Olympic Golf: What Changes Need To Be Made For 2020?

If golf is to continue to thrive in the Olympics, what adjustments need to be made?

For the first go around, golf in the Olympics was a success, despite the fact that many top players elected not to go due to security concerns and the Zika virus. It was a thrill for those who participated to become Olympians.

In both the men’s and women’s events, the cream of the competitors came to the top with Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson and Matt Kuchar winning golf, silver and bronze in the men’s. There are others who could have won and proved the same point. However, the closeness of the battle between Rose and Stenson made for compelling viewing, just as the Phil Mickelson-Henrik Stenson duel in the British Open, and that always draw golf fans to the TV set.

It was similar for the women, although Inbee Park pretty much stomped on the field after two rounds for the gold. However, Lydia Ko had to make a putt for silver and Shanshan Feng made a statement with her bronze placing. Having China win a medal is important for golf, internationally. Stacy Lewis was a close fourth, one shot out of a playoff for bronze, along with several others, which would have added more excitement.

More from Olympics

What could have made it better? Some other kind of qualifying for starters. That is not to say that the competitors didn’t belong or that for a first go around it wasn’t a success.

The International Olympic Committee set up specific rules on who could play Olympic golf. The top 60 in the world rankings, with no country getting more than two golfers except those in the top 15, seemed fair. Then one from each country until the field was filled out. But few sports let a ranking system pick their teams for the Olympics. (Tennis does come to mind. Even there, they have a way for regions not represented to send players.)

In other words, what we need, for starters, is some system to assure that the top golfers get in and second, a method that has a place for other countries to control who represents them.

We also need a full-sized field with a cut half-way through and perhaps a cut before the final round. That would create drama for those who are on the bubble. It would also mimic the other sports that have contestants making it through to the finals the same way that sprinters and swimmers have heats, semi-finals and finals. Yes, those sports have to have a time standard, but in golf, the time standard equals a score in qualifying or a number in the rankings.

We could use the world rankings for starters, but relying just on rankings does not allow any room for qualifiers. Two per country is a good limit for golf. That’s the way they do it in swimming. Tennis has more per country, but they play matches. And no, golf does not need match play for the Olympics, even though in 1904 it was medal play to a number of people and then match play.

Olympic golf /

The two-person teams would play for a team score that perhaps included the six best of their eight rounds (three per golfer). They would also play for individual Olympic gold, silver and bronze.

Here’s how the teams could be selected using the world golf rankings and qualifying.

Using the top 70 on the official world golf rankings for the men, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and probably several other countries would not need to have qualifying, thereby eliminating the need for play-in events in those regions.

Approximately half of the top 70 on the men’s side are from the U.S.. Nine are from the U.K.. Four are from Australia. Two from each of those countries is six. Scotland and Ireland will want to send their own teams, for a total of 10 in all.

From the top 70, we’ve eliminated nearly 35 by taking out everyone but two U.S. players. And from the strong golf nations, we’ve taken out all but 10. Now add Sweden for two, Spain for two, Germany for two, South Africa for two, Japan for two, Korea for two, Denmark for two and that’s a field of 24 golfers. Obviously we cannot have Olympic golf with just 24 golfers.

For those players in the top 70 who come from another country and do not have a second player in the top 70, their golf associations could pick the second player. For instance Argentina could pick someone to play with Emiliano Grillo. Germany could select a golfer, probably Martin Kaymer, to play as the second man on their team. Indonesia could choose someone to go with Anirban Lahiri. Thailand would choose one more to go with Thongchai Jaidee. Bernd Wiesberger would need a second from Austria. Joost Luiten would need another golfer from the Netherlands. Adding two per country from those areas would get to 36 golfers.

The rest of the golf associations could then send two person representatives to regional qualifying. If the total field was expanded from 60 to 72, then half the field, would become qualifiers, and we’d get some great stories. It would open up golf in the Olympics to countries that want to work to get a good enough team to get through the qualifying. It would actually expand golf. If it were larger, there would be more opportunity for the world’s golfers, good or bad.

Sure there are headaches with this, but the USGA has qualifying with 10,000 men each year and they manage it. It can be done. They line up the courses they think they will need and start taking the $100 entry fee. They get maybe a million dollars in qualifying entries. Maybe they should be in charge of it.

The R&A has qualifying all over the world for the men’s British Open. It should be a slam dunk for them. Most recently, they had 14 events in nine countries on five continents for 44 spots. People show up. Who doesn’t want a chance to play in the British Open?

If 36 golfers are already in, more or less, there would be 44 spots remaining if there were 80 golfers in the Olympic field. If the event was a full field with a cut, there could be as many as 120 spots available around the world. That should get everyone’s attention. Even with 100 total golfers in a field, there would be 64 spots for qualifiers. Then you have not just worldwide participation, you have something for golfers around the world to work toward.

Regarding the field size, it is actually possible to get two courses for the first two rounds, the way the AT&T Pro-Am and the Career-Builder Challenge do. That would allow 156 players to participate before a cut is made. They would all be Olympians and entitled to whatever that affords them. In this instance, more is better. Japan probably has two courses close together. Just a guess, based on Japan being golf crazy for decades.

The first cut would be half the field, and it would need to be less than 70-80, because it’s hard to get 80 professional golfers around a golf course in a day without teeing off on one and ten.

Having a large half-way cut still leaves many golfers to compete for a team medal, no matter how they are doing in the individual. It incentivizes them to play well.

The team score could be the combined score of all rounds or combined score of six rounds, assuming everybody is going to have one bad round.

With a full field and half-way cut, and the individual plus team competitions, there are more golfers who have a shot a medals. It gives them a reason to play hard even if they are in 15^th or 20^th. Do you see any runners mailing it in the 100-meter sprint? No. We don’t want to see golfers doing that either, and having both a team event and an individual gets both players on a team pumped up for good play.

Next: Olympic Golf: TV Ratings Prove Tournament’s Success

So in summary, more golfers from more countries with regional qualifying from less traditional golfing nations and greater opportunities for golfers to get medals through a team competition.

Home/Olympics