[Garland Bayley]

... it is no wonder the younger generation thinks many are crotchety.
...

Perhaps what you have missed is that the older generation thinks you are crotchety too.

[Garland Bayley]

...
[/quote]

Sort of like The Masters.


PS, you won't see Schauffele, Morikawa, etc. playing Puerto Rico Open

[Garland Bayley]

I love everything about Olympic golf and frankly I think a gold medal should be considered a higher honor than winning the Players or even the PGA.

No, in those events they have to play against the highest quality competition.

Now, if you had said The Masters, we would be in agreement.

[Garland Bayley]

While the Olympics is the pinnacle for most sports, just like golf, basketball, baseball, etc... nearly every sport leaves lots of worthy competitors watching from the sidelines due to per country qualifying rules.

For sports like swimming and track and field if they took the athletes with the best times, regardless of country, the US would have far far more athletes in the games and several other countries none.  I get the secondary purposes of the Olympics; world competition, unity, and such...and that's great, but the Olympics are a far cry from showcasing and featuring the best set of talent the world has to offer.

BS Kalen!

There are only awards for three places. How often does the US, or an any other country win all three medals in an event? Note, the US, and several other countries will have their best three competitors entered, so how is it that there are so few medal sweeps?

[Peter Flory]

If anything is calling out for match play, it is this.  Limited field and all the time in the world. 


I'd suggest 36 holes of stroke play for 12 qualifying spots in match play.  Seed them by finish and give the top 4 places first round byes (so that players have a reason to finish strong in the stroke play portion.  Then have the gold medal and the bronze medal matches be 36 holes. 


The bronze medal match might even be more pressure than the Championship match because the loser gets nothing. 

[Kalen Braley]

While the Olympics is the pinnacle for most sports, just like golf, basketball, baseball, etc... nearly every sport leaves lots of worthy competitors watching from the sidelines due to per country qualifying rules.

For sports like swimming and track and field if they took the athletes with the best times, regardless of country, the US would have far far more athletes in the games and several other countries none.  I get the secondary purposes of the Olympics; world competition, unity, and such...and that's great, but the Olympics are a far cry from showcasing and featuring the best set of talent the world has to offer.

BS Kalen!

There are only awards for three places. How often does the US, or an any other country win all three medals in an event? Note, the US, and several other countries will have their best three competitors entered, so how is it that there are so few medal sweeps?

Garland, c'mon are you serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres

Here is a list of the field for this years 100M dash and there were 83 participants.  If countries like the US, Jamaica, Britain, etc weren't limited to just 3 each, how many others would qualify in that set of 83?  I'm guessing there are at least 10-15 other USA runners alone who could run faster than the bottom half of that group.

I was watching a 1st round 400M qualifier for the women and there was one entrant who was so far back, I doubt she could beat high school runners much less elite runners.  I understand its a world-wide event, but it seems for the integrity of the competition there must be some standards not just to include the best of the best and then all the rest are third-rate pity picks from other countries.

Even for the golf tournament they had some great players at the top, but I'm guessing half of this years field would never qualify for the PGA Tour. So of course the best players are smacking their chops because instead of having to beat a full field of 125, they only have to play against a couple dozen contenders.

P.S.  I change my mind, even the Puerto Rico Open has a better field top to bottom, this years Olympic's was more akin to a Hooters Tour event.

[Garland Bayley]

I see you did not address my main point Kalen. Who cares how the qualifying heats show? Obviously someone with little to do, and too much spare time.

You mention the 100m. Would the top three have changed is the US entered a dozen of its top sprinters? I doubt there would be much change in results by giving the top countries entries for their also rans.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland

In case you were wondering, here is the breakdown for the 60 golfers in the event this year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Qualification

Avg. World Ranking: 130
# in top 50: 19
# in top 100: 26
# with ranking lower than 125: 28
# ranked lower than 200: 14

And you criticize the Masters for a limited field event?  At least they invite the top 50 in the world.

[Kalen Braley]

I see you did not address my main point Kalen. Who cares how the qualifying heats show? Obviously someone with little to do, and too much spare time.

You mention the 100m. Would the top three have changed is the US entered a dozen of its top sprinters? I doubt there would be much change in results by giving the top countries entries for their also rans.

So Garland,

By your logic why have 32 teams in the NBA?  or 30+ teams in any other professional league?

Why not just identify the top few teams, and let them qualify for the end of year playoffs by playing against college and high school players instead of testing them against the best competition available to get there? 

Or in golf terms why have full field events?  My last post showed how the depth of field stacked up. How can Olympic golf be a top notch event, yet only include 26% of the best 100 players in the world?

Once again the issue is the integrity of the entire competition. But if you think a "pinnacle event" consists of athletes half-assing it thru their first couple of qualifying heats because they can easily advance thru to the next round, then I would not agree.

