpoint of integrity of competition. I support this idea fully without reservation. Disband women's golf, have them compete for spots on various professional tours from the same tees as men do and may the best golfers win. When the women's professional bowling tour went belly up the PBA said OK girls you can compete with us and some of the girls have had modest success. However, people like you and MP want protected tours for women and that's fine, I don't have a problem with women's protected tours but you have to accept a lesser position in the world of golf as a protected tour for women as women's golf simply does not have the popularity that men's golf does. It is a lesser tour but it is a good tour and it is entertaining and I watch women's golf as much or more than you and MP do. IMO, you have a choice, either be happy with what you have and embrace it or take a chance, compete with men, and lose everything women have worked for to have a viable golf tour. gxer - agree with what I bolded in your post. That's the only thing that is realistic and relevant in your post. But I'm intrigued about this: How about this idea you thought of in the Olympics but in another tournament with prizemoney where both women and men play at the same time and place on their respective tours (so not against each other) which was your suspicion at these Olympics. The people who come to watch see both the men and women so can be argued they are both as popular as each other in this tournament and then the women demand equal prizemoney at that tournament (not the rest of the tour). Isn't that fair? Or would you see the red mist?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode