Blog

16 Oct 2012 Corina Pelloni

Golf in the olympics

After a 112-year absence, golf returns to the Olympics in Rio in 2016. The push for golf to be returned as an Olympic sport has been a longtime goal of the golf establishment, but the success and effect on the game is a point of debate among many experts and the golf media. There are also many open questions about the format, course, and the competitors.

Several factors contributed to the acceptance of golf back into the Games, the most important being golf’s increasing international appeal and popularity. There is no question that this is also another after-effect of Tiger Woods’ dominance, popularity, and international appeal. The recent push for golf back into the Games started during the height of Woods’ perch as the king of golf.

There is no question that golf is also more accepted as a sport. Golf has also been embraced by minorities more than ever. The players look and appear to the public to be more athletic, mostly again thanks to Woods, who looks and trains like an NFL wide receiver. One could argue that golf is much more of an athletic test than table tennis, for example. For many decades, golf was not considered a sport. It was considered by the public and the sports world as a game for overweight smokers who drank too much. Many tour players during the post-World War II era did nothing but enhance this image. Who can forget the videos of Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer smoking on TV while playing?

The Olympics’ huge success as a TV event and its immense popularity among the general public should do nothing but help the game. A lot of the impact will be decided by two things: How much coverage NBC devotes to golf and who participates. Of courses the anticipated ratings compared to other traditional Olympics events will be tough for NBC to judge. It would a big gamble to put golf on in prime time. More than likely it will have a devoted channel like basketball had for the London Games. As evidenced by the poor ratings for the Nationwide and LPGA Tours would suggest, unless the best male players in the world participate, the number of viewers might be small.

Judging by the competition to be the architect of the yet-to-be-built golf course, one would think that there will be great interest among golf’s elite to participate. Gil Hanse beat out a who’s who list of modern-day architects, including Jack Nicklaus. Hanse is an American architect from Pennsylvania.

The exact format to pick the players has also not been determined. The Olympics have been moving to professionals in all sports for many years, so it is a good bet that we will see the usual faces. If the recent comments of the game’s top players are any indication, there will be strong competition among the top 100 players worldwide to represent their country.

Some purists are calling for the International Olympic Committee to require countries to send pure amateurs. While the idea is admirable, it would greatly lessen the interest and the ratings success. The excitement generated, the TV ratings, and the smoothness of the operation will determine if golf will be extended into future Games. From strictly a big-splash standpoint, I think golf would be wise to include the world’s best players for at least the Rio Games. We need to hear the media and the public in general talking about golf when the Games are happening. The competition for attention is overwhelming. Gymnastics, swimming, track, and beach volleyball rule the modern Olympics. For golf to get some attention, we need the best players participating.

Hopefully, we will get more details for the format and the plan to pick players in 2013. While the format and players are up in the air, and the golf course not having been built yet being a big question mark, personally I think the importance of having golf return to the Olympics is not debatable. It can do nothing but help propel the game to even greater heights from an international standpoint.

An Olympic golf hero winning a medal may create new interest among his country’s youth. It should also continue to further the perception of golf as a real athletic sport. If international minority players do well, it can also create more interest for golf in third-world countries and further erode golf’s image as a rich white man’s game. All of that can be nothing but good for the game.

16 Oct 2012 Corina Pelloni

The heart of matters

Another Ryder Cup has come and gone. It is difficult to quantify the reasons for the devastating defeat the American squad endured. There is no doubt fingers are being pointed in a variety of directions. Media pundits have countless theories, but the answer lies at the heart of matters.

When I first met Geoff Bryant, he spoke of his “modus operandi,” which was to have fun, and to this day he has never wavered from this philosophy.  Having fun is a pure concept, but it is the most basic fundamental and one that encompasses in its entirety why we play golf. This holds especially true for players who compete at the pinnacle of the sport, the Ryder Cup.  Not one of these men picked up a club in their respective youth without falling in love with the game. They didn’t work at the game; they practiced hard because they loved it and it was fun, as was the challenge, the competiveness, the camaraderie, the golf course environment, etc. They loved it.

The Ryder Cup embraces all of this, but its history – and more importantly its recent history – has had an impact on recent results.  When continental Europe was included in the matches in 1979 as a means to even out the results (the U.S. would seldom lose and would most often win the matches in a lopsided manner), little did anyone know at the time how the tide would turn. Little did anyone know that one figure that embraced these matches as his own would catapult future generations of European golfers to play with the same passion and heart, that regardless of the opposing team’s skill level, they would not be overcome.