[Garland Bayley]

I see you did not address my main point Kalen. Who cares how the qualifying heats show? Obviously someone with little to do, and too much spare time.

You mention the 100m. Would the top three have changed is the US entered a dozen of its top sprinters? I doubt there would be much change in results by giving the top countries entries for their also rans.

So Garland,

By your logic why have 32 teams in the NBA?  or 30+ teams in any other professional league?

Why not just identify the top few teams, and let them qualify for the end of year playoffs by playing against college and high school players instead of testing them against the best competition available to get there? 

Or in golf terms why have full field events?  My last post showed how the depth of field stacked up. How can Olympic golf be a top notch event, yet only include 26% of the best 100 players in the world?

Once again the issue is the integrity of the entire competition. But if you think a "pinnacle event" consists of athletes half-assing it thru their first couple of qualifying heats because they can easily advance thru to the next round, then I would not agree.

 

Come on Kalen! If you can't come up with meaningful answers to your questions, then I feel sorry for you!
 

[Jeff Schley]

I love it Garland and Kalen in a game of wits competing for the gold medal!

[Tom_Doak]

If anything is calling out for match play, it is this.  Limited field and all the time in the world. 


I'd suggest 36 holes of stroke play for 12 qualifying spots in match play.  Seed them by finish and give the top 4 places first round byes (so that players have a reason to finish strong in the stroke play portion.  Then have the gold medal and the bronze medal matches be 36 holes. 


The bronze medal match might even be more pressure than the Championship match because the loser gets nothing.

The 7-man bronze medal playoff was a bit of pressure, too.


Had they used your format this year, they might have lost players or caddies to heat stroke in the 36-hole matches.  August in Tokyo is oppressive . . . and golf is not even close to the most grueling sport at the Olympics.

[Kalen Braley]

I love it Garland and Kalen in a game of wits competing for the gold medal!

Jeff,

Its Game, Set, and Match based on his last post.

If Garland doesn't understand why one should play against the best competition, at all stages of an event, if you want to become the best of the best, then I can't help him! 


P.S.  Especially if you scroll up to Post #27 in this thread and see he already admitted it. 

[JLahrman]

Garland, c'mon are you serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres

Here is a list of the field for this years 100M dash and there were 83 participants.  If countries like the US, Jamaica, Britain, etc weren't limited to just 3 each, how many others would qualify in that set of 83?  I'm guessing there are at least 10-15 other USA runners alone who could run faster than the bottom half of that group.

I was watching a 1st round 400M qualifier for the women and there was one entrant who was so far back, I doubt she could beat high school runners much less elite runners.  I understand its a world-wide event, but it seems for the integrity of the competition there must be some standards not just to include the best of the best and then all the rest are third-rate pity picks from other countries.

I'm not sure if the Olympics do this for every event, but there are qualifying standards for track and field events. You can't just punch your Olympic ticket by being the fastest dude in Kiribati.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_–_Qualification

[Kalen Braley]

Garland, c'mon are you serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres

Here is a list of the field for this years 100M dash and there were 83 participants.  If countries like the US, Jamaica, Britain, etc weren't limited to just 3 each, how many others would qualify in that set of 83?  I'm guessing there are at least 10-15 other USA runners alone who could run faster than the bottom half of that group.

I was watching a 1st round 400M qualifier for the women and there was one entrant who was so far back, I doubt she could beat high school runners much less elite runners.  I understand its a world-wide event, but it seems for the integrity of the competition there must be some standards not just to include the best of the best and then all the rest are third-rate pity picks from other countries.

I'm not sure if the Olympics do this for every event, but there are qualifying standards for track and field events. You can't just punch your Olympic ticket by being the fastest dude in Kiribati.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_–_Qualification

Actually if you look at the link I put in that post, less than half of them actually qualified by running a 10.05 or better in the designated period.

And the non-existent free pass ones you claim don't exist?  27 - in that event alone via the Universality exception which is this:

"Under the universality rule, NOCs may enter one male athlete and one female athlete, regardless of time, if they have no athletes of that gender meeting the entry standard. This makes it possible for every NOC to have a minimum of two representatives in the sports."

[Tom_Doak]

Meanwhile Nelly Korda shot 62 today with a double bogey on the 18th hole, to take the lead after two rounds of the women's competition.  But they are flailing about trying to figure out whether to shorten the event to three rounds, and let the players know in advance, or hope they can get a fourth round played in the forecasted rain on Saturday.

[Jason Thurman]

Kalen, I get your point.


I don't know how many sports the Olympics actually represent the crowning competition for. Like, in golf, we all know the Opens and PGA Championship have stronger, deeper fields. I think most basketball players aspire to NBA championships before gold medals. Olympic cycling gold is great, but I think just about everybody would rather win a grand tour or a classic (if they had to choose). I'm sure there are sports where Olympic gold represents the absolute highest honor that can be won, but it's not all of them. It's probably not most of them.


The point of the Olympics isn't to provide the single most consequential competition for all the sports it highlights. It's to bring athletes across sports and nationalities to a single stage in celebration of competition. It's beautiful, and I just don't agree at all that it would be better if you replaced CT Pan with Kevin Kisner in the name of better reflecting the countries with the deepest benches.


I think you might prefer the FedEx St. Jude Invitational. All you have to do is change the channel.

[Kalen Braley]

Jason,

Very well said, and yes that makes perfect sense.

Probably just a pet peeve, but I always cringe when I hear an Olympic sport is the "pinnacle of such and such".  Yes it may be the most popular, or the one time when many people are actually watching, and perhaps affect one's ability to cash in on sponsorships...but please lets just be honest and truthful about the competition's intrinsic nature. 

P.S.  Watched a documentary the other night on ESPN on Foosball and it was fascinating.  I mean if Ping Pong and Skateboarding are Olympics sports, then why not that one?

[JLahrman]

Actually if you look at the link I put in that post, less than half of them actually qualified by running a 10.05 or better in the designated period.

And the non-existent free pass ones you claim don't exist?  27 - in that event alone via the Universality exception which is this:

"Under the universality rule, NOCs may enter one male athlete and one female athlete, regardless of time, if they have no athletes of that gender meeting the entry standard. This makes it possible for every NOC to have a minimum of two representatives in the sports."

Interesting, I stand corrected. I thought it was for anyone but they only apply if you want to get more than one athlete into an event? But then I've always been a big Kiribati fan. I should have known based on that shirtless guy from Tonga making the Winter and Summer games.

[Pete_Pittock]

Olympic golf doesn't have qualifying heats on site. Therefore, the leaders don't shut it down and coast when they're leading to save energy. Watching Korda putt was like watching the halftime basketball robot show. Her drive on 18 was dead behind a big tree at 140 yds and she chipped up to 50-70 yards instead of pitching out sideways to a standard yardage. Had to wait on the 18th tee and commentators say her heart rate usually increases in that circumstance. I estimated she had a 30% chance to shoot 59 based on hole location in bowl.

[Garland Bayley]

I love it Garland and Kalen in a game of wits competing for the gold medal!

Jeff,

Its Game, Set, and Match based on his last post.

If Garland doesn't understand why one should play against the best competition, at all stages of an event, if you want to become the best of the best, then I can't help him! 


P.S.  Especially if you scroll up to Post #27 in this thread and see he already admitted it. 

So you can't come up with reasonable answers to your questions, so you are just going to sling more BS. You have my sympathy. You seem to overlook that the NBA is a business. There are as many teams as the business can support. The people owning the franchises make lots of money from them. You have gone beyond apples to oranges in trying to compare the NBA to the Olympics. You are now in the realm of comparing hazel nuts to papaya. 

Comparing the Olympics to a major championship must consider the vast differences between the two. A major championship pays an enormous amount of money and counts towards all time greatness of the player. An Olympic championship pays a tiny fraction of the money and counts towards national pride.

Now why don't you start your absurd "hockey players are the greatest athletes in the world" claim?
 

[Stewart Abramson]

In case you were wondering, here is the breakdown for the 60 golfers in the event this year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Qualification

Avg. World Ranking: 130
# in top 50: 19
# in top 100: 26
# with ranking lower than 125: 28
# ranked lower than 200: 14

For the purposes of the Olympics, I'm not concerned about the strength of field.[/size] Rankings don't mean much to me. [/color][/size]In the women's event Aditi Ashok, #200 in the world, is in second place after three rounds. Part of the beauty of golf is that in any given tournament several unexpected players can play lights out and have a chance to win. I think in golf the difference between #1 and #200 in the world is less than most people imagine (except  when the likes of an Annika, Tiger or Jack are #1) and t[/color][/size]here is little difference between a player who is #20 from one who #120. I don't think that a Matt Fitzpatrick would be  much more likely to medal (or make for a better event) than a Danny Willet, notwithstanding their 100 spot difference in ranking.  [/color][/size] On Wednesday the #1982 ranked woman amateur, Elle Nachman, beat #1 ranked (and the defending champion) Rose Zhang in the US Am match play.  CT Pan was somewhere around 135 and Slovakatini around #190 when the Olympics began. [/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]I've enjoyed watching the Olympic golf. (Golf is the only Olympic event I have watched). I like to root for underdogs. Next to Xander winning,  the Pans, Pereira's, Munozes and Ashoks of the world are the best part of these games IMO.[/color]

[Jason Thurman]

Jason,

Very well said, and yes that makes perfect sense.