Seve Ballesteros lives in Ryder Cup lore. Yes, we all know of his fiery competitive nature and passion, which he took to another level during the matches. However, he rounded up the Europeans as a family and took a loss by Europe as a personal attack to his family.  After three consecutive losses in 1979, 1981, and 1983, Seve and the Europeans broke through in 1985 as well as 1987 in Jack Nicklaus’ backyard, Muirfield Village – the latter, of course, being the first time the U.S. lost on home soil. The Ryder Cup would never be the same. Europe has now won

10 of the last 14 matches and 7 of the last 9.

Europe hates losing this event and loves winning it. They take it personally, and this comes from Seve. They love everything about it, but most of all they love the camaraderie, and Seve’s influences are never stronger than here.  More than anything, though, the Europeans remember watching Seve and his family celebrate, and is there anything more fun than celebrating with those closest to your heart? There was no way the Europeans were not going to win for Jose-Maria Olazabal, Seve’s surrogate younger brother.

A surrogate older brother on the American squad, someone the players want to win for and celebrate with, would help turn the tide – someone who knows how to have fun and make it fun, but more importantly, someone who can turn the American squad into a family, a family where the heart is.

Can anyone say Freddie Couples?

16 Oct 2012 Corina Pelloni

Is it time for the Ryder Cup to change its format again?

Prior to 1979, the Ryder Cup was not a competitive event and the public had little interest in it, save for some die-hard golf fans in Great Britain and Ireland.  All of that changed that year, when Jack Nicklaus’ suggestion to Lord Darby for GB & I to include all of continental Europe was put into action.

The first three editions of the USA vs. Europe did not pay immediate dividends, as the US squad triumphed.  In 1985, Europe won on home soil for the first time, and in 1987 the unthinkable happened – the US lost at home. Far from being catastrophic, at the time it was seen as a healthy development for the matches, because it created interest in 1989 that the matches had never before seen.

Fast-forward to the year 2012, and the Europeans’ record since 1985 is 9-4-1, including an astounding 6-1 since 2001.  The Europeans have turned the tables, and how!

The problem is that the Cup matches are threatening to return to the pre-1979 days when they simply weren’t competitive.  You may ask, how can this be? The United States still produces the best golfers in the world in terms of depth.  While this is true when considering individual countries, it is not true if you combine all of Europe.  Yes, I know the Official World Ranking says otherwise, but that system is very flawed in my opinion (and is another issue for another time).

This will probably sound like sour grapes to some, but consider this:  It took eight…yes, eight…countries to beat the US this year.  Now, one might argue, “Well, of course!  It’s Europe vs. the USA!”  But consider this:  In what other sport does Europe gang up against the USA by forming a continental team?  None that I can think of.

The best basketball players in the world are from the USA, and no other country can beat us when we put our minds to it.  You don’t see Europe forming a team with Germany’s Dirk Nowitzki, France’s Tony Parker, England’s Luol Deng, etc., to compete against us.  World Cup Soccer?  It’s country vs. country.  Yet, in golf, it’s somehow okay for Europe to gang up on us.

I’m not necessarily arguing for a return of the USA vs. GB & I, but if you think about it, the golfing world is far away from where it was in 1979. Back then, GB & I simply had no depth.  Today, that can’t be argued.  A potential squad could be Rory McIlroy, Darren Clarke, and Graeme McDowell (Northern Ireland); Padraig Harrington (Ireland); Luke Donald, Justin Rose, Paul Casey, Simon Dyson, Ian Poulter, and Lee Westwood (England); Paul Lawrie and Martin Laird (Scotland).

Those 12 are extremely formidable and would give the USA a huge tussle, and which team would be favored would be very much up in the air.

The downside, of course, is interest in continental Europe would be destroyed.  That downside is too much to overcome in returning to USA vs. GB & I.  A potential solution might be to limit Europe to two continental players.

The other solution would be for the USA to simply play better and produce better players.  Since changing the composition of the European squad will probably not happen, playing better remains the only solution for the USA at this time.

But let’s be honest – we’ve tried everything and it’s not working.  Europe is simply producing better players as time goes on, and I’m going to boldly say unless Europe’s team composition is somehow weakened, Team USA will be consistent losers for years to come.  Such dominance is bound to diminish interest in the USA – once unthinkable – and perhaps in Europe as well.

Something needs to be done eventually, but the question is, will it?  Time will tell.