Probably just a pet peeve, but I always cringe when I hear an Olympic sport is the "pinnacle of such and such".  Yes it may be the most popular, or the one time when many people are actually watching, and perhaps affect one's ability to cash in on sponsorships...but please lets just be honest and truthful about the competition's intrinsic nature. 

P.S.  Watched a documentary the other night on ESPN on Foosball and it was fascinating.  I mean if Ping Pong and Skateboarding are Olympics sports, then why not that one?

Totally fair. Honestly, I'm curious about the question now. I don't know enough about most of these sports to know if, for some of them, the Olympics really do represent the "pinnacle of the sport's competition." Like, I would say pretty confidently that winning the men's 100M in the Olympics is the most visible win that a sprinter can have. But is there something equivalent to an Open that sprinters really consider more of a pinnacle event, even if it draws fewer eyeballs than the Olympic competition?


I'm totally here for Olympic foosball, along with ultimate frisbee and flag football as two other sports I hear are in potential consideration for inclusion at some point. The obscurity and ridiculousness of some of these sports only enhances the Olympics overall. Can't believe Dong² took an L in the trampoline competition this year - I really enjoy the five minutes I spend watching that nonsense every four years. The men's table tennis final might be the best YouTube highlight of this year's games - worth every bit of the six minutes or so it takes to watch. Beach handball? YES! I watched a solid 70 minutes of Greco Roman wrestling a few nights ago. Honestly riveting. My shoulders hurt just thinking about it.


My father was ranting about how stupid it is that air rifle is included a week or two ago. I disagree and don't understand why we don't have a summer biathlon. I would be stoked for, like, a 5 mile race where the runners stop every 1500M to shoot targets and do an extra lap if they miss one.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Not exactly a stunning endorsement.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/01/sports/olympics/xander-schauffele-wins-gold-in-golf-olympics.html?surface=most-popular&fellback=false&req_id=116444498&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-uh-lastthismonth-alpha-01&variant=7_bandit-all-surfaces-uh-lastthismonth-alpha-01&pool=pool/91fcf81c-4fb0-49ff-bd57-a24647c85ea1&imp_id=174559480&action=click&module=Popular%20in%20The%20Times&pgtype=Homepage

[Gib_Papazian]

The World Cup was supposed to be an international competition for professionals - but now, they did not even bother staging it again this year. Instead, we have a bunch of money-chasing mercenaries, showing up for a gold medal? Hmmm, wonder what their incentive might be.


I'll buy the pros you have never heard of, playing for God, country and a nice feather in their Callaway caps - but I just *do not* buy the rest are there for anything more than looking patriotic to their sponsors.


Same goes for somebody like Kevin Durant. You think an injury prone superstar would be out there risking tens of millions with a career ender against mostly D-level players . . . . . for a shiny gold disc? Nope, his agent told him to get over there and play the Lithuanians and Persians with a straight face - and tell the Dream Team to make it look close, because we don't want to embarrass the best players from the French Baguette and Escargot league.


I was actually more excited about Bruce Springsteen's daughter winning silver in Dressage than Xander beating up on a field of household names like Adrian Meronkski, who I'm told once placed 3rd in the Turkmenistan Scotch Four-ball. In fact, I would rather watch Badminton and Dressage, because nobody cares about either except once every four years.


So, I get why *that* is exciting - in the same way that people practice Curling for for years, hoping for 15 minutes of fame,  displaying their skills at ice shuffleboard and broom wielding. People watch the national championship of Corn Holing, too. Hard to believe . . . . why no Olympic Darts?     


Now - being incredibly inconsistent here - maybe because I watch a lot of women's golf, whose players need a shot in the arm in terms of notoriety - I'll play along with the charade because those girls never get the dap and props they deserve. If the Olympics helps promote girls golf in America, go get 'em.


But because I don't buy that "medal counts" have shit to do with America's hallucinations of international athletic hegemony, we ought to send our best male NCAA golfers and let the chips fall. Why not? They *really would* be competing as amateurs - and those kids are already hardened, tournament tough gunners.


Give them some experience against the highest international levels. Betcha they would all stand for the national anthem, that is for sure.


Same thing with assembling a college all-star basketball team. Hand them over to Coach K . . . . then I would actually watch. The best college basketball stars could easily hang with most any international team - and if they get beat by Spain or France, so what? They still got to compete in the Olympics - and the thrill will actually be something they can hold onto the rest of their lives.


I was no more moved as an American by Xander's win than I would be watching him (or anybody) win the Fed Ex Cup. All we are doing is denying amateur youngsters the opportunity to represent us, while sending pampered superstars to pretend they give a shit.   






         

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()